Archive | August 18th, 2011

The GCC Israeli-Saudi agenda: Aljazeera’s new mission


It is fair that Aljazeera has become disgusting in covering the region.  Its only thrust now is the agenda of the GCC.  Part of the agenda is furthering Zionist regional interests.  Look at the coverage of the attack today: unknown Arabs attacked an Zio-Nazi military terrorist target, and Zio-Nazi typically attacked at random Palestinian civilian targets.  So Aljazeera did not give prominence to the Zio-Nazi raid on Gaza and then had only one guest: not from the Palestinian victims.  It hosted one guest only: an (broken) Arabic spokesperson of the Zio-Nazi terrorist army.

But what was most disturbing is that usually Zionist guests are treated fiercely and effectively interrogated.  They usually are not allowed to complete a sentence.  The treatment today was quite different: the propagandist was allowed to go on and no Palestinian or Arab was allowed to speak on the same issue.   I mean, at least the network could have asked “Eyewitness Abu Muhammad in Dayr Az-Zur” to report on what he saw in Gaza

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on The GCC Israeli-Saudi agenda: Aljazeera’s new mission

Hashemite monarchy Zionist Servants


It seems that the Hashemite monarchy gave an early warning to Zio-Nazi regime  about an impending attack.   Will Queen YouTube tweet on th

«يديعوت أحرونوت»: الأردن حذرت إسرائيل من «حادث إيلات» قبل الهجوم بدقائق

صورة علوية تُظهر المنتجع الإسرائيلي إيلات المطل على البحر الأحمر، 2 أغسطس، 2010، بعد سقوط ما لا يقل عن خمس قذائف صاروخية فيه و من حوله. حتى الآن، لا توجد تقارير حول حجم الخسائر في الأرواح أو الممتلكات، وفق الشرطة الإسرائيلية. ووفق مسؤولين، فقد أصاب صاروخ من طراز جراد ميناء العقبة الأردني، ما أسفر عن إصابة أربعة، أحدهم بجروح بالغة.


تصوير أ.ف.ب

قال الموقع الإلكتروني لصحيفة «يديعوت أحرونوت» إن الأردن أبلغت قوات الأمن الإسرائيلية عن «خلية تخطط لتنفيذ عمليات ضد إسرائيل»، قبل دقائق من الهجوم على حافلتي الركاب الإسرائيليتين، الخميس، ونقلت الصحيفة عن مصادرها إن الأجهزة الأمنية الإسرائيلية كانت لديها تحذيرات جادة تفيد بوقوع هجوم محتمل في هذه المنطقة بالتحديد.

وأشار الموقع الإلكتروني لصحيفة «يديعوت أحرونوت» إلى أن الأجهزة الأمنية بدأت تحقيقاً في إطلاق النار على حافلتي الركاب في إيلات القريبة من الحدود المصرية، الخميس، وقال الموقع إن التقديرات الأولية تشير إلى أن عناصر «إرهابية» هي التي قامت بالهجوم، وبحسب الشهادات التي حصلت عليها الأجهزة الأمنية الإسرائيلية، فإن ثلاث «مخربين» كانوا يحملون بنادق كلاشينكوف هم من نفذوا إطلاق النار على حافلة الركاب، بعد ذلك غيروا ملابسهم، وارتدوا ملابس جنود إسرائيليين، بحسب «يديعوت أحرونوت».

Posted in JordanComments Off on Hashemite monarchy Zionist Servants




COLUMBUS, Ohio – Instead of calming fears, the death of Osama bin Laden actually led more Americans to feel threatened by Muslims living in the United States, according to a new nationwide survey.

In the weeks following the U.S. military campaign that killed bin Laden, the head of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, American attitudes toward Muslim Americans took a significant negative shift, results showed.

Americans found Muslims living in the United States more threatening after bin Laden’s death, positive perceptions of Muslims plummeted, and those surveyed were less likely to oppose restrictions on Muslim Americans’ civil liberties.

For example, in the weeks before bin Laden’s death, nearly half of respondents described Muslim Americans as “trustworthy” and “peaceful.”  But only one-third of Americans agreed with these positive terms after the killing.

Most of the changes in attitude happened among political liberals and moderates, whose views shifted to become more like those of conservatives, the survey found.

The shift in views can be explained by the fact that bin Laden’s death reminded some Americans of why they may fear Muslims in the first place, said Erik Nisbet, assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University, and one of the leaders of the survey project.

“The death of bin Laden was a focusing event.  There was a lot of news coverage and a lot of discussion about Islam and Muslims and Muslim Americans,” Nisbet said.

“The frenzy of media coverage reminded people of terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks and it primed them to think about Islam in terms of terrorism.”

In fact, while prior to bin Laden’s death only 16 percent of respondents believed a terrorist attack in the United States was likely in the next few months, 40 percent believed an attack was likely after the killing.

“That is going to have a negative effect on attitudes,” Nisbet said.

The researchers’ ability to find out how American attitudes changed after bin Laden’s death was accidental, Nisbet said.  Nisbet and Ohio State colleague Michelle Ortiz, also an assistant professor of communication, had commissioned the Survey Research Institute of Cornell University and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center to jointly conduct a national telephone poll of Americans beginning in early April.  The survey focused on perceptions and attitudes about Muslim Americans.

Interviews started on April 7, 2011, and 500 interviews were conducted prior to May 1, when bin Laden was killed.  The remaining 341 interviews were conducted following the death.

Many of the survey responses changed significantly after the killing, Nisbet said.

After bin Laden’s death, 34 percent of Americans surveyed agreed that Muslims living in the United States “increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack.”  That was up from 27 percent prior to the killing.  The percentage of respondents agreeing the Muslims in the United States are supportive of the country dropped from 62 percent to 52 percent.

Americans were less likely to oppose restrictions on Muslim American civil liberties after the killing, Nisbet said.  For example, public opposition to profiling individuals as potential terrorists based solely on being Muslim dropped from 71 percent to 63 percent.  Likewise, opposition to requiring Muslims living in the United to register their whereabouts with the government dropped from two-thirds of respondents to about one-half.

Changes in attitudes were not related just to preventing a possible terrorist attack, but also included attitudes about religious tolerance of Muslims.  For example, nearly one in three respondents surveyed after bin Laden’s death agreed that “Muslims are mostly responsible for creating the religious tension that exists in the United States today.”  That was up from about one in five respondents before the killing.  Correspondingly, opposition to a nationwide ban on mosque construction in the United States fell to 57 percent from 65 percent.

The negative feelings even carried over to personal relationships.  The percentage of respondents who said they were unwilling to have a Muslim as a close friend doubled after the death, going from 9 percent to 20 percent.

“That’s important because research has shown that the best way to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup relations is through personal contact,” Nisbet said.  “That won’t happen if people avoid contact with Muslim Americans.”

Many of the changes in attitudes after Bin Laden’s death were almost entirely due to political liberals and moderates changing their opinions about the threat posed by Muslims in the United States, the survey found.

The percentage of liberal respondents who agreed that Muslims in the United States “make America a more dangerous place to live” tripled after bin Laden’s death, going from 8 to 24 percent.  The percentage of moderates believing this increased from 10 percent to 29 percent.

In contrast, the percentage of conservatives who believed this were essentially unchanged – 30 percent before bin Laden’s death and 26 percent following.

“Liberals and moderates essentially converged toward conservatives in their attitudes about Muslim Americans,” Nisbet said.

Nisbet said it is unclear whether these changes in attitudes would last long-term or not.  But research suggests these negative feelings can be dangerous even if they are short-lived.

“Every time these anti-Muslim feelings are activated by media coverage, it makes them that much easier to get reactivated in the future,” Nisbet said.  “These feelings and attitudes become more constant the more you experience them.”

The telephone survey involved adults in the continental United States, including cell-phone only homes, and was designed to be representative of the U.S. population.  All percentages reported here were adjusted to control for differences in the characteristics of survey respondents interviewed before and after bin Laden’s death.  The researchers controlled for age, gender, race, education, political ideology, whether the respondents were evangelical Christians, and their knowledge about Islam.

That means any differences in attitudes between respondents polled before and after the death are not the results of any difference on these personal attributes.

In addition to Nisbet and Ortiz, the survey was conducted by Yasamin Miller, director of the Survey Research Institute at Cornell and Andrew Smith, associate professor and director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.


My sociology of the tent protests


The protests could go in any number of directions: they could peter out as the disaffected lower- and middle-class organizers and participants return home, chastened, bored, and tired.  They could extract some victories from the government in the form of a redirection of spending from warfare to welfare.  The left could also come in from its long winter of isolation and quiescence, rejoining the social consensus in its historical role as an insistent nag, complaining about the occupation yet doing nothing about it.

Or they could draw the connections between Israel’s stratospheric subsidies for high-tech investment, the privatization of the state-owned industrial plant, the gutting of the social compact, the non-stop militarization, the constant wars, the rockets falling on southern and northern Israel from the Palestinians the Israeli military complex profits from persecuting, oppressing, murdering, and immiserating.  Doing so would mean confronting the Israeli lower classes with a clear political choices, and faced with such a choice, they are as likely to opt for xenophobic reaction, to descend into a right-wing riotous rabble, as to move to revolution.

The quandary of the upper class, somewhat ambivalent about the occupation yet wholly committed to neo-liberalism, is more convoluted.  What it will fight at all costs is an end to Israeli economic inequities, because it is off those inequities that it gets fat.  For that reason, any re-orientation of spending from militarism to housing will lay a foundation for further victories.

Perhaps more important than structural victories would be the effect of such victories on the Israeli consciousness, and for that reason the Israeli government will pay any price to divert, disrupt, or diffuse these protests if the pressure they create becomes too great to ignore, because such victories would offer a dangerous lesson to the human beings who make up the gears and pulleys and levers, all the whirring machinery of the apartheid system: that occupation and racism are not just a means of social control over a reeling and shattered Palestinian society, but over the Israeli lower classes themselves.

Full article at MRZine

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on My sociology of the tent protests

Mondoweiss Online Newsletter



Munayyer op-ed in Boston Globe explains that U.S. was incapable of exerting pressure on Israel to accept two-state solution

Aug 18, 2011

Philip Weiss

Wonderful op-ed in the Boston Globe by Yousef Munayyer of the Palestine Center states the cause of the Palestinian statehood initiative in plain, clear terms. How long before our media finally accept these realities and reflect them in their reports: the destruction of the two-state solution, the absurdity of the peace process, the helplessness of the United States gov’t… Munayyer:

For over two decades, the Palestinians have engaged in a diplomatic process, mediated by Washington, aimed at ending the Israeli occupation and achieving full Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. During this period, despite the agreed-upon framework of two states, Israel has continued to illegally transfer its population into occupied Palestinian territory. Today, the number of Israelis living in illegal colonies in occupied territory is nearly triple what it was when the Washington-led process began.

It is not simply the presence of these illegal colonies that has torpedoed the two-state framework. After all, what is built illegally can and should be dismantled, and the usurped property returned to its rightful Palestinian owners. Rather, it is the belief among Palestinians that the United States is incapable of pressuring Israel into halting illegal expansion, let alone dismantling illegal settlements and ending the occupation.

Congress is, as one commentator notes, “the backstop that gives [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu the ability to say no to President Obama.’’

Congress has regularly united behind the Israeli prime minister against our own president for merely suggesting that Israel comply with stated US policy (not to mention international law). And this month, more than 80 members of the House are visiting Israel as guests of an affiliate of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Due to this discord, the Palestinians have effectively downgraded their confidence in the United States’ ability to be an even-handed mediator.


Ajl on the social origins of the tent protests

Aug 17, 2011


Calls to end the occupation have thus far been mostly absent, a silence that speaks eloquently to the composition of Israeli society, in which a call to end the occupation or dismantle the racist juridical structure is perceived as an attack on the state religion — militarist nationalism. Such a call would be “political,” as opposed to the current protests, merely “social” in nature.

It is still early, but two things seem clear.

One, this movement will not break the Israeli structure of power. Two, this is an early fracture — a foretaste of later ruptures — within Zionism.

To read all of Max Ajl’s piece click here.

‘Leahy Law’ seeks to hold all countries to the same standard, including Israel

Aug 17, 2011

Adam Horowitz

Josh Ruebner writing in The Hill about Sen. Patrick Leahy’s call to block US funding to three Israeli military units who have committed human rights violations:

The “Leahy Law,” as it is commonly known, prohibits the United States from providing any weapons or training to “any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights.” In the past, this law has been invoked to curtail military aid to countries as diverse as Indonesia, Colombia, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Along with other provisions in the Foreign Assistance Act, of which it is a part, and the Arms Export Control Act, it forms the basis of an across-the-board policy that is supposed to ensure that U.S. assistance does not contribute to human rights abuses.

Ha’aretz reports that the Senator is looking to invoke this prohibition regarding “Israel Navy’s Shayetet 13 unit, the undercover Duvdevan unit and the Israel Air Force’s Shaldag unit.” The inclusion of specific units in the story may indicate that Leahy already has findings from the Secretary of State that these Israeli military units have committed human rights abuses.

If so, then this could be a much-overdue watershed in holding accountable Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. military aid, for its gross misuse of U.S. weapons to commit systematic human rights abuses of Palestinians living under Israel’s illegal 44-year military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. During the last decade, on at least five occasions, Members of Congress have requested the State Department to investigate Israel’s misuse of U.S. weapons; to date, the State Department has failed to notify publicly the Congress about any such violation. The State Department also has refused to disclose documents related to these investigations in response to a long-standing Freedom of Information Act request filed by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

It is time to end Israel’s impunity and hold up to the light of day the devastating impact that U.S. weapons transfers have on Palestinian civilians. From 2000 to 2009, according to research conducted by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and published at, the United States appropriated more than $24 billion in taxpayer-funded weapons for Israel. With this munificence, the United States licensed, paid for, and delivered to Israel more than 670 million weapons and pieces of related military equipment. In just three years (2007-2009), the United States gave Israel more than 47 million pieces of ammunition, or enough bullets to kill every Palestinian living under Israeli military occupation more than 10 times over.

Tragically, the prospect of Israel misusing these U.S. weapons to kill Palestinian civilians has been borne out too frequently. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, from September 2000-December 2009, the Israeli military killed 2,969 Palestinians who took no part in hostilities, including 1,128 children. One such child, 10-year-old Abir Aramin, was killed by a rubber bullet, possibly supplied by the United States, which was shot into the back of her head when she was walking home from school.

For the sake of Abir and all Palestinians who are maimed, killed, or whose homes, farms, and infrastructure are wantonly destroyed in the course of Israel’s brutal military occupation, the United States must end taxpayer-funded weapons transfers to Israel and hold it accountable, just like every other country, for its violations of the law. To do anything less would be to unfairly hold Israel to a different standard.

Some of the violence, deaths and injuries in Palestine this week include…

Aug 17, 2011


The Palestinians are being brutalized by Israeli violence which is subsidized with American tax dollars. This is not an all inclusive list as Palestinians are reporting that violence against them has increased during Ramadan, with attacks getting worse during the hours preceding them breaking their fast.  During Jewish holidays the Israelis impose curfews against entire towns and villages in the West Bank so that the settlers can burn and pillage Palestinian property in peace and during Muslim holy months the Israelis look the other way as the settlers go out and provoke violence.

Palestinian youth killed by military jeep
A Palestinian youth, Amin Talib Dabash, died late last night 16 August after he was run over by a military jeep belonging to the Israeli ‘border guards’, in the area between Um Tuba and Jebal Abu Ghunaym, south of Al Aqsa Mosque.  Eyewitnesses said the driver deliberately targeted the young man who was on his way to work. He was taken to the Haddasa hospital where was pronounced dead one hour later. Israeli occupation soldiers and settlers regularly target Palestinians with their vehicles whenever they drive through Palestinian residential areas, especially in the villages of occupied Jerusalem. They are never held accountable by the authorities.

Medics: Gaza teenager shot dead
GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian teenager near the central Gaza Strip city of Deir Al-Balah late Tuesday, medical officials reported.  Medics said the Palestinian, who was not identified, suffered “more than 10” gunshots to the head and upper body after soldiers east of the Al-Masdar area opened fire.

75 year old woman shot in Johr al-Dik
Selma Al Sawarka, or Um Ahmad, is an active woman, a mother of seven, and a grandmother of 35, who has never quit working. August 10, 2011 dawned like most days do for her; she went out to graze her family’s goats. She took her neighbor with her, 15 year old Keefa Al Bahabsa.

They went to the same land they usually go to. At 9:30 that morning they saw an Israeli tank and an Israeli jeep near the border. Not an uncommon sight. The tank and jeep left. About 30 minutes later, the jeep returned, three soldiers got out, and opened fire on Um Ahmed and Keefa. Um Ahmed was shot in the leg, Keefa fled to get help. The soldiers also shot ten of the families goats.

Here are some more examples:

Palestinian shepherd severely injured in landmine blast north of Jordan Valley

Palestinians: Fisherman injured by Navy fire off Gaza coast

Settlers attack bus of relatives of Palestinian prisoners

PA: Settlers torch farmland near Nablus

Israeli soldiers torch dozens of olive trees in W. Bank village

A prisoner’s wife and her baby were also detained this week, but, it didn’t fit into the category of violence…

The ‘untamed wildernesses’ of Israeli and American colonialism

Aug 17, 2011

Paul Mutter

A June editorial in +972 Magazine examined the (non-)utility of the argument “Who started it in 1948?” One thing that struck me about the points of the argument regarding the disposition of land in the British Mandate of Palestine was how similar the Zionist claim that the Jordan River Valley is an integral part of Israelsounds to arguments made centuries earlier over a different river valley that was once as contested as the Jordan River Valley is today: the Ohio River Valley in the United States.

In the 1760s and 1770s, the Ohio River Valley was a flashpoint that loomed large in foreign and American consciousnesses. Multiple wars were fought over it, military outposts were built throughout its boundaries, people argued that its seizure was tantamount to national survival, and officially sanctioned (by George Washington, no less) ethnic cleansing took place after the American Revolution as settlers and land speculators crossed the Appalachian Mountains into the region.

It all began when the British (doesn’t everything?) fought the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years War, largely to check French political ambitions in Europe. The colonies were a secondary combat theater, but the war had the bonus outcome of driving the French from the fertile Ohio River Valley, a prize sought by many colonials, from Virginia plantation owners (including George Washington) to New England merchants and farmers. Britain, however, did not think unregulated settlement was a good idea. The British thus issued theProclamation of 1763 (without consulting any of the colonial legislatures), which severely restricted the expansion of colonial settlement westward and turned over most of the Ohio River Valley to allied Native Americans. British forts went up to enforce the boundary lines and British soldiers began evicting those American settlers and traders who were there illegally. Americans were furious.

At the heart of the colonists’ rage (the rebellion against the Crown wasn’t all about taxes, despite what you may hear from conservatives today) was the belief that the Native Americans, weren’t worthy of possessing the land they inhabited. They weren’t natives, they were transients (and savage ones at that). Even though the British did begin to chip away at Indian territories to appease the colonials, it was not enough for them.

Sound familiar? While the Arab invasions of (present-day) Israeli territory in 1948 may indeed have been the catalyst for the expulsion of Palestinians, the aforementioned perceptions about strangeness, inferiority and savagery were the precipitants for the Nakba – and Israel’s ensuing distorted claims that the former inhabitants now have no claims to the land).

The issue of legality is what made the Proclamation of 1763 especially galling: it implicitly recognized that the Native Americans were, well, Native Americans and legally entitled to the land they lived on, something a very vocal number of colonists (including most of the now-deified “Founding Fathers”) absolutely refused to accept. Here is how the mythmaking gets going: You couldn’t “give” these people ownership of the land. “Ownership” was alien to them (actually, it wasn’t, but subtleties like that didn’t matter). These people weren’t white (i.e., they were inherently inferior). They had no paperwork to denote land ownership (except sometimes they did – but like certain UN Security Council resolutions, the settlers selectively recognized them).

And, worst of all to American sensibilities, the natives didn’t even farm the land. All that “vacant land” going to waste! That the American continent was a wilderness before European settlement is an assumed historical fact.

And it is just that: assumed.

Americans have long failed to realize that the “wilderness” was actually one of the most intensive examples of arboriculture ever practiced in human history: rather than rely on fields, Native Americans managed the forests for game and crops (and often did practice farming, just not to the extent that the European colonists did). The untamed wilderness myth only got worse as time went on, because people moving west increasingly came upon depopulated landscapes. Just a few years before, these landscapes had been heavily managed by native populations, but they now lay fallow, rendered vacant by disease, warfare and ill tidings of the rapacious white man’s approach. The real (or imagined) vacancy of the land is necessary for any colonial enterprise to succeed: the land has to “belong” to those not even on it yet. Sometimes it helps to force the vacancies along.

Israeli assertions that Zionism has made the “desert bloom” and that the Arabs were incompetent farmers have taken on the same justificatory tone (both moralsitic and scientific) as the untamed wilderness myth in the U.S. The blooming dessert meme also explains why the present water situation in Israel has become a major environmental issue and the Israelis have had to destroy so many Palestinian orchards – to conserve water, perhaps?

But these orchard demolitions reveal an inherent problem with the wilderness narrative: the land is inhabited. The Founding Fathers, though unhappy with Indian land claims, recognized that the natives did live there (duh, that was the whole problem!) and, obviously, since they lived there in numbers, knew that they were able to feed themselves. The “wilderness” mythology is, in fact, a largely modern invention in both Israel and America.

So how does one end up glossing over this? The simplest solution is for the people at the time to have already gone and created a “wilderness” through scorched earth tactics, as the 1779 Sullivan Expedition to the Ohio demonstrated. Largely forgotten today, it was launched four years into the American War for Independence and was regarded as an extremely important military effort at the time. George Washington himself ordered it, making it comparable to David Ben-Gurion’s decision to launch the October 1948 invasion of Galilee.

Like the Galilee operation, the Sullivan Expedition had been given the same objective: secure the territory for future settlement by evicting the native population. Washington, who was known among the Iroquois as “The Devourer of Villages” ordered the expedition to:

“Lay waste all the [Indian] settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner; that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed.

“After you have very thoroughly completed the destruction of their settlements; if the Indians should shew a disposition for peace, I would have you to encourage it . . .”

Washington wasn’t sending an army out just to burn down a few dozen native tents – he was sending them to burn down dozens of native villages (comparable in size to the average colonial village) until the natives sued for peace.

Regarding that, though, he cautioned his officers over what “peace” in these circumstances meant:

“It is likely enough their fears, if they are unable to oppose us, will compel them to offers of peace, or policy may lead them to endeavour to amuse us in this way to gain time and succour for more effectual opposition. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us . . . and in the terror with which the severity of the chastizement they receive will inspire them. Peace without this would be fallacious and temporary.”

Ben-Gurion made the Israeli association (in tactics and justification) with this era in American history quite clear during the 1948 War of Independence. His biographer, Michael Bar-Zohar, says that Ben-Gurion told his head officers “the American Declaration of Independence . . . [has] no mention of the territorial limits. We are not obliged to state the limits of our State.”

Galilee was, like Ohio, supposed to remain in the hands of its native inhabitants (that was the UN plan). But, once the natives were cleared by the invaders (in Ohio’s case, by the Americans’ burning of Indian villages and their food stocks just before the onset of winter; in Galilee’s, this was achieved by forced evictions and massacres of Arabs that “encourage”  a mass exodus), the now-“empty” land could be peopled by the settler. The narrative then became that the settlers had the virtue of divine providence; they were fighting for their lives; the natives didn’t think of themselves as natives until after they abandoned their land when a fight that they started turned sour for them, etc.

Over time, it becomes easier to forget about these actions and to go along with the post-victory narrative that the land was always “empty” and “uncultivated” (even though men like Washington and Ben-Gurion knew that this was not the case because they planned their campaigns on the premise that their forces were going to have to seize and destroy at least a few dozen native settlements in order to claim victory). This forgetting is less prevalent (relatively speaking) in Israel today because 1) it happened only sixty-odd years ago and 2) there are a lot more Palestinians than Native Americans alive today. But in any case, history is fickle, whether it spans half a dozen or two dozen decades. History, written by the victors, always tends to focus more on the eras of expansion that follow the eras of displacement.

Small wonder that both Israel and the U.S. rely on their selective memories to justify their actions and find common ground in their narratives of expansion (not narratives of dispossession, but of provident growth, of democracy and technology triumphing over feudalism). Israel serves a useful purpose from a military standpoint, true, for the U.S. but also serves a useful ideological one as a complement to the manufactured American historical narrative.

Selective memory is more or less how consensus is made in any society, particularly a colonialist one. In most Belgian historiography, you’d think that King Leopold II of Belgium was one of the best things to ever happen to the Congolese, or was at least no worse than any other colonizer (rationalization is always a form of justification). Japanese government officials and the media referred to “incidents” in China in the years leading to WWII rather than “battles” (a euphemism sometimes repeated in postwar history textbooks). “History is a series of lies on which we agree,” as Napoleon once said.

And, as we’ve already heard, the Israelis made the desert bloom and the U.S. tamed the virgin wilderness (the Arabs and Indians being footnotes and irritants in the blazing pace of progress set by kibbutz dwellers and homesteaders, respectively).

Two Manifest Destinies (yes, the Jewish National Fund uses that language), two peoples harnessing underutilized resources to better the whole world through economic and democratic beneficence. The expansionist “Age of Jackson” in America can be seen again in Israel – through a line of self-serving historiography extending from the Sullivan Expedition and the Trail of Tears to the Nakba and the Six Days War.

As Adam Hochschild puts it in King Leopold’s Ghost:

“And yet the world we live in – its divisions and conflicts, its widening gap between rich and poor, its seemingly inexplicable outbursts of violence – is shaped far less by what we celebrate and mythologize than by the painful events we try to forget.”

Update: The original version of this post included a quotation attributed to Ben-Gurion re the ethnic cleansing of the Galilee that is not supported by scholarly sources. Commenter Robert Werdine pointed out the error, which I regret.


I watch as Jewish settlements engulf East Jerusalem

Aug 17, 2011

Anees of Jerusalem

I went strolling through occupied East Jerusalem around our neighboring settlement, Pisgat Zee’v, the other day…

The Palestinian neighborhood of Beit Hanina is now surrounded by settlement construction. Neve Yaakov on the north now meets Pisgat Ze’ev on the east.


You can see the area of construction in this Google map:

link to

And here is Beit Hanina:

link to

Co-oping BDS, part I: Progressive except Palestine

Aug 17, 2011

Kiera Feldman

co opOnce, in the bulk goods aisle of the Park Slope Food Coop, a wild-haired woman stood next to me and scrutinized the coffee-grinder settings. “I’m using it for an enema,” she explained. “It needs to be very fine.” I suggested the espresso grind.

This is exactly the kind of shopping experience I hoped for when I joined the Park Slope Food Coop in the fall of 2009: a realization of the eternal promise of New York, home of the strange. (That and crazycheap organic food.) Founded in 1973, the Coop is a Brooklyn institution with enough character to have spawned its own genre of trend piece. Some examples: the Coop has Byzantine rules and work requirements (debatable); the Coop has nannies covering their employers’ shifts (dubious); and, most recently, the Coop is becoming a hotbed of anti-Semitism (downright wrong).

The New York Observer has contributed the latest addition to the genre, with a smug piece earlier this month devoted to Coop members’ efforts to initiate a boycott of Israeli products and divest from whatever Israeli holdings the Coop might have. At the historically progressive Coop, the Observer procured a chorus of sources declaring the campaign anti- Semitic and intolerable in “the heart of Chaimtown,” as one man put it, referring to Park Slope’s high Jewish population. For the full sensationalist effect, Alan Dershowitz—the de facto representative of the hawkish Israel-right-or-wrong Jewish establishment—denounced the campaign’s “bigotry” and threatened to shut the joint down, an ambitious goal for a Cambridge, Massachusetts, resident who is not a member of the democratically-governed Coop.

The Coop campaign is part of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), a global movement launched with a 2005 call by 170 Palestinian civil-society groups. Shorthand demands: end the occupation of the Palestinian Territories; end the legal discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel; and allow the 700,000 Palestinians expelled in the 1948 creation of the state to return—along with their descendants—to what is now Israel. Until the country complies with international law, the movement vows economic and cultural boycotts, institutional divestments, and governmental sanctions of Israel. Perhaps the strongest indicator of BDS’s power is the Boycott Law passed in the Knesset in July, making it illegal for groups like Boycott from Within to advocate BDS in Israel, a state that bills itself as “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Leading the charge against BDS at the Coop is Barbara Mazor, who told theObserver, “I think [BDS supporters are] latching onto it like slogans. Like true believers, it’s the cool thing to do. You know, ‘I’m a progressive, and it’s a progressive cause,’ so I think that’s how it’s coming through, very thoughtlessly.” (Mazor also alluded to her otherwise liberal politics with a dig at “a certain president [who] spent eight years in office.”) The political alignment of the Coop’s BDS opponents is made clear on their website, which links to the reactionary pro-Israel group Stand With Us, known for having once pepper sprayed anti-occupation activists from the group Jewish Voice for Peace, along with having published an anti-BDS comic book that depicted Palestinians asvermin, in a throwback to Nazi propaganda.

“People here are always thinking about the implications of everything,” Mazor was quoted as saying in a 2001 academic article about the Coop. “That’s really nifty. I find that stam people [Yiddish for “ordinary people”] think about less and less.”

Those who argue that the Coop boycott campaign is anti-Semitic believe that BDS “singles out” Israel among all the other nations of the world that commit grave human rights violations; the only reason anyone would focus on Israel, the logic goes, is because they harbor prejudice against Jews. “Israel has a lot of problems, but so does China, so does America, so does a lot of the world,” Coop member Andrew Sepulveda told the Observer, voicing a common BDS counterargument. But must we rank wrongdoing nations before taking a stand? And is it not logical to single out Israel, given that U.S. foreign policy has already singled out Israel with over $3 billion in annual military aid? “Whenever we take a political action, we open ourselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards,” BDS supporter Naomi Klein reminds us, “since the truth is that we can never do enough in the face of pervasive global injustice.”

“The reason we’re boycotting Israel and not Atilla the Hun is because there is an international call for boycott on Israel, and we should be honoring boycotts,” according to one Coop boycott supporter, who asked not to be named. “We shouldn’t be crossing picket lines. End of story. The reason we aren’t boycotting Atilla the Hun is because there is no international campaign to boycott Atilla the Hun. If the victims of Atilla the Hun ask for a boycott, then we should take that seriously.”

In a letter published in the Coop’s house organ, the Linewaiters’ Gazette, boycott organizers noted that the Coop has a long tradition of boycotts—of both individual companies and entire nations. A 20-year boycott of South African products began in 1973, the year of the Coop’s founding. There have been eleven Coop boycotts since 1989, including Coca-Cola, Domino Sugar, non-United Farm Worker grapes, and tuna.

Until recently, the matter of boycotting and divesting from Israel had only been raised in letters in the Linewaiters’ Gazette, where the debate has ebbed and flowed for over two years. But at a July 26th general meeting—a monthly gathering held at Brooklyn’s Congregation Beth Elohim—the grinding wheels of Coop democratic process began turning with the first face-to-face discussion of BDS. The question at hand was not whether or not the Coop should join BDS, but rather whether they should even hold a membership-wide vote. “Why not boycott Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain?” said Susan Tauber, one of the members advocating against the referendum, according to the Linewaiters’ Gazette’s recap of the general meeting.

Coop BDS organizers told me that almost all of the supporters who spoke at the meeting were Jewish and identified themselves as such. Still, Jewish opponents of BDS at the Coop show that the “progressive except Palestine” phenomenon in the American Jewish community has not gone away. While open to hosting the debate in his synagogue, Congregation Beth Elohim’s Rabbi Andy Bachman—generally considered a progressive rabbi—condemned the boycott efforts in a statement, writing, “BDS rhetoric reveals that the ultimate goal of the majority of its supporters is a dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state.

This is simply untenable and unjust.” (Bachman was referring to BDS’ demand that Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to what is now the state of Israel in accordance with UN Resolution 194.) In the Linewaiters’ Gazette, BDS opponent Ruth Bollettino made the same argument, but in starker language. “The ‘right’ of Palestinian refugees to return means dismantling the Jewish state demographically, flooding it with Palestinian Arabs,” Bollettino wrote, revealing the racial fears underpinning the drive to maintain Israel as a Jewish-majority state. Her letter joined seven others against BDS, one in support of BDS, and an unrelated letter thanking a stranger for having returned $90 that had fallen out of the writer’s pocket at the Coop entrance.

Boycott supporters at the Coop would seem to be in the minority, if one were to judge by the letters in the Linewaiters’ Gazette or the Observer, which admitted its nonscientific methods while noting, “Finding pro-boycott members outside the co-op Monday night was no easy task.” But Melissa, a Brooklynite Coop member of eight years, had a different impression of the membership’s stand. “The silent majority of Coop members are probably uncertain about the issue of BDS,” she said, adding, “The challenge that we have is not to change the minds of people like Barbara Mazor.” Rather, it is to educate their fellow Coop members as to the need to honor the Palestinian BDS call.

Retired lawyer Dennis James, a Coop BDS organizer, noted the generational divide he sees in conversations about BDS—who shuts off, and who’s willing to engage. “Some of the older people, you can’t raise the subject. It’s verboten,” James said. “Whereas younger people might argue with you but they will talk about it.”

The other day, I met up with my friend Jesse Bacon at Tealounge, a coffeeshop across the street from the Coop. Despite having once seen a mouse scamper through the glass dessert case there, I ate part of Jesse’s cookie as we talked BDS shop. He’s an activist with Jewish Voice for Peace, working on their campaign to get the pension fund TIAA-CREF to divest from Motorola and other companies profiting from the occupation of the West Bank. Many TIAA-CREF holders are teachers and other professionals who tend to skew liberal in their politics. Working on the campaign has helped Jesse see how important it is to have a sympathetic population when advocating BDS in an institution. Jesse weighed in:

In a certain sense, the Coop campaign is dealing with liberal people who just want to get their crunchy, hippie food and be left alone. But the best things that movements critical of Israel can do is to push people to be consistent. Consistency is a great thing to offer people. It requires some explanation and education as to why this is part of your other values–why boycotting or divesting from Israel is an extension of them.

The cringe factor was high for both of us while reading the Observer’s anonymous source decry the Coop BDS campaign reaching into the heavily Jewish populated Park Slope, “the heart of Chaimtown.” At the same time, Jesse pointed out, “The fact that a BDS campaign is even going on in ‘Chaimtown’—the heart of the Jewish crunchy liberal establishment—whether or not this wins, it shows that this issue is everywhere now.”

Stay tuned for my next installment, in which Jesse and I go shopping at the Coop to see what products could go inside the Israeli boycart.

This post originally appeared on the website Waging Nonviolence.

New US envoy to Israel blows airkiss to neoconservatives

Aug 17, 2011

Philip Weiss

The new American ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, evidently hasn’t been reading our incisive criticisms of the State Department’s $200,000 grant to the Islamophobic thinktank, MEMRI. From Shapiro’s twitter feed:

Hats off to my colleagues in Washington, who have directed a grant to the Middle East Media Research Institute…

Religious identity and transparency

Aug 17, 2011

Philip Weiss

Former New York Times reporter Amy Waldman has published a novel called Submission that is about a fictional memorial to 9/11 created by a young Muslim-American architect named Mohammed Khan. Twice now I have heard Waldman interviewed on public radio, and, leaving aside the possible fearful resonances in her title (Islam means submission to God), I was struck by the willingness on the part of Waldman and her interviewers to deal in identity politics. That is, when it’s not Jewish identity politics.

I heard that Mohammed “Mo” Khan is a secularized Muslim, but angry. I heard that Sean Gallagher– i.e., a Roman Catholic — rips the hijab off a Muslim woman. The Washington Post review says there’s a WASP too:

The ensuing drama changes the lives of every member of the novel’s ensemble cast. The rich investor’s WASP-ish widow, the dead janitor’s illegal immigrant wife, the demagogic politician, the desperate tabloid hack, the beleaguered chairman of the competition jury, the dead FDNY hero’s low-life brother, the radio shock jock, the Muslim community organizer, the white trash incendiary blogger and, of course, the besieged winning architect are all represented here.

I wonder where the Jewish characters are. Now maybe Waldman has them. But no one’s talking about them.

At one level, I understand this reluctance. During the Ocean Hill-Brownsville struggle of 40 years ago, or the Crown Heights upheaval of 20 years back, the Jews were humble — teachers and Hasidim– and could be openly identified as political actors. But the Jews of the 9/11 context are far more empowered actors. They include the Israel lobby whose support for the occupation of Palestine played a part in Al Qaeda’s decision to attack the U.S., as even the 9/11 commission has said. They include the actual designer of the 9/11 memorial– Michael Arad– an Israeli diplomat’s son. They include leading New York politicians who are making decisions and writers who are chronicling the matter. (I’m guessing novelist Waldman is herself Jewish).

And I understand the reluctance because, as a small group with so much power, we feel vulnerable. When the repulsive Texas Gov. Rick Perry threatened physical violence against Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke the other day, how many Jews reflected that Bernanke is Jewish? All of us, I bet.

But our vulnerability doesn’t resolve the issue of journalists’ blindness to the Jewish presence. We’re American Establishment actors–  as neoconservatives, as liberal Zionists, as Israel lobbyists, yes and as anti-Zionists. As often as not, we’re the storytellers. About half the narrators I listen to in the Media-Industrial complex are Jewish, and I haven’t even gotten to the execs who founded Facebook and Google, changing our lives.

And yet we’re inhibited about discussing this presence. It would be unimaginable to hear a Jewish TV personality going on about how Jewish values had propelled, say, Mike Bloomberg in the way that Chris Matthews went on and on the other day– very movingly– about the Irish-Catholicness of his hero, the late Hugh Carey.

We can’t be that open. We still can’t trust America enough to talk about the Jewish rise.

I find it irritating. I am going to thumb through Amy Waldman’s book the next time I’m in a bookstore and see if there are major Jewish characters. If there are, I’ll read the book. If there aren’t, I won’t. Because if there aren’t, it would be failing at the writer’s task of representing reality.

P.S. Two other examples of this issue of transparent political identity:

1. Yesterday we posted a video of Noam Chomsky. A brilliant man, and great leader, yes. And he said some smart things. But I found it disturbing to listen to him go on about evangelical Christians in America with all but complete lack of differentiation. A third of Americans expect the second coming in their lifetime, he said. The Christian Zionists are among the most antisemitic people in the world; they want all the Jews to be exterminated. Does he know any of these people? Would he describe American Jewish attitudes so sweepingly and negatively? No.

2. A couple weeks ago on National Public Radio, Robert Siegel interviewed writer Suketu Mehta about his article in The New Yorker magazine about an African woman in New York City who is seeking asylum. In the interview, Siegel made a confession about his own origins and beliefs. I found it very refreshing: for me, it was a window on the new Jewish experience, empowered and increasingly conservative. It was an honest, reflective moment.

SIEGEL: I have to confess that now being myself two generations from the boat that sailed into the country, I identify at least as much with the hearing officer, or the immigration officer, as I do with the applicant for asylum.

So he’s sitting there, asking her a question: Were you raped? Yes. Did you go to the hospital? Is there some document? Yeah, there is, but it’s not here. There are papers somewhere back in my home country. How can he conceivably verify the story that he’s being told?

Mr. MEHTA: Well, that’s a very good question. And my sympathies, too, are with the asylum officer. He’s got the awesome responsibility of deciding whether or not to let in a person who, if he makes the wrong move, could be sent back to be raped all over again. And I think that the immigration system needs more resources….


Jewish spring? ‘New Republic’ cites importance of ‘human rights’ in the Occupied Territories

Aug 17, 2011

Philip Weiss

Eyal Sagiv in the New Republic, on how tent protests are giving Israelis a new way to think about politics. Hmm. Some changes afoot inside the lobby…

Is there any chance that this language can move from Rothschild to the Knesset? Is there any hope that the many visitors to the tent protest will realize that the fight for welfare rights is inseparable from the fight for human rights in Israel and the occupied territories and the fight for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? It is difficult to answer these questions. The pessimists might well be right. A war or a conflict could easily put an end to this summer haze and return us to the language of nationalism and survival. Yet even if the protests do not yield all the change that we want, it is not unreasonable to hope that the ideas that have been put forward about welfare this summer on Rothschild Boulevard will, at least, give all Israelis a few more things to consider the next time they go to vote.

Posted in Nova NewsletterComments Off on Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

Does AIPAC Have Only Two Major Donors?

John Boehner and Eric Cantor

Given AIPAC’s oversize clout in U.S. Middle East policy, it’s always informative to see just how many people are giving – and how much.

by Grant F. Smith

A large congressional delegation is heading for Israel. During three weeks of recess, 55 Republicans and 26 Democrats will enjoy “educational” trips funded by the American Israel Education Foundation, a tax-exempt nonprofit located in the same Washington, D.C., building as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Absent AIPAC’s influence on pro-Israel campaign contributors, members of Congress would probably skip international travel this year to meet the pressing needs of their districts or to venture to places of actual importance to the U.S., such as Europe, China, or Latin America. Instead, because AIPAC is always watching members of Congress, our representatives go to Israel. But this raises an important question: Who is really behind AIPAC?

AIPAC’s last IRS list of contributors claims the organization now has only two major donors [.pdf]. As a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organization (a category intended for civic leagues, social welfare organizations, and local associations of employees) AIPAC files an IRS Form 990. AIPAC has long structured its fiscal year end in such a way that it languidly files 2-year-old data while other nonprofits are rushing to report their previous year. Therefore, the AIPAC Form 990 listed as “year 2010″ at, the officially designated website to consult such data, is actually year 2009 data [.pdf]. It also lacks the most important data in Form 990 – donor contributions.

Unlike the far more numerous nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, which have to continually “means test” that they have a wide public funding base in order for contributor donations to be tax-deductible, contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations such as AIPAC (which actively lobbies Congress, the executive, and numerous government agencies) are not tax-deductible. There are no contribution limits to 501 (c)(4) nonprofit groups. Individuals, foreign nationals, partnerships, associations, and other organizations may contribute whatever amount they like to a 501(c)(4).

AIPAC Founder Isaiah L. Kenen and Ted Kennedy

See: Pulse Media  — The Kennedys vs Israel’s Lobby

Given AIPAC’s oversize clout in U.S. Middle East policy, it’s always informative to see just how many people are giving – and how much. When AIPAC’s founder, Isaiah Kenen, was dispatched in the early 1950s from his job at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs with orders to lobby the U.S. Congress for guns and diplomatic support as an American (rather than the U.S. State Department as an Israeli foreign agent), it was supposed to be only a six-month gig. As that operation morphed into a semi-permanent Washington institution run outside the normal purview of the Foreign Agents Registration Act office, AIPAC was forced to tap a very small base of wealthy donors (some with criminal records) while simultaneously receiving covert support from the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency in Jerusalem.

After that “conduit” foreign- funding ruse was uncovered by a Justice Department investigation, Kenen emerged from the crisis and slowly built back up AIPAC’s donor base, whipping up post-1967 Six-Day War donor fears and anxieties that Israel was in danger of being overrun (it wasn’t) if people didn’t send in their checks. Now, AIPAC is pushing largely the same “Israel in danger” emotional buttons, with Iran as the flashing red light.

AIPAC’s schedule of donors doesn’t appear on Guidestar. The IRS won’t release it for any organization except by special request. Only then will the IRS send a “Schedule B” of contributors with all $5,000-plus contributors’ names – but not their donations – censored. If the breadth of AIPAC’s funding base is a “leading indicator” of AIPAC’s popular support, it is America that should now be deeply worried that AIPAC is catering to drastically fewer – and possibly much more extreme – voices.

For fiscal year 2006, AIPAC’s top contributor gave $650,000. The rest of AIPAC’s “Schedule B” donors gave on average $16,772 each. The list of $5,000-plus donors numbered just over 1,700 individuals, so numerous that AIPAC had to attach a separate spreadsheet to its return [.pdf]. This large group of donors represented the majority (56 percent) of AIPAC’s total claimed direct public support. If we assume AIPAC had approximately 50,000 paying members that year, the rest gave $464 each for a total of $50,920,792 in public support.

According to the special IRS release of AIPAC’s 2009 Schedule B [.pdf] there were only two $5,000-plus donors. Donor number one gave $48,842,187. Donor number two chipped in $13,503,472. This means small donors contributed only $2,261,755 for total year 2009 public support of $64,607,414. The IRS confirms that there is no additional 2009 spreadsheet attachment of $5,000-plus donors as in 2006. AIPAC is now telling the IRS that it has only two meaningful donors.

There have been many reasons for smaller givers to bail out on AIPAC, leaving a pair of committed donors to carry all the weight. AIPAC, like any corporation, wants to chart a steadily increasing line of total revenues because any crisis-driven decline could weaken its brand and perceived power. But the years since 2006 have been rocky. Two former AIPAC officials narrowly escaped a long-awaited espionage prosecution, which was mysteriously tossed out by the Obama administration in 2009 after years of pre-trial escalation. Many AIPAC donors probably didn’t have the stomach or risk-tolerance to donate to an organization that nurtured and then threw overboard top employees in order to save itself from an espionage indictment.

In 2009, former AIPAC official Steven J. Rosen noisily filed a $20 million defamation lawsuit against AIPAC and its board of directors. 2009 marked the year an ongoing campaign was launched to have AIPAC return to its roots by re-registering as an agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rather than continue to operate as a domestic American lobby and “social welfare” organization. In 2010, AIPAC’s tax exempt status was also challenged. These concerns could have been sufficient to drive away scores of AIPAC’s key base of $5,000-plus donors. AIPAC’s signature Washington gathering in May 2011 had a Potemkin village feel to it. Many attendees interviewed by Max Blumenthal seemed woefully uninformed about the issues. Many hundreds of others, including student leaders, attended only after receiving heavy travel subsidies.

If the threat of Rosen walking away with $20 million was enough to keep small donors at bay in the recent past, it will likely remain that way for a few more years. On June 20, 2011, Rosen filed a brief [.pdf] and a 629-page addendum in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Rosen explains why within the AIPAC corporate culture it was defamatory for his former employers to characterize his attempts to gather and use classified intelligence on Iran as not comporting with “standards that AIPAC expects of its employees.” Rosen has even filed a “smoking gun” [.pdf] July 21, 2004, email updating AIPAC director Howard Kohr on U.S. intelligence obtained about Iran and details of Rosen’s early use of classified U.S. secrets to derail Jesse Jackson’s political career. Rosen’s lawsuit will not only elevate insider concerns that AIPAC donor funds may soon be paid out as damage awards, but also raise the larger and more public governance questions about why AIPAC has never been indicted for espionage or theft of government property as a corporation, given what has now been so thoroughly documented in court.

As Americans nervously ponder their representatives’ travel plans and AIPAC’s nonstop lobbying for American economic and clandestine warfare on Israel’s enemies, they must ask other serious questions. Who are the two people now providing the lion’s share of AIPAC’s funding? As long-time Washington Report on Middle East Affairs editor Janet McMahon revealed during the May 2011 Move Over AIPAC conference, it’s not clear what percentage of AIPAC’s donations come from American contributors and sources. Given AIPAC’s influential leadership role at the head of a network of stealth political action committees it helped establish in the 1980s, will AIPAC’s concentrated pool of core donors channel ever more extreme candidate guidance [.pdf] to the people who really count come election day, i.e., single-issue pro-Israel campaign contributors? What do the big AIPAC donors dispatching 20 percent of Congress to Israel think about trip-wiring the U.S. into an unwarranted military conflict with Iran? Americans should ask themselves whether any two people should have so much influence on U.S. Middle East policy.


Posted in USAComments Off on Does AIPAC Have Only Two Major Donors?

JFK Assassination: The Quintessential ‘False Flag’ Operation


by Trowbridge H. Ford


Deceptive aka ‘false flag’ operations by real or potential combatants are almost as old as spying itself. While spying was originally intended to find out what other parties, enemies and possible ones, were doing, and planning, it wasn’t long before participants in such matters were trying to fool other parties about what was happening, and who was responsible for it. Assassinations of opponents or potential competitors were almost immediately added to the mix of possible means of gaining the upper hand either at home or abroad.

As human organizations became increasingly bigger, and better organized, culiminating in the formation of states of one sort or another, the opportunities for all these activities, especially ‘false flag’ operations, became even more desireable and effective. Their numerous bureaucracies became targets of choice to infiltrate in order to deceive a real or possible enemy of one’s real aims, methods, and agents. The ideal operations, ‘false flag’ ones, are to make one’s opponents or allies think that a third party is responsible for what you really are doing, so much so that it does your dirty work for you – whether it be taking some kind of action against them, changing their whole strategy for dealing with a problem, or simply getting rid of the biggest impediment to whatever you want.

The great trouble in researching such projects is that they are almost impossible to discover if carried out properly. It is only the failed, imaginary, and minor ones that we are sure about. The Lavon Affair – where Iraeli intelligence was discovered to be behind the bombing of an American consulate in Egypt, not Arabs, thanks to the premature explosion of one of them which permitted the capture of one of Tel Aviv’s agents – certainly is a good example of a failed ‘false flag’ operation. Then the Trojan Horse Affair, the alleged grand daddy of all ‘false flag’ operations, is the leading example of imaginary ones, unless one is prepared to believe what Homer wrote in The Iliad, and Virgil in the Aeneid. It seems much more likely poetic fancy about an earthquake rather than the Trojans being the first suckers of Greeks bearing gifts.

And then there are lesser actions, like the KGB, it seems, blowing up apartments in Russia during the second Chechan War to secure Vladimir Putin’s election, and now the killing of Alexander Litvineniko to secure the election of a hand-picked successor. And then there are all kinds of lesser ‘false flag’ claims about British Q-boat operations during the WWI against German U-boats, how the Japanese managed to instigate expanding wars in the Far East during the 1930s, and Reinhard Heydrich’s dirty tricks at Poland’s expense to start WWII, and Otto Skorzeny’s last-dtich efforts against the Americans in the Battle of the Bulge to keep it going during its last days – what seem to be true but lack the crucial strategic component which would make them the genuine article.

Of course, when there really is a most successful ‘false flag’ operation in progress, its victims are hardly in a position to even recognize it, much less stop it, and do something dramatic in response for fear of the consequences. It’s hard enough to get anyone to change their mind about anything, much less about a matter of national security about which they are charging madly off in the wrong direction to suit the interests of an enemy or an ally of dubious trust. And once the operation is over, the victim is hardly in a position to acknowledge it, much less react in any serious way.

The failure is just too embarrassing for the injured state to admit, so it just acts as it were not in any way responsible for what happened, and goes on as if everything is okay. The only exception to this general rule is when a great power is injured by lesser ones – like when Britain, Israel, and France deceived the USA about what was happening in the Suez during the 1956 war, and what gave the USSR the excuse to reciprocate in kind when the Hungarian uprising proved to be more than Moscow had bargained for.

There is also a pervasive scepticism against such operations in the West because their whole rationale runs counter to the basic empiricism one follows in observing, and explaining what happens in the world – logical analysis. While philosphy was slowly ridding itself of ancient pretensions of a religious and mathematical nature by generally following the maxim of Occam’s razor – if something in the world can be explained without asssuming some hypothetical entity of either a secular or sacred nature is somehow responsible for it, then there is no reason for using the assumption – the idea that man, as he developed more and more complicated forms of human existence, would deliberately go to the great lengths to deceive others about what was really going on was an anathema. When one attempts to explain such operations to normal people, they almost invariably give a conditioned reflex of contempt, complaining about another “conspiracy theory”.

Given this seemingly irrational basis of ‘false flag’ operations, it was hardly surprising that the Bolsheviks, a tiny group of revolutionaries in the vast Russian empire, quickly resorted to them when it started collapsing in 1917.´The only hope they had of seizing power was that the Great Powers would so destabilize the country through demands for action, and intrusions when it didn’t happen that they could fill the power vacuums which ensued. It was as if the idealism that political philosophers like Hegel had predicted for Europe after the Napoleonic Wars – what Karl Marx had completely reversed for the benefit of the urban proletariat, and Lenin had tailored to fit the capabilities of his vanguard – had been completely stood on its head again by bands of rootless revolutionaries. Stealth had replaced the dictates of reason.

In this most fluid environment, it was hardly surprising that Feliks Dzerzhinsky’s craftiness soon resulted in the creation of the Cheka, the Bolsheviks’ first intelligence and security agency. Its primary mission was to infiltrate all the enemies, domestic and foreign, and destroy them by any means. During the civil war, it destroyed the many conspiracies that Western governments connived against them. The most important one was the Lockhart plot, organized by the leading British diplomat in Russia, Robert Bruce Lockhart, the War Office’s George Hill, Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) agent Paul Dukes, and the French counsul-general, and led by SIS agent Sidney Reilly, which planned to so infiltrate the Bolshevik leadership that it could assassinate Lenin and others. The plot was given 1,200,000 roubles – a mighty sum that rogue agents could not have cobbled together – to create so many threats against the Soviet leaders that the Cheka would be unable to counter them all.

The plot managed to kill the Cheka head in Petrograd, Trotsky’s friend Moisei Uritsky, on August 17, 1918, and two weeks later Fanny Kaplan nearly killed Lenin. Reilly had given the money to Cheka agent Colonel Eduard Berzin of the Latvian Special Light Artillery Division to whom Lockhart assigned the task of assassinating Lenin, but he used it to finance Lenin’s strategic plans rather than providing for his security.

This gave bitter Social Revolutionaries, especially Kaplan, the chance they needed to settle scores with the treacherous Bolsheviks who had siezed power at the expense of the Constituent Assembly that they controlled. Besides, Kaplan was hardly seen as a threat since she could barely see, as the assassination demonstrated when she only managed to hit Lenin in the jaw, and shoulder with three shots fired at almost point blank range – leading conspiracy theorists, like ín the assassination of RFK in LA a half century later, to suspect that another shooter was involved.

Dzerzhinsky responded by rounding up all the conspirators who Berzin and fellow agent Yan Buikis had identified in the ‘envoys’ plot’, and had urged on by false claims of support with the money that the plotters had supplied – what instigated the wounded Lenin to call for a campaign of terror aka the Red Terror against the Bolsheviks’ opponents, starting with Hill’s whole assassination network. From 1918 until 1920, the Cheka used its new powers of summary justice to eliminate much opposition to the Bolshevics, especially among landowning class.

It brought home to every individual in the area that they could suffer the same fate as the Tsar’s family met in that cellar in Ekaterinburg if circumstances so required. The culmination of this whole process occurred seven years later when the OGPU, the Cheka’s successor, created so successfully The Trust, ostensibly a White Russian opposition group, to infiltrate pro-monarchist émigré groups, that Reilly, who had escaped the backlash to Lenin’s assassination, was persuaded to meet its leaders back in Russia, while serving in Finland, where he was executed.

While the Bolshevik consolidation of power in the Soviet Union led to a decease in the use of ‘false flag’ operations, though there were still aspects of them during the Great Terror when all of Stalin’s opponents were branded as traitors of some sort, working for foreign powers. As for Berzin, during the Spanish civil war when he was a military intelligence advisor working for the republicans to consolidate power in the hands of the communists, he ended up sounding and acting like a Trotskyist rather than a Trust man in his dealing with Catalan anarchists and syndicalists, leading to his recall to Moscow, and his own execution. And when the Soviets again managed to expand their power during the end of WWII, they did infiltrate agents into more émigré groups, but their efforts proved unnecessary, given the presence of the Red Army and Beria’s security network. Stalin never trusted his immediate subordinates enough to allow real ‘false flag’ operations for fear that he would be their first target.

It was only after Nikita Khrushchev consolidated power after The Boss’s apparent murder that ‘false flag’ efforts became again real possibilities. Once Khrushchev had cut down the KGB, Red Army, and the bureaucracy to size, the Party’s General Secretary thought seriously of using them to expand the communist world, especially after American intelligence agencies started exploring their use in preventing it. To head the KGB after General Ivan Serov was exposed for having stolen the Belgian crown during its Smersh clean-up of Germany after the collapse of the Nazis, he chose Alexander Shelepin, the most ambitious head of the Young Communist League, to be its new director, making the security service the closest instrument of the CPSU. Shelepin saw the post as the ideal stepping stone for becoming the chief himself.

Shelepin’s plan was based upon the comings and goings of ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald, of all people! Oswald was an eager beaver, despite all the trashing of him after it proved necessary to make him JFK’s assassin, who avidly studied Russian while in the service in California, got hooked up with the CIA’s U-2 progam while stationed in Japan when it was trying to provoke some kind of showdown with the Soviets, and was “recruited from the military,” former Agency finance officer James Wilcott testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, “for the express purpose of becoming a double agent assignment to the USSR.” (Quoted from Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy, p. 129.) Victor Marchetti led Summers to believe that Oswald had been part of the Office of Naval Intelligence’s program to use fake defectors, some three dozen or so, to infiltrate Soviet security services for various purposes.

By the time Oswald arrived in the Soviet Union in October 1959, Washington was still suffering from a “wave of near-hysteria” because the successful orbiting of the earth by Sputnik I two years earlier, fearing that the Soviets would have 10 ICBMs operational by then, and radarman Oswald was to determine if this were true by apparently divulging what the U-2s were capable of doing during their overflights of the USSR. Moreover, William King Harvey, its ‘Executive Action’ director, had apparently had Charles Siragusa aka QJ/WIN of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics recruit Oswald as a covert assassin just in case this most unlikely one – a person with no criminal record, had not worked for any US gov’t agency, and was free to travel as he pleased – could work his way so into Moscow’s confidence that he could bag someone like Shelepin or Nikita himself with little possiblity of blowback at the Agency’s expense.

If this were the case, Harvey’s known effforts to assassinate Fidel Castro by known underworld figures – Antonio de Varona, underlings of Johnny Rosselli, Santos Trafficante, and Sam Giancanna, etc. – could have been mere diversions to protect the identity of more deadly assassins, like Oswald, for more serious game as the destruction of the Cuban leader and its most shaky regime seemed just a matter of time by either some clownish murder or by an anti-Castro invasion.

While still a Marine, Oswald showed most unusual interest in the Cuban revolution, writing to the Cuban Embassy, visiting its consulate in LA, and apparently meeting Cuban diplomats on several occasions – so much so that the CIA apparently created a false Cuban file on him . This was all apparently done to fool Cuban counter intelligence about who Oswald, and what his mission was. But events proved it was far better than the Agency and its allies ever expected in getting things straight, starting with Oswald’s mission to Moscow.

Oswald’s two and one/half years in the USSR, especially after the settlement of Gary Powers’ problems, have been brushed over with surprising quickness in almost all accounts, and it seems because he so failed in his mission that Western intelligence agencies suspected that the KGB had made him into a double agent. No sooner had Oswald turned in his passport to the American Embassy in Moscow three weeks after he arrived than the Soviets started treating him as a most prized possession, giving him all he could reasonably expect in Minsk from the workers’ paradise – even a pretty wife with close intelligence connections – in return for all the information he could provide about the Agency’s U-2 flights. He, it seems, told the KGB how the spy plane could be shot down despite its being out of range on any Soviet anti-aircraft weapon, and the Agency arranged for this to happen before Powers left from Pakistan, having the engine ‘flameout’ as he reported while the plane was approaching Sverdlovsk during the May Day celebrations.

The only trouble with the ruse was that Powers survived the crash – what was not supposed to happen since the plane had self-destruct mechanisms if it either crashed or was shot down – and told his Soviet captors all about it in the hope of being exchanged after a deceptive trial – what happened nearly two years later when he was returned to the States for the prized Soviet spy, Colonel Rudolf Abel.

The shooting down of the unauthorized flight was just to give substance to the false American claims about a ‘missile gap’, but Powers, of course, then and later in a book, was most willing to make out that Oswald’s information, especially “something of a special interest” (Quoted from Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy, p. 174.), was responsible for the Soviets somehow shooting down the U-2. Powers then claimed that Oswald was probably observing his interrogations, and making sugggestions as to how to proceed!

Of course, if this were true, why would Oswald then have asked the American Embassy to return his passport, as he wanted to return home? Oswald would certainly have seen his status in the Soviet Union improved if he had had any serious role in the shooting down of the U-2. The Soviets, though, were not permitting him to go anywhere until the Powers affair was settled for fear that he could ruin it, once back in the States.

It was while Oswald was in this limbo that he was suspected by Soviet authorities of spying for Washington, and apparently tried most feebly to commit suicide in the hope of forcing Moscow’s hand about his case. It finally agreed to the Oswalds returning to Lee’s home town, Fort Worth in Texas, with money Uncle Sam provided with no questions asked, as the Cuban Missile Crisis started shaping up. On June 10, 1962, the Presidium of the CPSU voted unaminously in favor of Marshal Malinovsky’s Operation Anadyr, the plan to place nuclear-armed MRBMs and cruise missiles on Castro’s Cuba.

Meanwhile, Shelepin’s KGB learned from a NATO liaison officer within CIA that while the Soviets did not have enough nuclear missiles to destroy all its stragetic bases, the USA had the capability to destroy the Soviet ones with its bomber forces, but the window of opportunity was rapidly closing – what Powers’ U-2 flight indicated preparation for, and what rendered Oswald’s apparent input mere Western deceptions.

There were also an uncorroborated claims from Cuba that the USA was planning to overthrow Castro’s regime by an invasion. To counter these threats – what the Red Chinese were making more pointed by supporting calls for wars of national liberation throughout the Third World – Khrushchev declared that Cuba was covered by the Soviet nuclear umbrella, and started shipping modern weapons to the island bridgehead for its defense – what the CIA had helped trigger by blowing up the Belgian arms shipment on La Coubre in Havana harbor the previous March.

Still, the Soviets were having second thoughts about supporting the Cuban revolution since it was so far away, so expensive, and of such little strategic importance to Moscow. While the Soviets could hit America with its ICBMs if war broke out, it was a far more difficult matter to develop communism there, and in the surrounding Americas, especially since the Cuban leaders were so pushy about what was required. The island really only made sense as a pawn in the Cold War struggle, something to be sacrificed for something closer to home, like Berlin, if the Americans decided on some kind of showdown in the Carribbean. Moscow just had to support Castro enough for ideological purposes in order to keep up with the Red Chinese, as the most limited budget the KGB was provided for developing the area demonstrated.

In this context, the growing importance of Moscow’s leading spy in the West, MI5′s Peter Wright, became increasingly relevant to the solution of the Cuban problem. Thanks to his most eye-catching pursuit of alleged moles, spies, and subversives, he was seen as the manager of the necessary countermeasures to keep matters from getting worse, especially after the Bay of Pigs invasion ended up on the rocks despite the fact that the KGB had failed to supply the necessary counterintelligence to easily defeat it.

What Wright had told a five-day conference at Fort Meade in 1959 about how to deal with Colonel Grivas in the solving the Cyprus problem – locate him, isolate him, and neutralize him before seeking any political settlement (Spycatcher, p. 154) – became the CIA’s order of the day after Attorney General Robert Kennedy tried to stop all such efforts in October 1961 when Wright repeated the message for Harvey’s benefit. (Ibid., p. 145ff.) Without Castro, the message went, there would be no Cuban revolution.

While Harvey then redoubled his efforts to kill the Cuban leader, KGB Major Anatoli Golitsyn defected to the West in order to strengthen Wright’s efforts. Of course, the Center went through all the motions that it was most detrimental to its operations – stopping apparently all its current ones temporarily, and assassinations outside the Soviet bloc permanently – and openly condemned his apparent treachery, apparently even putting a price on his head. To gain credibility with his debriefers, Golitsyn did provide the names of some spies who had outlived their usefulness, and leads for identifying some of the serials in encrypted messages. “The KGB, Golitsyn insisted, would send a series of bogus defectors in an attempt to discredit him and his sensational ‘revelations’.” (Christopher Andrew, For The President’s Eyes Only, p. 313)

Golitsyn’s most important revelation was that Shelepin was engaged in another Trust aka ‘false flag’ operation to achieve worldwide, communist control. To achieve this result, Department D was created within the KGB’s First Chief Directorate, and it was made operational, once the GRU’s Colonel Popov who had helped Wright in the Berlin Tunnel operation, was exposed, and executed. According to Golitsyn before he defected, Shelepin told him that the KGB had “so many sources at its disposal” (Op. cit, p. 205) that it could effect worldwide what Dzerzhinsky had been able to achieve within the USSR. Clearly, Shelepin was alluding to persons like Labour’s Harold Wilson, Sweden’s Olof Palme, West Germany’s Willy Brandt, and many other alleged ‘false flag’ operatives yet to be determined, but Golitsyn’s critics, even Wright himself, stressed the bona fides of subsequent defectors, like Oleg Penkovsky and Yuri Nosenko, and of the Sino-Soviet split rather than the former.

Given this disinformation campaign, the task for Western counterintelligence was to determine who were the real agents of influence aka those waving false flags, the real defectors, the real scope and objectives of the disinformation campaign, the real leaders and regimes the KGB was seriously trying to eliminate, retain, or obtain, etc. The scene for the showdown was set when the Soviets discovered yet more plots to assassinate the three top Cuban leaders (Operation Condor) – what would trigger an invasion by its Latin American neighbors – and a CIA one to kill both Castro and astronaut Yuri Gagarin when he visited Havana after the assassins had shelled the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay from nearby Cuban territory. Shelepin responded by calling for actions in kind in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, followed by Khrushchev ordering the construction of the Berlin Wall to stem the flood of East Germans to the West.

The culmination of this process, of course, was the Cuban Missile Crisis which was far more problematic than recent historians have made out. While Alexandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, for example, have claimed in their book, The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis: ‘One Hell of a Gamble’ , it was just that from the Soviet point of view, it could have easily turned out far differently if it had not been for President Kennedy, a somewhat ambiguous player in the process up until then. Moscow was so sure that it had nothing to lose by the confrontation that Shelepin left the KGB for a seat on the Presidium so that he would be in a better position to get it to go along with whatever risks cropped up, leaving the management of the intelligence agency of his protégé Vladimir Semichastny. The question was really how JFK would react to the challenge when he fully realized who was involved, and what was at stake.

Up until then, the President had indicated that he was most desirous of keeping up with Khrushchev for thinking that he was somehow a soft touch. JFK had accepted a summit with the Soviet leader only after he had agreed to the Bay of Pigs operation (code name Zapata) going ahead – what completely ruined the only one they ever had in Vienna. Then Kennedy’s criticism of the Cuban fiasco sounded to many, especially before the assistance by covert American sources was learned, like he was angry for not having done more for the invasion rather than too much. And the assassination plots against the Cuban leadership, and Operation Mongoose to destroy its infra-structure – whatever role the President had in their origin and scope – hardly seemed like policies based upon the continuance of Castro’s regime. Preparing for the military option seemed like the likely result as the ships and munitions aboard them made their way across the Atlantic in Operation Anadyr.

As The Kennedy Tapes show, the President was the most inclined of all officials in the White House Cabinet Room to contain the crisis as much as possible, provided the nuclear.armed MRBMs and tactical ones were somehow taken out of Cuba. In return, the President was willing to give private assurances that the US Jupiter missiles in Turkey would be removed in due course, and that the United States would not invade Cuba – what Khrushchev claimed he had authorized the use of nuclear weapons to prevent – as long as the missiles stayed removed.

Once JFK determined what was going on, and what was really at stake in the showdown on an almost hour-by-hour basis, starting on October 16th, he increasingly guided his colleagues about the likely outcome of various strategies, and what should be done. The high point in JFK’s leadership occurred on the 27th when he held back his colleagues who wanted to go to war over the shooting down of a U-2 over the island, and over the continued presence of the obsolete Jupiter missiles in Turkey. The non-invasion pledge, though, would be the undoing of both JFK and Khrushchev.

The non-invasion pledge gave Khrushchev the chance to redeem Anadyr if JFK still backed down on the commitment or was killed because of it – provided that Moscow was not seen as responsible for it. It was because of these possibilities that the Presidium allowed Nikita to stay on as its General Secretary. During the Kennedys’ Christmas holiday in Palm Beach, the President assured the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Castro’s removal was still just a matter of time, and he acted as if it might be quite a short interval when three days later he assured 40,000 Cubans in Miami’s Orange Bowl that the flag of Brigade 2506 which led the Bay of Pigs invasion would soon be returning to “a free Havana”. Many of those cheering had been released from Cuban jails by ransom aid that the President had paid to the Cuban government. Castro had neither forgiven nor forgotten Nitika’s withdrawal of the nuclear-armed missiles from the island without even consulting him.

As time passed, JFK’s commitment to Castro’s overthrow became increasingly doubted. No sooner was Operation Mongoose ended at the end of 1962 than Oswald, now relocated in Dallas with a job that the CIA’s George de Mohrenschildt had arranged, was back in business as a hunter of communist leaders while posing as a rededicated Marxist. The Oswalds sent the employees of the Soviet Embassy in Washington a New Year’s greeting, and Marina became pregnant again, hoping that this would induce Soviet authorities to allow them to return so that the seemingly strapped. isolated couple could take advantage of its benefits.

To improve Oswald’s credentials as a hitman, he purchased with unaccounted funds a revolver and a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and apparently fired a shot which narrowly missed the retired, rabid, right-wing General Edwin Walker to prove the point – what he apparently commenorated by having Marina take his photo, holding the rifle in his right hand, communist publications in his left, and the revolver strapped at his hip.

In doing all this, Lee was following directions by American intelligence sources who were embroidering upon it. For example, the famous photo, portraying Oswald as a hunter of fascists, which de Mohrenschildt had a copy of, had an inscription on its back in someone else’s handwriting, making fun of the claim. When the car apparently used in mock assassination of General Walker was found near where Officer J. D. Tippitt was killed shortly after the JFK assassination, the photograph of it that Oswald had allegedly taken had the part where the license plate was located removed in order to prevent connecting the assassinations. Then one has to assume that Oswald sent the photograph of his being a hunter of fascists to Soviet and Cuban authorities – it was simply not intended for some family photo album.

If the communist intelligence services were not informed of the double agent’s reactivation as the Kennedy administration slowly tighted the screws on the anti-Castro Cubans and their supporters in America’s covert government committed to Castro’s overthrow, they soon were, as Oswald wrote a letter to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in New York City which he had been communicating with since his return from the USSR, stating that he publicly protested in Dallas against American threats to the Cuban regime while passing out their pamphlets to passersbys. He requested more of them.

Then the Oswalds moved to New Orleans where they was soon occupied in establishing a FPCC branch, and Lee was demonstrating in July on its docks against the presence of the aircraft carrier, USS Wasp. More suspicion was aroused by the fact that its office was actually at the same address as that of Guy Bannister Associates, the ex-Bureau agent who had made the building the home of the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC).

By this time, Golitsyn and Wright had so fired up America’s rabid anti-communists in government about the communist menace that they were beginning to think that the Kennedy administration, especially the President, was part of it too. As the so-called Soviet defector ran out of leads of suspected Soviet spies, the CIA’s James Angleton and MI5′s Wright gave him free access to their files to refresh his memory of the KGB’s in the hope he would determine the real Moscow moles in their midst.

And MI5 maintained direct contacts with Hoover and Angleton. In making the case, Soviet Naval Attache Yevgeny Ivanov helped out by bedding the necessary hookers, particularly Christine Keeler and Mariella Novotny, in the sex ring Stephen Ward ran for the Security Service – what brought about the resignation of Britain’s War Secretary John Profumo, and later the Macmillan government itself – and Director Hoover amassed a new file on JFK’s sexual exploits, code-named ‘Bowtie’. (N. B. that he usual wordy Wright had nothing essentially to say about either the sex ring or the Dallas shooting.)

JFK had rightly compared the overly loyal Macmillan’s problems with Profumo to his own, claiming:”If they shoot you down, they’ll shoot us down too.” (Quoted from Curt Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 508.) This use of prostitutes by the Kennedys was far more important than the use of Judith Campbell,
Marilyn Monroe, and other Mafia-connected ‘party girls’ as it called into question their loyalty, not just their honesty and integrity, as the President was now calling for a re-examination of the Cold War, and how it was being conducted.

When Jack’s sexual relations with East German refugee Ellen Rometsch, starting just when Golitsyn defected, and the best JFK ever had, were finally exposed in July – thanks to her gossipping about her Washington relationships – he did everything he could to see that the Bureau hushed up the scandal with the probable communist plant. Then his brother, the Attorney General, ordered the ‘sexy spy’ and her husband deported back to West Germany.

Even so, Bobby Baker, at whose Quorum Club she had been consorting, and who had arranged the trists with the President, boasted that he had letters from her which could prove most embarrassing to the Kennedys. And if this wasn’t bad enough, Hoover forced JFK to see that Martin Luther King dropped Jack O’Dell and Stanley Levison from the civil rights movement, claiming that they were following orders from the Kremlin, like former Soviet illegal Colonel Rudolf Abel.

The mere mention of Golitsyn’s claims about the President’s unreliability when it came to national security being apparently true – what could force his resignation if officially investigated – was good enough for his opponents in covert government, especially those in CIA who had worked so hard to eliminate Castro’s Cuba, to start planning his assassination. Harvey, broken by the settlement of the Missile Crisis, and officially relegated to Rome because of his continuing Mafia associations, immediately put together a team to rapidly hypnotize Oswald, who had just asked for new visas for his family to return to the USSR. (John Marks has described the effort in The Search for the ‘Manchurian Candidate’, pp. 202-3, and MKULTRA Subproject 129, Notes, p. 244.)

Langley’s Angleton apparently asked the Mexico City station chief Winston Scott to find a suitable candidate, and it came up with a low-level unnamed agent who the Soviets had apparently doubled, almost assuredly Oswald, and Harvey, it seems, staged the attempt but it failed. A member of Angleton’s Counterintelligence Staff who observed the test claimed that the hypnotic consultant, apparently Dr. George White, assigned to doing the task froze, but it seems much more likely that it didn’t take because of Oswald’s opposition to killing the President despite his desire for the money. The Agency settled for making Lee the programmed “patsy” for the assassination, while Giancana’s underlyings Felix (Milwaukee Phil) Alderisio, Richard Cain, and Chuckie Nicoletti actually did it under Jack Ruby’s direction..

For corroboration of Oswald playing this role, just read about what he – and others conveniently acting for him – did subsequently – see, e. g., Summers, p. 288ff. – and compare it with what Angleton’s agent said about setting up a programmed “patsy” who a hypnotist “…could walk through a series of seemingly unrelated events – a visit to a store, a converseation with a mailman, picking a fight at a political rally. The subject would remember everything that happened to him and be amnesic only for the fact the hypnotist ordered him to do these things. There would be no gaping insonsistency in his life of the sort that can ruin an attempt by a hypnotist to create a second personality.

The purpose of this exercise is to leave a cricumstantial trail that will make the authorities think the patsy committed a particular crime. The weakness might well be that the amnesia would not hold up under politce interrogation, but that would not matter if the police did not believe his preposterious story about being hypnotized or if he were shot resisting arrest.” (Quoted from Marks, p. 204, note +.)

With this being the case, it is then essential to determine if the Cubans and Soviets knew about the plot to assassinate JFK, to blame it on Oswald at their expense, and to let it still go ahead as long as they could easily escape blame. The record shows that the CIA was well primed for Lee’s famous September 1963 visit to Mexico City where he and others impersonating him made such a fuss about his immediately getting the necessary visas to go the USSR because of his connection with the FPCC – what so completely turned them off about his going to Moscow via Havana for fear that it was a provocation – while the Agency completely recorded his visits and conversations with their embassies, and duly informed the Bureau of his planned defection. Instead of determining that this was the reinforced work of a programmed “patsy”, both the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations were only interested in deciding what activities were done by the real Oswald, and what was done by others – what forced both sides of the conflict to change their stories when the plot went so badly awry in Dallas.

Little wonder that Win Scott anticipated Oswald’s trip to the Mexican capital even before he arrived, and made the most of it when he did, thanks apparently to the help of Sylvia Duran, a Mexican woman working in the Cuban consul’s office, and also apparently a CIA informant. She let Oswald run wild in the trying to achieve the impossible result of obtaining an immediate visa to travel to the island within three days, and stay there for a few weeks before moving on to the USSR. During his three attempts, Duran informed the Soviet Embassy of his intentions, and was told that Moscow was still considering the troublemaker’s request for one. Duran then relayed the conversations to her Agency handler, confirming what its taps and bugs had obtained about the meetings from inside the Embassy.

In the Texas city at the same time Oswald was on his way to Mexico City, Silvia Odio was visited by three men, the leader of which, “Leopoldo”, wanted her to translate letters into English, calling for businessmen to support the CRC’s efforts to overthrow Castro. While she declined, two days later he called again requesting help, adding that one of the men with him when he visited was “Leon Oswald”, a ex-Marine marksman who was so unstable that he could kill either the Cuban leader or JFK – who he thought should have been assassinated long ago. While she suspected some kind of plot, she never apparently expressed her concern to her lover, Carlos Lechuga, the Cuban delegate to the UN who was then consulting most secretly with US Special Adviser to the American Ambassador there, William Attwood, about establishing new relations between the two republics. It seems most suspicious that Lechuga never got round to informing Attwood about the visit by “Leon Oswald” to Ms.Odio in the last weeks that JFK had to live.

It didn’t seem as if Khrushchev also had much interest either in JFK keeping alive, though he did admit that he was the best President the Soviets could hope for in the near future. While the General Secretary was hopeful about Kennedy’s speech at the American University about conducting the Cold War in a more sensible fashion – what the signing of the Limited Test-Ban Treaty seemed to augur – he was still most unhappy about Kennedy’s steadfastness on Berlin, as his speech about his being a Berliner demonstrated. Given the contact that a false Oswald had made with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City when he real one was visiting the Cuban one – especially his dealings with Valeriy Kostikov, allegedly a member of the KGB’s infamous Thirteenth Department, tasked with sabotage and assassinations – his failure to use the just establsihed “hot line” to warn the President of what was afoot, what it was specifically created for dealing with, indicated that he had higher priorities.

JFK sealed his fate when he refused to go along with various tests that the rogue elements in the CIA confronted him with, particularly reviving with Missile Crisis when Captain Glenn Hyde’s U-2 plane was apparently shot down over Cuba in contravention to the terms of its settlement on November 20th, the President preferring to stand up to the personal challenges to his courage by former Vice President Nixon, and Texas Governor John Connally in Dallas. And the President’s enemies, foreign and domestic, would have gotten their way in Cuba and Berlin by his assassination if it had not been for the wounding of the latter in the process, what led him to cry out as he was apparently dying that he had been double crossed. Fortunately, he survived, and he vowed to get those who had done so – what converted the whole conspiracy into a monumental cock-up.

Of course, the first task was to get rid of Oswald, once he had been arrested, thanks to a tip off about his whereabouts shortly after the assassination by those in the plot who were planning to take him to Cuba to implicate Castro in the killing. While Ruby tried to save the connection during the press conference regarding his arrest, correcting the District Attorney when he said that Oswald belonged to the Free Cuba Committee rather than the FPCC – just making matters worse as it threatened to make his dealings with it a matter of the greatest inquiry when the assassination was investigated – he was then forced to assassinate him to make sure that the reason for his becoming a “lone nut” was not determined, as the CIA veteran had explained for Marks about minimizing the weaknesses of using programmed “patsies”. Besides, Oswald had an alibi for the shooting, as he was standing at the base of the TSBD when the President was assassinated, as the photograph of it by AP photographer James Altgens established.

Ruby’s correction of the Dallas DA about Oswald’s association with the FPCC forced Gilberto Lopez to flee across the border to Mexico the next day, and he was flown a few days later on a special flight which only carried himself from Mexico City to Havana. When Langley still called off investigating the Mexico City angle to the assassiantion for obvious self-serving reasons Win Scott went ballistic, writing a memorandum about the whole affair, including apparently a photograph of the real Oswald there and possibly others, which he placed in his safe. When he died, Angleton went out of his way to recover them, and the Agency still refuses to divulge their contents. “There is no justifying such suppression of the facts,” Summers concluded, “and the CIA should, even now, be forced to explain itself to Congress.” (p. 523.)

Khrushchev and Castro showed a similar economy with the truth when it became their turn to explain any possible involvement in the assassination. While immediately assuming that the killing would be followed by a devastating attack upon Cuba, they never explained why they thought they would be blamed, and they protested a bit too loudly about their innocence to be completely believed, given their actions.

Nikita, after putting Soviet forces on maximum alert in anticipation of an American attack, refused to go to Washington for JFK’s funeral, and cancelled his plans yet again to visit Castro. It seems that he was not sure that they would accept his claims, and possibly there would be difficult repercussions. Castro was too eager to make light of Oswald’s association with the FPCC, and his being one of his admirers.

It was only after Jim Garrison started talking about a possible right-wing plot that the Soviets induced Yuri Nosenko to defect, so that he could clear up the remaining suspicions about Oswald, and the KGB added to the clamor about those in Dallas and New Orleans who wanted JFK killed. Angleton believed that Nosenko could be stressed enough, tortured, into admitting that the Soviets had killed the President, but he only knew about what Oswald had done for the KGB during his defection to the USSR – essentially nothing. When the Warren Commission so reported, Khrushchev was off the hook too, allowed to retire rather than face some international tribunal for the ‘false flag’ operation which would have changed the world if it had not been for one small oversight – the test firing of Oswald’s alleged rifle which almost killed Connally when Richard Cain fired it at JFK from the sixth floor on the TSBD.

Posted in USAComments Off on JFK Assassination: The Quintessential ‘False Flag’ Operation

Will IsraHell Take US Congressmen Hostage for a Pollard Exchange?


No? Well then how about some embassy employees?

Read the threat below.

by   Jim W. Dean, VT editor

Will Congress Betray America and Free Jonathan Pollard?

“It’s long past time to tell the American government to go to hell and shut the f_ck up – in those words. And to take at least 5 American employees at the Embassy hostage – to be held until Jonathan Pollard is released. It is time to play hardball with the fuckers – and crack their heads with the bat.” …Reuven from Binyamín, Israel…Facebook exchange today.

Will Zionists Pull an Iran Hostage Number for Pollard?

What can I say folks. Can you feel the love yet? Welcome to the real world politic.

This is what a lot of Israelis think about America and Americans…farm animals…goyim…subhumans…born to serve…out laws to not apply. It’s and old cliche but with friends like this who needs enemies? Apparently we do.

The Israel Lobby has a huge PR smokescreen department to hoover any shred of little nasties like this out of the American media.

But in the Israeli papers, even the online English ones, they are filled with anti-American stuff that would burn your ears. And what is in the Hebrew papers, you would have to be sedated in go into counseling if you ever heard.

None of this is news to our Congresscritters over there now prostituting for Israeli support on the 2012 elections. They know all about the USS Liberty attack, 34 killed, 174 wounded, three quarters of the crew. But it does not matter.

An Israeli War Crime Against America

Why?  How many states can the Liberty crew swing in 2012? Has the Navy ever asked all naval personell to never vote for anAIPAC backed candidate until the war criminals of the Liberty attack are turned over for prosecution, like we demanded on the Taliban?

Congress people like the trips to Israel. There are no pesky FBI phone taps to worry about as they wheel and deal with the Israelis.

Do you think the Israelis do anything for them without the American people paying for it? Plus, they have total immunity.

Our FBI sources tell us the Justice Department will not prosecute high government officials for Israeli espionage. It’s a real demoralizer for our counter Intel people.

The Israeli America hater, Reuven below is by no means exceptional. The elite Zionist keep their rank and file Jews operating as their human shield with a brainwashing that begins in first grade and never ends.

Not all succomb , like our staff writer Gilad Atzmon.  He told them where to shove their Crime Against Humanity Country and emancipated himself.

He now runs a deprogamming version of an Underground Railroad for other captive Israelis. Hamas and Gaza may have one prisoner, but the Likudites have millions.

Real Attackers Flew Unmarked Planes – Some Accident

A USS Liberty supporter (Geno) forwarded this exchange along. I have removed the last names. Reuven is the Israeli.

Geno: ‎”Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.”— Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

Watch the documentary how Israel tried to sink an American ship and how many died… some ally….’Dead in the Water’, available online. [Editor: This is the only film you need to see on the Liberty]

Reuven: I know this history considerably better than you do, Geno; just as I know the history of the Labor Zionists cooperating with the Nazis in the 1930’s, and the refusal of the Reform Jewish Movement to accept Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. I know where the bodies are buried a whole lot better than you do. You neither know what Zionism is, nor do you comprehend its goals, nor do you even understand the elementary fact that its own success in 1967 has led to its downfall in recent years in Israel.

You assume, out of your total ignorance, that I am a Zionist. You assume, out of your total ignorance, that I have any sympathy with the sitting régime in Jerusalem. Go to my page and to my blogsite and find out what I have to say, before you make presumptions as to my opinions. A small taste for you – http://ruvysroost.blogspot​.com/2011/07/waiting-in-en​d-of-days-for-next-missile​.html.

Geno: why did Israel try to sink the USS Liberty reuven… attacking for hours…killing dozens of Americans… with an American flag flying…. FOR HOURS…

Geno:​ch?v=eB_CKL5h2_8&feature=p​layer_embedded#at=149     another Jew with courage I admire…‘Israel is a Lunatic State’ – Finkelstein on Gaza Flotilla Attack latest updates at and at…See More.

Reuven: The USS Liberty was a spy ship, transmitting data to the Egyptians in their tanks fighting out forces in the Sinai. That is why our air force attacked the USS Liberty. Your government had openly thrown its weight to the side of our enemies and we destroyed the tool of its enmity. The United States government was this nation’s enemy from before its birth, trying to abort the baby before it was born. I know that and have the balls to tell you. You haven’t the balls to honestly look at your country’s history and see the truth staring you in the face, like a skeleton giving you the middle finger.

Geno: Okay so you admit in your own words Israel is not our ally?

Geno: Your words: Your government had openly thrown its weight to the side of our enemies and we destroyed the tool of its enmity. Now explain why LBJ stated, “I want that ship at the bottom of the damn Ocean?” Was he working for you guys too?

Geno:  and what about the official lie by Israel, “It was an accident. We thought it was an Egyptian ship.”

Reuven: I was not in LBJ’s head, nor was I working for the government of Israel at the time. It’s not my problem. The dead are your problem. I don’t give a damn. We did what we should have done..

Reuven: http://www.israelnationaln​​807. My answer to the loudmouthed bastards in your country’s government: It’s long past time to tell the American government to go to hell and shut the fuck up – in those words. And to take at least 5 American employees at the Embassy hostage – to be held until Jonathan Pollard is released. It is time to play hardball with the fuckers – and crack their heads with the bat.

Next up, watch FBI hidden camera footage on Jonathan Pollard stuffing his last briefcase full of Naval Intel documents.

YouTube – Veterans Today –


Now isn’t that special? Why can’t I have neighbors like this!!! How about you? I bet that if we were all nice and submissive and offered to kiss his butt a lot he might not hit us. But we would probably have to hold others.

Posted in USAComments Off on Will IsraHell Take US Congressmen Hostage for a Pollard Exchange?

Phil Giraldi Spills the Beans on IsraHell Espionage in America


“Over 125 investigations into Israeli Espionage in America… stopped due to political pressure.”…FBI Counter Intel Officer John Cole.

by  Jim W. Dean 





Phil Giraldi stepped out today to do his country a great service and save some honor for the American counter intelligence community.

He put the spotlight  on America’s greatest national security scandal, the decades old investment that Israeli Intelligence has made in attacking its so called America ally by stealing everything it can get it’s hands on.

But there is a second darker side to this first betrayal, and that is their corruption of our own political, Justice and State Department organs to literally act as protectors for them.

As a group they have betrayed the American people, and all those involved should receive long prison sentences for high treason.

Why would they do this you ask?  The reasons are many.  If you wanted to get Congressman Weiner you could supply him a stable of ‘talk dirty to me girls’ to liven up his boring daytime job. Others may want political donations, or government job career enhancement so they can be put in better and better positions where they can provide more important information.  The communists used this tactic in the Roosevelt administration.

And then there are those who are thinking about their second careers.  Many American spies for Israeli, especially government officials, prefer the ever popular deferred compensation program.  Once they have left government service, say like after tweeting some porn around, they want a soft landing in a nice high paid think tank job.

Instead of whip cream on their ice cream sundae they can ask for some Israeli or American defense contractor directorships, or they can even continue spying for Israel by lobbying their former Congressional buddies for classified info which will guarantee them a good slot down the road.

Have any of you ever heard of a top American government official warn Americans to be on the look out for Israeli espionage here, or familiarizing them with the most used recruiting tactics?  No, you haven’t. They are not allowed to do that, thus making a mockery of their oaths of office.

Israeli Spy Meets American Traitor

It is a great tragedy and irony that Anthony Weiner’s Congressional career will be over soon, when the safest crime in America these days is spying for Israel, especially if you are in the Congress, Pentagon or the Whitehouse.

Our sources tell us that FBI counter Intel agents are ordered not to open espionage investigation cases on high government officials because they simply will not prosecute them.

The Israelis are ahead of the curve. They were smart enough to know that there would be loyal American government security people would attempt from time to time to break up some of the top penetration networks. They made sure that these investigations would go nowhere.

That’s right folks, foreign terrorists don’t have the juice to block their prosecutions but an enemy force right here called Israel that we financially subsidize does.  And still they demand that our own people on the public payroll assist them.  I think the word the use of it is ‘chutzpah’!

To them….you are chumps…both to the Israelis and those selling you out to them.  Brother Giraldi will fill you in on more of the details. After his long CIA career he has never been tagged as a conspiracy theorist, and he is well respected in the Intel community.

And when you contact your Congresscritter, be sure to ask him why he or she has never made an inquiry as to why no major Israeli Intel network has EVER been broken up in America.  Ask them if part of the problem might be that Congress has been neutralized through campaign bribery and the rest of us have been left as sitting ducks while they all laugh on their way to the bank.

Department of Justice – For Whom?

To be a chump, or to not be one…that is the question. The bad guys have already placed their bets. We sense a whiff of change coming in the air. The Intel community is ready and waiting to come forward to put a trainload of people in jail. The only thing holding the process up is that there is literally no place to go for prosecution.  Nowhere…that the fix is not already in.

We are going to have to build some kind of new, independent prosecution structure,  answerable only and directly to the public. Our government itself has already been compromised for decades. They will never investigate themselves.  Those I have interviewed are generally just apathetic about it, because it has been going on for so long.

And when a lot of our young aspiring counter intel people learn that our political system protects Israeli espionage here, they leave government service in disgust, as have many of our best FBI people. It’s a national disgrace.

They sold your country out from under you folks.  And to get it back, they will need to be hunted down and removed…all of them who have worked with the Israelis. The numbers are huge and the names involved are big.  So its not going to be pretty.  And if you haven’t figured it out already, they have tons of money, their own private intelligence resources, and they are not going out quietly. They have bet you will be the losers…and to date they have been correct.     –  Jim W. Dean…Veterans Today editor

Paying Off Israel’s Military Bills… June 8, 2011

Presentation by  Phil Giraldi at the Council for National Interest Press Briefing,
“Questioning Military Aid to Israel”

Pentagon Confirms Massive Israeli Espionage

“The Israeli government is actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States.” That was the conclusion of a Pentagon administrative judge in 2006. One very good reason why Israel should not receive billions of dollars in military assistance annually is its espionage against the United States.

Israel, a Socialist country where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications.

US-developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against foreign competitors.


Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of a US adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that incorporated technology developed by American companies—including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile.

There is evidence that Tel Aviv has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program—which was funded by the US taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion—to help the Bejing government develop their own J-10 fighter.

The reality of Israeli spying is indisputable. Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage.” The 2005 report, for example, states:

“Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry.”

It adds that Israel recruits spies, uses electronic methods, and carries out computer intrusion to gain the information. The 2005 report concluded that the thefts eroded US military advantage, enabling foreign powers to obtain expensive technologies that had taken years to develop. Why Won’t They Warn Us About How Much the Israelis are Spying?

A 1996 Defense Investigative Service report noted that Israel has great success stealing technology by exploiting the numerous co-production projects that it has with the Pentagon. “Placing Israeli nationals in key industries … is a technique utilized with great success.”

A General Accounting Office (GAO) examination of espionage directed against American defense and security industries, also undertaken in 1996, described how Israeli citizens residing in the US had stolen sensitive technology to manufacture artillery gun tubes, obtained classified plans for a reconnaissance system, and passed sensitive aerospace designs to unauthorized users.

An Israeli company was caught monitoring a Department of Defense telecommunications system to obtain classified information, while other Israeli entities targeted avionics, missile telemetry, aircraft communications, software systems, and advanced materials and coatings used in missile re-entry. The GAO concluded that Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.”

In June 2006, a Pentagon administrative judge overruled an appeal by an Israeli who had been denied a security clearance, stating,

“The Israeli government is actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States. An Israeli citizen working in the US who has access to proprietary information is likely to be a target of such espionage.”


More recently, FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has reported how many cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department. He provides a “conservative estimate” of 125 worthwhile investigations into Israeli espionage involving both American citizens and Israelis that were stopped due to political pressure from above. Two stories that have been reported in the Israeli media but are strangely absent from the news on this side of the Atlantic demonstrate exactly what is going on and what is at stake. The first report confirms Tel Aviv’s efforts to obtain US technology are ongoing.

Stewart David Nozette, a US government scientist who was arrested in an October 2009 FBI sting operation after offering to spy for Israel, has been waiting in jail to go to trial on espionage charges.

New documents in the case were presented in the Federal court in Washington last year. The documents confirm that Nozette was a paid consultant for Israeli Aerospace Industries and it is believed that he passed to them classified material in return for an estimated $225,000 in “consulting” fees.

Examination of his computer by the FBI revealed that he was planning a “penetration of NASA” the US space agency and that he was also trying to crack into other scientists’ computers to obtain additional classified material.

Israeli Spy – Stewart Nozette

Other documents demonstrate that he was cooperating with two Israeli scientists who were administrators with Israeli Aerospace Industries, Yossi Weiss and Yossi Fishman.

Nozette made several trips to Israel without reporting them, which he was required to do because of his high security clearance. The FBI reportedly also has incriminating letters and other documents that were obtained from his computer.

The second story relates to the pending sale of twenty F-35 fighter planes to Israel. The F-35 is one of the most advanced fighter planes in the world.

The $130 million planes would be purchased with US military assistance money, which means they would effectively be a gift from the US taxpayer. But Israel is balking at the sale reportedly because it wants to install some of its own local content in the aircraft.

The Pentagon has already made some concessions but is disinclined to grant approval for all the changes because to do so would require giving the Israelis full access to the plane’s advanced avionics and computer systems. Israel also wants to independently maintain the aircraft, which would also require access to all systems.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

It would be nice to think that the Pentagon wants to keep the maintenance in American hands to preserve jobs during these tough economic times, but the Defense Department has never cared about US workers before when the issue is Israel.

The real reason for the standoff is that Lockheed-Martin and the Pentagon both know that Israel will steal whatever it can if it gains access. It would then use the technology to market its own products at a price below that of US defense contractors.

The result would be a triple whammy for Uncle Sam: the expensive planes are given to Israel free, the technology is then stolen, and future sales vanish as our Israeli friends market their knock down versions of weapons systems reliant on the stolen technology.

I agree with Congressman Ron Paul when he says “We cannot afford to have ‘business as usual’ when we are bankrupt.” The US-Israel military aid entanglement—what we give, sell, and especially what is stolen—is unaffordable and unjustifiable.

Posted in USAComments Off on Phil Giraldi Spills the Beans on IsraHell Espionage in America

Ex-CIA Phil Giraldi…The Proper Place for Americans


Should Americans Focus More on our Enemies at Home

It is time to replace that story with a gentler tale that the proper place for Americans is in America, not in Afghanistan or Iraq or any other country that displeases Washington’s Mandarins and the beltway punditry.

by  Jim W. Dean

Phil Giraldi weighs in for us again with an ‘all you can eat buffet’ of third rail topics. He puts a harsh spotlight on critical issues that most of our minders would prefer a smoke and mirrors presentation. Fortunately he is not alone as Veterans Today is in lockstep on many of these same issues.

The disconnect of Washington with the rest of the country is a familiar and bipartisanly accepted issue. But in the last few years there has been a significant shift taking place.

I hear a growing discourse developing among Americans who feel their country has slipped away from them. Some of the military people describe it as living under a scenario where we had been conquered in a war, and the victor imposes a Quisling government to rule in their place.

The purpose of an occupying force has historically been to loot the country. And who better to do this than the elitists who had already been devoting their lives to that task. They are the natural bride for the invading groom. The revelations of the Wall Street Financial corruption that walked up the red carpet rolled out by both the Clinton and Bush administrations is now well understood by legions of Americans. They now know the  intimate details of the dirty dancing that was done between our political elite and the Banksters.

When Bill Clinton came in he was disappointed with the Wall Street campaign contributions. So he asked his new Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin ‘what do we need to do to get them on board’. Secretary Rubin instantly responded, ‘Repeal the Taft Hartley Act.’ Clinton ordered him to get right on it. (Source: Dick Morris)

Go Get That Wall Street Money Robert

There have been some grass roots blowback from this, the TeaParty being the most visible. But the political pros were quick to do what they always do to these emerging groups,  co-opt and control them.

The NeoCons quickly constructed a puppet stage with the likes of the old Newt Gringrich and the Neo-sock puppet Sara Palin. The age old way for pulling this off is you just offer to pay for everything. They rarely say no.

The Ron Paul faction, of course, did say no. They are the True Blues, not for sale, and hated the most by the elites.  This is generally how I decide to vote for, whoever the crooked elites hate the most.

Phil Giraldi has made stellar use of his post government years, continuing to serve on the front lines, but where he is his own boss. He has a long and good list to share with you today.

Please pass this around as we need to get more and more people aware of this challenge of being attacked from 360 degrees by a myriad of issues. This is an age old tactic to eliminate any concentration of push back forces.

Once we have figured out what to do and how best to do it, the harsh reality of arithmetic will still rule the day. If we do not have enough people behind it to push, it will come to naught. Teamwork rules.

So let’s work hard, work smart, avoid the constant dogma arguments, and prioritize what will hopefully be the successful retaking of America. It is going to be a huge job because the Mandarins here are wired into their bunkers with interlocking fire.

But those of us here in the non-DC wilderness, we are not without some resources ourselves. We will try to keep the good stuff coming. Let us know what you think in the comments. We need the feed back as we learn from you.

Posted in USAComments Off on Ex-CIA Phil Giraldi…The Proper Place for Americans

Shoah’s pages