Fort Hood Mystery

By Michael Gaddy
LewRockwell.com
11-10–9

The facts as presented by the Army and the media reference the shooting at Fort Hood just don’t compute. While I routinely dismiss any “facts” disseminated by the Army and the state’s propaganda wing, sometimes referred to as the mainstream media, (MSM) there are some glaring inconsistencies in what has been reported about this tragedy.

First is the report the perpetrator was dead and then hours later the revelation that he was still alive. Exactly how long does it take to determine if a person is dead or alive? Could it be no one knew whom the shooter or shooters were and a story had to be concocted for public consumption? What happened to the two other “suspects” that were detained? What did they do to qualify as suspects and more importantly, what information surfaced that led to their release? One of the suspects reportedly stated he “was with the shooter.”

Second is the number of victims from a single shooter. Let us not forget this shooting did not occur at the mall, it occurred on a military installation where the victims had been trained in military tactics and some were combat veterans. We are to believe they did nothing to stop a single shooter and he was allowed to reload several times and continue shooting and the only thing that stopped him was the arrival of a police officer after the gunman had gunned down over 40 people?

And how so very convenient for the state, a perpetrator who was both anti-war and a Muslim; just doesn’t get any better than that. Could this be an example of following the philosophy of Rahm Emanuel on dealing with a crisis?

Third was the shutting down of communications in and around Ft. Hood for hours. While the Army and the media will explain this in various scenarios, it also provided the Army with a chance to create whatever story it was they wanted to provide the public on the terrible tragedy. Of course we all know the Army would never distort or lie about the facts involving the deaths of innocents. Well, there is that My Lai thing. People on the ground have told me cell phone towers were jammed to prevent unauthorized dissemination of information after the shooting. Again, the Army would not want any information contrary to the company line emerging from this disaster.

All too convenient for the Army was the rapid release of negative information related to the alleged shooter. It was said he received a negative evaluation report and that he had caused “red flags” to be raised some months ago concerning emails. Do we know anything this detailed about the “suspects” who were released? The caveat was added that it was unclear as to whether the suspect was the author of those emails. So, months ago, alarms were raised about emails the suspect might have sent, yet, in all those months the Army has been unable to determine who wrote them. Yeah, right. If red flags were in fact raised months ago, why did the Army do nothing? Going back to the 9/11 paradigm, we see the same evidence exhibited: the state had prior warnings but did not act on them. This proves unequivocally the government is either incompetent or complicit in both events. Yet, the state would have us all unarmed and depending on them for protection.

President Obama pledged, “to get answers to every single question about this event” but he also promised an end to signing statements, a transparent government, no more torture of detainees, and many more lies.

There has been speculation on the Internet that the shooting could have been a revolt against the Army from soldiers faced with stop-loss and multiple combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is no evidence to support this theory, there is also no evidence to support the official Army version of events. Suicides among military personnel and veterans are at alarming levels, yet the Department of Defense does more to hide these facts than it does to deal with them.

The last thing the state can let happen is an awakening by its enforcement arm (military and LE) that they are nothing but tools of oppression and in fact, slaves to the monster they serve. While the military is trained and encouraged to kill and bomb in the name of the state, they are forbidden the means of protection for themselves and their loved ones once they are outside the killing zones designated by the state.

All is not normal inside the military community. This is not just seen in our military, instruments of oppression in other countries are revolting as well.

While it is doubtful we will ever learn the truth of exactly what happened at Fort Hood, we know with a degree of certainty the truth will never be revealed by the Army or the media. Could this have been a false flag event to divert the attention of the American public from the debates and planned demonstrations against the health care fiasco? Could it have simply been another MK Ultra event to further demonize the anti-war element in this country and to lay another crime at the current villain du jour: Muslims? Could there be a connection between this alleged shooter and his fellow Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, other than an oblique reference to Cho having a Muslim influence?

One must always ask this question when faced with a story that is issued and controlled by the State: Cui Bono? Wonderful is it not the state is empowered with the unique ability to investigate its own lies and the power of the media and academia to demonize any who would question its veracity, and the support of Boobus, whose livelihood depends on the state’s power to redistribute the wealth of the nation from producers to parasites.

November 9, 2009

Michael Gaddy an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

Guerres « humanitaires », les nouvelles croisades

Jean BRICMONT

dessin : Latuff

Interview de Jean Bricmont par Candice Vanhecke, réalisée dans le cadre de son mémoire de fin d’études en journalisme, à l’Université Libre de Bruxelles (2009) intitulé : Le droit d’ingérence humanitaire dans la presse française. Cas des guerres du Kosovo (1999) et de Géorgie (2008) vues par Marianne et Le Nouvel Observateur.

Candice Vanhecke : Que pensez-vous du traitement médiatique de la guerre en Ossétie du Sud qui a eu lieu l’été dernier ?

Jean Bricmont : Le plus grand mal. En fait, les journalistes ont traité la guerre en Géorgie d’une manière exactement inverse à celle dont ils avaient traité la guerre du Kosovo. Pourtant, la situation en Géorgie était à bien des égards similaire à celle du Kosovo. Dans les deux cas, on était en présence d’une population entrée en dissidence par rapport au pouvoir central. Là où les deux cas divergent, c’est que le Kosovo faisait depuis longtemps partie de la Serbie, tandis que l’Ossétie du Sud a été rattachée à la Géorgie sur des bases administratives à l’époque de l’Union soviétique. C’est pourquoi la volonté des Géorgiens de récupérer l’Ossétie du Sud me semble bien plus discutable que dans le cas des Serbes et du Kosovo.

Ce que les Géorgiens ont fait en Ossétie l’été dernier, c’est un peu comme si aujourd’hui les Serbes voulaient reprendre le Kosovo, ce que je ne souhaite certainement pas. S’ils le faisaient, il y aurait un déluge d’attaques à leur encontre dans la presse occidentale, alors que, quand Saakachvili a décidé de bombarder les Ossètes pour les forcer à réintégrer le giron géorgien, manifestement tout le monde trouvait ça compréhensible. De même, les Russes ont été très critiqués pour être venus en aide aux Ossètes alors que l’OTAN a été félicitée pour avoir soutenu les Albanais du Kosovo. On peut donc s’indigner de la réaction de la presse par rapport à la guerre de Géorgie mais cette réaction n’a pourtant rien d’étonnant.

Elle illustre parfaitement le principe développé par Noam Chomsky et Edward Herman selon lequel il y aurait de « bonnes » et de « mauvaises victimes ». Lorsqu’un crime, qu’il s’agisse d’une guerre ou d’un attentat, est commis et qu’il émane du camp occidental ou d’un allié de l’Occident, les victimes de celui-ci sont considérées comme de « mauvaises victimes », ce qui signifie qu’on ne parle quasiment pas d’elles dans la presse et qu’on va présenter l’événement sous le jour qui nous est le plus favorable. Et la presse réagit de manière inverse lorsque c’est le camp opposé qui commet un crime et fait des victimes. Un bel exemple de ce principe de « bonnes » et de « mauvaises victimes » nous a ainsi été donné récemment avec le coup d’Etat au Honduras. On a présenté le président chassé du pouvoir comme quelqu’un qui voulait monopoliser celui-ci en changeant la Constitution pour pouvoir briguer un nouveau mandat. Or, n’importe quel dirigeant a le droit de vouloir changer la Constitution. Sarkozy l’a fait et personne n’a hurlé au déni de démocratie pour autant.

On constate donc qu’il y a systématiquement une politique du deux poids, deux mesures qui est appliquée par les médias, c’est-à-dire que si ce sont les « ennemis » de l’Occident qui commettent des crimes, qui envahissent leur voisin, etc. alors les victimes sont mises en avant, tandis que dans le cas inverse on en parle peu. C’est quelque chose de totalement prévisible. Pour ce qui est du Honduras, la lutte pour le rétablissement de la démocratie y continue, mais on en parle très peu – comparons seulement avec l’Iran.

Donc cette fameuse notion d’ingérence humanitaire, il n’y aurait que les Occidentaux qui pourraient la revendiquer ?

Chomsky donne l’exemple de l’intervention indienne au Pakistan oriental. Le Pakistan occidental, c’est ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui le Pakistan, et le Pakistan oriental, c’est l’actuel Bangladesh. Dans les années 70, il y a eu une guerre d’indépendance du Pakistan oriental vis-à-vis du Pakistan occidental. Le Pakistan occidental a envoyé des troupes dans la partie orientale, lesquelles ont commis de nombreux massacres. Les Indiens sont intervenus, ce qui a rendu possible l’indépendance du Bangladesh. A l’époque, presque tout le monde en Occident a vivement critiqué cette intervention. Autre exemple : Pol Pot et les Khmers rouges. En général, leurs atrocités sont invoquées pour justifier le droit d’ingérence. Mais ce que l’on oublie, c’est que le régime de Pol Pot a pris fin grâce à l’intervention du Vietnam. Et à ce moment-là, en 1979, les Vietnamiens ont également été très critiqués. On peut discuter de la légitimité des interventions indienne et vietnamienne en termes de violation du droit international – mais c’étaient des interventions qui avaient des effets très humanitaires. Or ces interventions n’ont jamais été considérées en Occident sous cet angle. Presque par définition, le droit d’ingérence n’est légitime que si c’est nous qui l’exerçons.

Le principe de l’ingérence humanitaire autorise l’intervention, y compris militaire, de pays puissants dans les affaires intérieures de pays plus faibles (manifestement, l’ingérence ne peut jamais aller que dans ce sens-là). Or tout le droit international est fondé sur l’idée qu’il faut empêcher ce genre d’intervention, et cela en partie à cause de la politique allemande avant et pendant la guerre. Il ne faut pas oublier qu’une des premières agressions hitlériennes s’est faite en 1938 par l’annexion du pays des Sudètes, partie de la Tchécoslovaquie peuplée à l’époque par une minorité germanophone et germanophile, qui a en général bien accueilli sa « libération » du joug tchèque.

On reproche toujours aux dirigeants français et anglais de l’époque d’avoir accepté cette annexion à Munich mais la question qui s’est posée à ce moment-là, c’était justement de savoir s’il fallait permettre ou non une « ingérence humanitaire » (libérer une minorité qui se considérait comme opprimée). Il faut savoir ce que l’on veut. Ou bien il était légitime que les Allemands viennent en aide à la minorité germanophone en Tchécoslovaquie, et alors l’accord de Munich était acceptable ; ou bien ce ne l’était pas, pour des raisons plus globales de droit international, mais alors on ne voit pas pourquoi certaines politiques actuelles, qui prônent l’ingérence humanitaire, le sont. L’ironie, c’est que l’invocation de « Munich » est la tarte à la crème de la propagande de guerre. Dès qu’on propose la tenue de négociations ou l’acceptation de compromis, par exemple aujourd’hui avec l’Iran, le camp belliciste nous ressort Munich comme paradigme de la lâcheté et de la capitulation face au « Mal ». Alors que Munich était l’acceptation, d’une certaine façon, du « droit d’ingérence » avant la lettre.

Selon vous, l’intervention de la Russie en Géorgie marque-t-elle l’entrée dans une ère où chaque grande puissance autre que les Etats-Unis et l’Europe risque de se lancer dans des guerres sous des prétextes humanitaires ?

Ca, c’est le problème de la boite de Pandore que l’on ouvre mais qu’ensuite on ne sait pas comment refermer, comme l’a dit Chirac lors de l’invasion de l’Irak. Ceci dit, on l’avait déjà ouverte lors de la guerre du Kosovo à laquelle Chirac n’était apparemment pas très favorable. Mais Chirac savait bien que vu la pression des médias, un refus d’entrer en guerre lui aurait coûté la présidentielle face à un Jospin qui, lui, était favorable à l’intervention de l’OTAN.

Bertrand Russell disait que discuter des responsabilités de la Première Guerre mondiale, c’est un peu comme discuter des responsabilités d’un accident de la route dans un pays où il n’y a pas de code de la route. A l’époque en effet, il n’y avait pas ou peu de principes régissant les rapports des Etats entre eux. Rien n’interdisait aux Austro-hongrois d’imposer des conditions telles que celles qu’ils ont voulu imposer aux Serbes. Après l’attentat de Sarajevo en 1914, les Austro-hongrois ont présenté aux Serbes dix impératifs. L’un d’entre eux était similaire à celui figurant dans les accords de Rambouillet avant la guerre du Kosovo, à savoir que la police austro-hongroise pourrait imposer sa loi en Serbie même. Et les Serbes ont accepté les neuf premiers points sauf le dernier. A partir de ce moment, les Austro-hongrois sont entrés en guerre et le reste de l’Europe a été plongé dans la tourmente. En 1999, c’était pratiquement la même chose qui s’est passé, puisque les accords de Rambouillet prévoyaient que les soldats de l’OTAN pourraient bivouaquer, faire autant de manœuvres qu’ils le souhaitaient, etc. en Serbie même. Les Serbes ont refusé et l’OTAN a bombardé la Serbie. Il est vrai que cela n’a pas entraîné de guerre mondiale, mais cela a beaucoup renforcé le militarisme occidental, qui s’est trouvé ainsi, même aux yeux de l’opinion « progressiste », une justification humanitaire. La relative faiblesse de l’opposition aux guerres en Irak et en Afghanistan trouve en partie son origine là.

Alors qu’à l’époque, les médias affirmaient que tous les moyens diplomatiques avaient été épuisés à Rambouillet…

Mais ils font ça à tous les coups ! Anne Morelli explique dans son livre Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre les dix « commandements » de la propagande. Prenez n’importe quelle guerre et vous verrez que ces principes s’appliquent à chaque fois, en particulier celui qui consiste à dire que tous les recours diplomatiques ont échoué. Le problème c’est qu’avec les guerres du Kosovo, d’Irak, d’Afghanistan mais aussi les guerres israéliennes, on a légitimé la guerre comme seul moyen de résoudre les conflits. Lors de la guerre du Kosovo, l’Italie a enfreint l’article de sa Constitution qui dit que « L’Italie renonce à la guerre comme moyen de résoudre les conflits. » Après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, un slogan avait cours en Allemagne : « plus aucune guerre ne partira du sol allemand ». On constate que c’est un principe qui est totalement passé à la trappe. Et qui a fait passer ce principe à la trappe en Allemagne ? Les Verts, en collaboration avec la social-démocratie. C’étaient eux qui étaient au pouvoir à l’époque et Joska Fischer, qui était ministre des Affaires étrangères, était à fond pour la guerre, tout comme Cohn-Bendit d’ailleurs. Seuls les Verts, qui avaient milité contre les missiles dans les années 80 et qui étaient « pacifistes » et « antifascistes », pouvaient légitimer une guerre menée en partie par l’Allemagne contre un pays qu’elle avait occupé pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Si d’autres forces politiques allemandes avaient fait cela, on les aurait soupçonnées de revanchisme ou de militarisme.

Je me rappelle avoir discuté avec un membre important du parti Ecolo (belge) qui n’était pas au courant des accords de Rambouillet. J’en avais pris connaissance sur Internet via des sources américaines. Le New York Times, lui, n’a évoqué le contenu des accords que deux jours après l’arrêt des bombardements . Ce n’est pas un hasard. Avec les moyens dont ils disposent pour accéder aux informations, si les journaux veulent les avoir, ils les ont. Ce qui est d’ailleurs frappant, c’est de voir que des informations de ce type ne sont pas vraiment secrètes. Et ce qui est le plus important pour la critique du militarisme, ce ne sont pas les théories du complot sur le 11 septembre, auxquelles je ne crois pas une seconde, mais les documents publiquement disponibles, comme les accords de Rambouillet ou les « mémos de Downing Street » , qui sont passés sous silence par les médias et malheureusement peu utilisés par les pacifistes.

Après les guerres du Kosovo, d’Irak, d’Afghanistan mais aussi de Géorgie, pensez-vous que le droit international et l’ONU aient encore un avenir ou ont-ils été définitivement enterrés avec ces guerres ?

J’espère qu’ils ont encore un avenir car je ne pense pas que l’agression d’un pays contre un autre puisse résoudre les problèmes, quels qu’ils soient. Premièrement, il faut bien se rendre compte que la plupart des pays du monde continuent à défendre la conception classique du droit international, qui est fondé sur le respect de la souveraineté nationale. De plus, Bush, bien qu’il ait commis des crimes monstrueux, a eu l’avantage si on peut dire, d’avoir mis les Etats-Unis dans une situation impossible ; et pas seulement les Etats-Unis, mais aussi les défenseurs du droit d’ingérence humanitaire. Les règles instituées en 1945 ont été faites pour ne pas connaître à nouveau des situations telles que celle qui avait permis à Hitler d’envahir la Tchécoslovaquie (et à Bush d’envahir l’Irak). On peut évidemment changer ces règles. Mais on ne peut revenir à un état de vide juridique international. Or le droit d’ingérence humanitaire, c’est cela : rien ne définit qui a le droit de s’ingérer, ni à quelle condition et, en pratique, cela revient à légitimer le droit du plus fort.

Un autre problème qui se pose, c’est que cette ingérence n’est jamais mise en œuvre que lorsqu’il y a des intérêts économiques ou géostratégiques qui sont en jeu…

Pour le Kosovo, il n’y avait pas vraiment beaucoup d’intérêts directs en jeu, à part le fait, mais qui est plus idéologique qu’économique, de donner une légitimité « humanitaire » à l’Otan. Evidemment, on peut toujours trouver des intérêts, si l’on en cherche, mais toutes les guerres ne s’expliquent pas par des intérêts économiques ou géostratégiques. Il y a une vraie dynamique idéologique qui sous-tend certaines interventions. La Bosnie a été la cause sacrée de toute une génération ; c’est pourquoi, quand il y a eu la crise du Kosovo, il y avait une véritable volonté d’intervenir « pour des raisons humanitaires », au moins dans les médias et une partie de l’opinion. De plus, on peut dire que c’était une sorte de guerre « de gauche ». Une guerre de gauche menée par l’Otan mais une guerre de gauche quand-même. Joska Fischer et les Verts allemands étaient pour, Jospin l’était davantage que Chirac… Je pense vraiment que l’ingérence humanitaire est une espèce de religion de notre temps. Le christianisme ou la mission civilisatrice l’ont été dans le passé.

Evidemment il y a toujours de l’économie partout donc on peut toujours trouver des intérêts économiques « cachés », si l’on veut. Mais il faut aussi raisonner en termes psychologiques, pour voir dans quelle mesure c’est vraiment l’économie qui est la raison principale des interventions et des guerres. L’argument qui contrecarre l’idée que toute raison de faire la guerre est forcément de nature économique, c’est qu’on peut toujours s’arranger autrement qu’en déclenchant des guerres pour faire du commerce et du profit. Il est par exemple indéniable que les capitalistes américains font des fortunes en Chine et au Vietnam, maintenant qu’il y a la paix entre ces pays et les Etats-Unis. On peut également penser que, s’il y avait la paix au Moyen-Orient, les territoires occupés pourraient être un nouveau Singapour. On pourrait y faire fortune. Il y a là-bas une main-d’œuvre relativement qualifiée et que l’on peut faire travailler à bas prix. C’est cynique de dire cela, évidemment, mais si l’on raisonne vraiment d’un point de vue économique, les capitalistes peuvent faire beaucoup plus de profit en temps de paix que par la guerre. Evidemment, quand il y a une guerre, cela profite toujours aux marchands d’armes et aux entreprises de reconstruction. Mais il faut se rendre compte qu’il y a aussi un aspect irrationnel dans la guerre, y compris d’un point de vue capitaliste global. Lisez Bertrand Russell à ce sujet, il est très intéressant . Il s’est toujours battu contre l’analyse marxiste de la guerre de 14-18 en termes purement économiques parce qu’il était frappé par la part d’irrationnel qui accompagnait cette guerre. Les attachements nationalistes sont une composante essentielle de cette part d’irrationnel. Ils ont peut-être une lointaine base économique mais une fois qu’ils existent, ils ont leur dynamique propre. La Palestine fournit sans doute l’exemple actuel le plus net de ce genre de situations. Il n’y a aucune base réellement économique à ce conflit, ni d’ailleurs au soutien occidental à Israël.

Oui mais à cette époque-là, la Yougoslavie était quand-même une économie fermée et Milosevic refusait de l’ouvrir à l’économie de marché…

Ce n’est pas tout à fait vrai. Ce sont les sanctions internationales qui ont empêché de faire de la Serbie une économie ouverte. C’est une erreur de voir Milosevic comme une espèce de stalinien qui voulait fermer l’économie. Milosevic a hérité d’une économie qui était celle de Tito qui n’était pas franchement fermée mais qui n’était pas non plus tout à fait ouverte. Il a voulu ménager la chèvre et le chou et ne pas vendre son pays à l’encan (comme l’ont fait ses successeurs), mais il ne faut pas oublier qu’il y avait des sanctions contre la Serbie qui dataient de l’époque de la guerre de Bosnie. Milosevic souhaitait faire lever ces sanctions. Si vous subissez des sanctions et que vous voulez les lever, cela signifie que vous voulez plus d’ouverture, pas moins. Je ne vois pas du tout cette guerre comme ayant principalement des mobiles économiques. Je verrais plutôt cela comme une sorte de croisade .

Mais il y avait aussi des raisons géostratégiques, non ?

Oui, les Américains ont maintenant leur base dans les Balkans mais ça leur sert à quoi ?

Il y a quand-même le Moyen-Orient qui n’est pas trop loin…

Pas trop loin, mais pas si près que cela non plus. Ils peuvent mettre des bases dans les Emirats. Ils ont des bases en Turquie, aussi. Si vous allez travailler un jour dans une grande bureaucratie, vous verrez les influences du type bureaucratique qui sont aussi quelque chose qui échappe à l’analyse du type marxiste, économiste, etc. L’armée américaine, c’est, entre autre, une immense bureaucratie. Prenez par exemple les bases américaines au Japon. Depuis la guerre du Vietnam et la détente avec la Chine, elles ne servent à rien. Les Etats-Unis ont des troupes là-bas et les gens jouent au golf… les soldats ont la belle vie. Si vous aimez le sport et êtes un peu macho, c’est la planque parfaite.

Ces bases serviraient donc surtout à maintenir l’idée qu’il y a un empire qui garde le contrôle…

Oui mais il faut aussi voir les intérêts économiques à tous les niveaux, c’est-à-dire qu’évidemment il y a des intérêts économiques, mais ce ne sont pas nécessairement ceux de la classe capitaliste en tant que telle. Il y a les intérêts économiques des gens du Pentagone, des marchands d’armes, des lobbyistes, qui se superposent avec l’idéologie de domination mondiale, pour que, régulièrement, une « nouvelle menace » permette d’obtenir du Congrès une augmentation du budget de la Défense. Et si quelqu’un proteste, la presse lui tombe dessus et affirme qu’il n’est pas patriote. On a donc affaire à une multitude d’intérêts. Mais, dans la mesure où cette politique militariste entraîne des coûts élevés, elle n’est pas nécessairement dans l’intérêt des capitalistes, pris dans leur ensemble.

Marx voyait les gouvernements comme une sorte de conseil d’administration collectif de la bourgeoisie. C’est en partie vrai, mais, de ce point de vue, certaines politiques militaristes et impérialistes doivent être considérées comme de la mauvaise gestion.

Dans le cas d’Israël, par exemple, il apparaît de plus en plus clairement que le lobby sioniste aux Etats-Unis a une influence décisive sur la politique américaine au Moyen-Orient . Le degré d’engagement américain en faveur d’Israël est totalement irrationnel et ne répond à aucun de leurs intérêts. En particulier, Israël n’a jamais aidé en quoi que ce soit les Etats-Unis à contrôler le pétrole. Par ailleurs, cet engagement n’atteint un tel niveau nulle part ailleurs. Ce soutien ne s’explique que par la pression constante du lobby sioniste couplée à la culpabilisation liée aux événements de la guerre de 40-45. Chaque cas doit être analysé séparément. Il n’y a pas de formule générale qui explique les guerres par l’impérialisme ou le capitalisme, même s’il y a de nombreux facteurs dans ces systèmes qui créent des conditions propices aux guerres. Mais les guerres restent (heureusement) des événements relativement rares, comparés mettons aux échanges économiques, qui eux sont constants. Et évidemment, les guerres se produisaient bien avant la naissance du capitalisme.

Jusqu’à un certain point, je vois la guerre contre la Serbie comme la conséquence de l’impérialisme humanitaire, idéologie qui s’est par la suite mélangée avec la lutte contre le terrorisme dans le cas de l’Irak et de l’Afghanistan. En gros, j’aurais tendance à dire qu’on « vend » la guerre contre le terrorisme à la population, qui est assez intelligente pour comprendre que, si on a de l’argent pour faire de l’humanitaire, on a autre chose à faire que la guerre ; et la guerre humanitaire, on la « vend » aux intellectuels, qui sont assez intelligents pour comprendre que la menace terroriste est surfaite. La population a du bon sens, mais manque d’information ; les intellectuels ont de l’information, mais manquent souvent de bon sens.

Donc pour vous, la raison principale à la guerre du Kosovo découlerait surtout de l’idéologie de l’ingérence humanitaire ?

Quand ils ont commencé la guerre, ils ont pensé que cela durerait trois-quatre jours. J’avais entendu à la radio que les Serbes avaient besoin de quelques bombardements pour se retirer du Kosovo. D’après les médias, ils étaient contents qu’on les bombarde, comme ça ils avaient une excuse pour se retirer du Kosovo. Pour les Serbes, le Kosovo avait un caractère quasi-sacré , c’est pourquoi ils ne se sont retirés qu’après un certain temps, sous la menace d’anéantissement complet de leur pays et parce que les Russes les ont laissés tomber. Par ailleurs, les Serbes ont signé, à la fin de la guerre, des accords qui auraient pu être acceptés à Rambouillet et qui n’ont pas été respectés par la suite. En effet, ces accords prévoyaient, entre autre, le retour au Kosovo de mille policiers serbes pour protéger les Serbes du Kosovo, ce qui leur aurait été bien utile, mais qui ne s’est jamais produit.

Dans le déclenchement de cette guerre, les facteurs idéologiques ont joué un grand rôle. Souvent les pacifistes insistent sur les mobiles économiques, réels ou supposés des guerres, sans doute parce que cela montre les fauteurs de guerre comme « vraiment méchants », parce que cupides. Mais si la guerre est plutôt due au fanatisme religieux ou nationaliste ou à des idéologies comme la mission civilisatrice ou l’ingérence humanitaire, je ne vois pas pourquoi cela la rend plus légitime ou sympathique. Et si l’on est persuadé que très peu de gens bénéficient en fait des guerres, même dans les classes dirigeantes, cela renforce les arguments pacifistes. Dans le cas d’Israël, où l’aspect irrationnel est le plus fort, si la classe dirigeante américaine suivait ses véritables intérêts, ce qui pourrait bien arriver un jour, le soutien à Israël s’effondrerait.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are israelis wars waged by their american puppets and european slaves

War criminals and brainmasters of 9/11, Netanyahu and Barak

Ehud Barak – Architect of 9-11

911 was an inside job

English sub French on Fox TV, in french tv the official version is still the true…

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9l1e8_11-septembre-2001-les-usa-decouvren_news

—————————————————————————

—————————————————————————

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: “It’s very good…….Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)”

Based on that phone call, police then issued a “Be-on-the-Lookout” alert for a white mini-van heading for the city’s bridges and tunnels from New Jersey. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals. (9)

When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious “middle-easterners” were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:

The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here’s what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001: American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. (13) “…two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around the George Washington Bridge … The FBI … says enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge.”WMV video download (545kB) It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives (14). What’s really intriguing is that ABC’s 20/20 (15), the New York Post (16), and the New Jersey Bergen Record (17) all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel. But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) (18), and Yediot America, (19) all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel. It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating “middle-easterners” in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five. Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a “get-away van” to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing -the Holland Tunnel- which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 “mystery caller”. A classic misdirection play. From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks. The employee, who declined to give his name said: “I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me.” These guys were like, “Now America knows what we go through.” (20) A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System’s Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System’s customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (21). Suter’s departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks. (22) The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers’ vans are a common intelligence cover. (23). The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. (24) “There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11.” (25)

How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents – here’s the most logical scenario:

Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit World Trade Center 1
CIA Director George Tenet said “You know, this has bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it.” (27)

The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, “experts”, and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable.

We were told that the reason bin Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our “freedom” and “democracy”. The Muslims were “medieval” and they wanted to destroy us because they envied our wealth, were still bitter about the Crusades, and were offended by Britney Spears shaking her tits and ass all over the place!

But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the
9-11 attacks. The BBC published bin Laden’s statement of denial in which he said:

You never heard that quote on your nightly newscast did you?

Bin Laden is not named as the perpetrator of 9/11 by the FBI:

To date, the only shred of “evidence” to be uncovered against bin Laden is a barely audible fuzzy amateur video that the Pentagon just happened to find “lying around” in Afghanistan. How very convenient, and how very fake. (33)

There is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the Al Qaeda “terrorist network” to these acts of terror, but there is a mountain of evidence, both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that Zionists have been very busy framing Arabs for terror plots against America.

If the sovereign foreign government mentioned by Senator Graham was an enemy of the United States the “compelling evidence” would not be kept secret for 20+ years.

One final point; at 09:40 on 9-11 it was reported that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks (35). This claim was immediately denied by the DFLP leader Qais abu Leila who said it had always opposed “terror attacks on civilian targets, especially outside the occupied territories.” (36)

Why would a Palestinian organisation comprising of less than 500 people (37) make the suicidal move of immediately claiming responsibility for the attacks?

The implication of Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks would have handed Zionists a golden opportunity to achieve the above because all Palestinians would have been labelled terrorists.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html?q=fiveisraelis.html

Censorship American Style: Hide the US War Dead from the American People

Wed, 09/09/2009 – 18:28 — dlindorff

The Obama administration’s freak out, as expressed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, over the Associated Press Agency’s belated circulation of a photograph of a dying US soldier in Afghanistan, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, is the latest of example of the hypocrisy of US authorities who claim to be concerned about the feelings of American military families, while really simply desiring to censor the war’s horrors from the eyes of the American people.

Lance Cpl. Josua Bernard, fatally wounded in Afghanistan

The truth: Americans until only the last 18 years, have been able to see the carnage of war as it has been felt by our own troops from as long ago as there were cameras. Pioneering photographer and war chronicler Matthew Bradey brought home the horrors of the US Civil War with photos like this one of dead Union and Confederate soldiers after the Battle of Antietam.

Dead soldiers at Civil War Battle of Antietam, by Matthew Brady

In World War II, while the military tried to prevent publication of the photos of dead American troops at first, by 1944, President Roosevelt lifted the ban, hoping that the images would fire up American resolve on the home front.

Dead US soldiers in World War II

Although it was a much less popular war, photos of American dead were plentiful from the Korean War.

US Dead in the Korean War

Vietnam was awash in press photographers, and the Pentagon never banned them from depicting American casualties.

Dead US soldier being taken from battlefield in Vietnam

In fact, when American policy-makers talk about the “lesson of Vietnam,” they generally aren’t talking about the real lesson of not sending American troops to fight unpopular wars, or of not intervening on the side of corrupt regimes in wars of national liberation, or of not fighting in wars where there is no chance of the US winning. They’re talking about the “lesson” of not letting the American people learn the real nature and cost of the war in question.

That’s why journalists–and particularly American journalists–since Vietnam have been kept on short leashes, and why they are vetted by Pentagon officials and hired media “experts” before they are allowed to be “embedded” with units in the field. It’s why the Reagan administation had a navy destroyer turn its guns on, and threaten to sink a small boat carrying reporters trying to make its way to Grenada to cover the US invasion of that island. And it’s why since the Gulf War in 1990-91, photographs of American battlefield dead have been banned.

AP deserves credit for finally breaking the ban and offering its photo of a dying soldier, shot in a firefight with Taliban fighters in Afghanistan–even if the news agency did wait three weeks to offer the photo to subscribers. The real shame is that so few American newspapers and electronic media organizations chose to run that photo.

Gates claims that AP was “insensitive” to the dead soldier’s relatives, but it’s hard to see how that can be. The real insensitive thing would be to try to hide his death from the public, as the Pentagon wanted to do. Hell, if the Afghan War is worth fighting, it should be worth dying for, and if it’s worth dying for, and if young soldier Bernard gave his life for his country, his death and the manner of his death should not be hidden from his countrypeople. We should all see the terrible price he paid acting in our name.

Were the photographers and news organizations who showed American soldiers dead on the beach in the Pacific in World War II being insensitive?

Life Magazine ran this photo of dead marines in the Pacific in 1943

Were the photographers and news organizations who showed America’s dead in Vietnam being insensitive?

Slain US soldier in a dry rice paddy in Vietnam

Were the photographers and news organizations who showed America’s dead in Korea being insensitive?

Dead Marines in Korea

Was the photographer and news organization which dared to break the ban and publish a photo of America’s dead in the Battle of Fallujah in Iraq being insensitive?

Dead Marines in Fallujah, Iraq

I don’t think so.

Moreover, there is a terrible double standard at work here, if news organizations accept the censorship or deem it inappropriate to show dead American bodies, but go ahead and show dead bodies of the enemy, like these:

Body of dead Viet Cong soldier being abused by US troops

Dead Iraqi fighter

Dead Taliban fighter

After all, if all we see are dead enemy fighters, it might give the false impression that the war in question–in this case the Afghanistan War, or what might now be called Obama’s War–is a one-sided affair where the only terrible casualties are those suffered by the “enemy,” not by “our boys.”

Enough with the censorship! If we are going to be a warlike nation, if we are going to have a public that cheers everytime the government ships off men and women to fight and kill overseas in countries that most Americans cannot even locate on a globe, then let’s make sure that everyone at least gets to see the blood and gore in full, including our own, and of course, also the civilian casualties of our military.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/380

The Truth Of Iraq’s City Of Deformed Babies

Lisa Holland, foreign affairs correspondent

An Iraqi doctor has told Sky News the number of babies born with deformities in the heavily-bombed area of Fallujah is still on the increase.

Tiba pictured after she had her growth removed by doctors in Jordan

Fifteen months ago a Sky News investigation revealed growing numbers of children being born with defects in Fallujah.

Concerns were that the rise in deformities may have been linked to the use of chemical weapons by US forces.

We recently returned to find out the current situation and what has happened to some of the children we featured.

In May last year we told the story of a three-year-old girl called Fatima Ahmed who was born with two heads.

When we filmed her she seemed like a listless bundle – she lay there barely able to breathe and unable to move.

Even now and having seen the pictures many times since I still feel shocked and saddened when I look at her.

But the prognosis for Fatima never looked good and, as feared, she never made it to her fourth birthday.

Her mother Shukriya told us about the night her daughter died.

Fatima died after our first report

Wiping away her tears, Shukriya said she had put her daughter to bed as normal one night but woke with the dreadful sense that something was wrong.

She told us she felt it was her daughter’s moment to die, but of course that does not make the pain any easier.

Fatima’s father had taken his little girl’s hand but it was cold.

“She is gone,” he had said to his distraught wife.

Another girl we met last year was Tiba Aftan who was born with a huge growth across her face.

Now she is a toddler her future is looking brighter having gone to neighbouring Jordan to have it removed.

The growth had covered half of Tiba’s forehead and was invading one of her eyes – and it was getting bigger as she got older.

Although the operation was a success Tiba will need more surgery and the last trip cost her family almost every penny they have.

But since our original investigation, we have built up a new dossier of cases of deformed children in Fallujah born in the last eight months.

There are a wide range of problems – from abnormalities of the abdomen to facial disfigurements.

We have also seen pictures of all kinds of deformed foetuses which have not survived.

Fallujah was heavily bombed in 2004

There is no precise explanation as to what has caused the deformities and there are no figures to compare cases with those a decade or more ago as records were not kept during the time of Saddam Hussein.

All of our evidence is anecdotal, but repeatedly people tell us they believe the deformities must be linked to the heavy bombardment of Fallujah – a Sunni insurgent stronghold – by America in 2004.

People want an independent investigation into the impact of the kinds of weapons used – including controversial white phosphorus.

Yet even since we first started to give a voice to the calls for help from the people of Fallujah things seem to have got worse.

Dr Ahmed Uraibi, a specialist paediatrician in Fallujah, told us that the number of deformities he has dealt with has increased in the last year.

The people of Fallujah want to know how many more deformed babies there will be before someone sits up and takes notice of them.

Click here for a photograph of Tiba before and after her operation:

Continue Reading (Page Expands)

• Video
  3:00

  Sep 01,2009

  Sadness Of Fallujah’s Sick Children

• Aug 05,2009
  

  Docs Save Boy From Deadly Tumour

• Video
  2:00

  Aug 05,2009

  Tumour Boy Who Can Smile Again

• Video
  1:37

  Jun 22,2009

  Baghdad Car Bomb Girl Returns To Iraq

• Apr 12,2009
  

  Iraqi ‘Blind Angel’ Treated In UK

• Video
  2:43

  Jan 29,2009

  Hope For Iraq’s Babies

• Dec 11,2008
  

  ‘Help Our Bright Light’

• Jun 10,2008
  

  Doctors To Study Iraq Birth Defects

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sky-News-Returns-To-Fallujah-Lisa-Holland-Revisits-The-Children-Born-With-Deformities/

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism

This should do it! For the second and last time we are updating the transcript of Ben Freedman’s 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel.

The piece has been posted for over a year now. A few months ago, a person challenged the authenticity of the transcript, because his version stated that Samuel Untermeyer had used the Columbia Broadcasting studios when he declared a worldwide boycott against Germany — in his words: ‘A Holy War’. We could not debate the issue, having never heard the actual recording of Mr. Freedman’s speech. Today, I discovered that we have a cassette tape of the speech, so I listened to the entire tape while reading the posted transcript. According to Mr. Freedman the radio station used by Untermeyer was, in fact, ABC.

There had also been some simple rearrangements of sentence structure in that transcript, and a line or two omitted in places. For the sake of authenticity, the corrections have been made. The transcript is now word for word from Mr. Freedman’s speech.

The original transcriber had ‘tidied up’ Mr. Freedman’s responses during the Q&A period, omitting superfluous and repetitious words. For the most part, we’ve left the tidied up version as it was, since it didn’t change the response, and actually helped to clarify Mr. Freedman’s answers. If the names were changed, he could have been making that speech yesterday.  – Jackie —  April 8, 2003

Here is our first update notice, about a year ago:

The original posting of this speech was taken from an existing web site. In going through our files we recently discovered a full transcript of the speech and realized the original posting was not complete.  Here is the transcript from our files, with additional text at the beginning – some within the body of the speech – and a question and answer section at the end that had not been included in the original posting.  There will be further postings from other writers and quotes that will confirm much of what Mr. Freedman said here.  Many of you will see the truth of it, as it stands.  – Jackie –

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Truth will stand on its own merit

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks

by Benjamin H. Freedman

Introductory Note  – Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century.

Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.  Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before. — K.A.S. —

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech.  This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war.  It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.  Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew.  He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker’s platform to present Benjamin Freedman.

(applause)

[Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity.  I’m not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I’m here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world:  the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.

Now, first of all, I’d like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 — that was shortly before elections — Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America.   In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.

In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.

Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe… when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.

You say, when will that take place?  The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place.  As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.

I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations — and of the ninety-nine nations there, I’ve consulted with maybe seventy of them – and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we’re not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.

And who will these people have supporting them, you ask.  Well, four days after President Kennedy — or he was then Senator Kennedy — made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

Not only that… they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland.  With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group.  That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite.  It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world’s total population.  Eighty percent of the world’s population.  Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us.  And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians… the non-white nations of the world, and that’s what we face.

And what is the reason?  The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government.  For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this — time I’ll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement — the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.

Now, you say, ‘well, that’s a very broad statement to make’, but let me show what happened while you were — I don’t want to wear that out — let me show what happened while WE were all asleep.  I’m including myself with you. We were all asleep.  What happened?

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914.  Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out.  There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years Germany had won that war:  not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply  facing her — and after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied.  They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme.  The Russian army was defecting.  They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar.  And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil.  Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany.  And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms.  They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis.  That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously!   They had no choice.  It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make  if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here.  You can yet win this war.  You don’t have to give up.  You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany.  You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

The United States was not in the war at that time.  We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful.  They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

In other words, they made this deal:  “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us  is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever.   It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916.   October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war.  So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar.   They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!”  But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal.  At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green.  Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good.   They were villains.   They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses.  They were cutting off babies’ hands.  And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson.  We’re getting from England what we want.  Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.”  And that did happen. That’s how the United States got into the war.  We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine.   Now, that is something that the people  in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement.  Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.”   Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years.   So they started to work out a receipt.   The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about.   And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war.   So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill.   And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started.  The United States went in the war.  The United States crushed Germany.  We went in there, and it’s history. You know what happened.  Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.  I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?”  And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration.   So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.”  And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

Now, that brings us to another very interesting point.  When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it.  Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country.   You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family.  You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world.  The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that.  Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”

It was a sellout that I can best compare — suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union.  And we were winning.  And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit.  We offer you peace terms.  Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union.  And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat.  A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass.

Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese?  I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street.  There wouldn’t be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews.  ”We’ve been so nice to them”; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany.  And Germany gave them refuge.  And they were treated very nicely.  And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”

Now, Nahum Sokolow — all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today — they, in 1919, 1920, ‘21, ‘22, and ‘23, they wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that “the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them.”

The Jews themselves admitted that.  It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer.  There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political.  It was economic.  It was anything but religious.

Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisrael” or “Our Father.”  No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States.  Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible.  They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful.  They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.

You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 — three hundred! — small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth.  Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products.  And what happened?  What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: “We must slap down Germany”, because there isn’t one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it.   But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed.  Not a single hair.  Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.

They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well.  And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time.  And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact.  They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews].  They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could?  They shunned them.  The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn’t know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam.  Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933.  And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler!  And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was.  You can’t treat us that way!  And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.”  Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine.  So what did they [the Jews] do?

They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . .  (You want to ask a question? — Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time.  they were called ‘Social Democrats.)

Well, I don’t want to go by what they were called.  We’re now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days.  In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.

Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former — their status — and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone’s head.  The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn’t fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.

Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany.  And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews.  And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money — you know the way the Mark was devalued — they bought up practically everything.

Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States — who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference —  and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:

“The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany.  We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans.  And we are going to starve them into surrender.  We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.”

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported.  Their labor.  So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page — a whole page — in the New York Times on August 7, 1933,  Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense.  President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA” . [National Recovery Administration]  – which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it.

In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted.  If anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs: “Hitler”,  ”murderer”, and so forth,  and like — something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany”.  Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I’ve been observing women’s legs in the last twenty years, I haven’t seen a pair with cotton stockings on them.  So Macy!  I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “MURDERS”  and “HITLERITES”, and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany.  There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, “Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill?  Who are they to do that to us?”  They naturally resented it.  Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be?  Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany.  And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that —  I don’t like to use the word ‘anti-Semitism’ because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it — the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three — did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott — and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It’s going to be Christian or it’s going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: “We’re going to keep it Christian if possible”.  And they started to re-arm.

And there intention was — by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 — the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: “Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.”  The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.”

And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom?  Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.

Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination.  I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons.  A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT.  One million tons of TNT is a megaton.  Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT.  That was when they were first developed five or six years ago.  Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

So, what do we face now?   If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished.  And why will it take place?  It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III.  Act I was World War I.  Act II was World War II.  Act III is going to be World War III.

The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government.  Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it’s known all over the world.

Now, what are we going to do?  The life you save may be your son’s.  Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe.  Did you know it at that time?  Not a person in the United States knew it.  You weren’t permitted to know it.

Who knew it?  President Wilson knew it.  Colonel House knew it.  Other ’s knew it. Did I know it?  I had a pretty good idea of what was going on:  I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

I was ‘confidential man’ to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.  So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby.  And that’s how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.

Now, at this moment… at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don’t stand a chance even if they don’t use nuclear bombs.  How can the United States — about five percent of the world — go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground?  How can we do it… send our boys over there to be slaughtered?  For what?  So the Jews can have Palestine as their ‘commonwealth’?  They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” That is correct.   I don’t know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury.  If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews.  I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.  If Jesus was a Jew, there isn’t a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.

Now what happened?  The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia.  And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe — and to reduce this so you don’t get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe — they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles.  Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.

Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy.  I don’t want to go into the details of that now.  It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.

Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either  Christianity, Islam — the Moslem faith — or what is known today as Judaism — really Talmudism.  So, like spinning a top and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,”  he picked out so-called Judaism.  And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people — 800,000 thousand square miles — and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews.  There wasn’t one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time.  Not one of them!  And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

“Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God’s  chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland,  It’s your Christian duty.  We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior.  You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.”

Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted].  And it’s just as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems.  Fifty four million!  And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.

Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves  ’Arabs’.  Imagine! Why, you’d say they’re lunatics.  Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy.  All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

The same as the Irish.  When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren’t different people.  They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe.  They likewise, because their king took the faith — Talmudic faith — they had no choice.  Just the same as in Spain:  If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic.  If not, you had to get out of Spain.  So everybody — they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system — so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!

Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God’s chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.”

Now, could there be a bigger lie than that?  Could there be a bigger lie than that?

And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough.  You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white.  And nobody could blame you.

Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.  Because after two wars fought in Europe — World War I and World War II — if it wasn’t possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for?  Did they have to — like you flush the toilet — because they couldn’t get along, did they  have to say, “Well, we’re going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us”?

I can’t understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I’m telling you.  But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don’t care whether you know all this or not.  It doesn’t make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me.  I’ve got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don’t want them to go and fight and die… like they died in Korea.  Like they died in Japan. Like they’ve died all over the world.  For what?

To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years?  Is that why the United States must go to war?  Because the Democratic Party wants New York State — the electoral vote?  Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?… which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?

In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists.  And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes.  Now, I don’t blame Mr. Kennedy.  I’m fond of Mr. Kennedy.  I think he’s a great man.  I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him.  And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows.  He’s playing with the enemy.  Like when you go fishing, you’ve got to play with the fish.  Let ‘em out and pull ‘em in.  Let ‘em out and pull ‘em in.  But knowing Mr. Kennedy’s father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don’t think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.

But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate — not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy.  And tell him, “I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen”.  I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do.  But I don’t think it’s necessary to do that.  You’re above the average group in intelligence and I don’t think it’s necessary to impress this any more.

But. . . I want to tell you one more thing.  You talk about… “Oh, the Jews.  Why the Jews?  Christianity.  Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion”.  But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day… and I was one of them!  This is not hearsay.  I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser.  I’m here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it’s the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre.  In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months  shall be null and void.

The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.

And further than that, the Talmud teaches: “Don’t forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that”.

How much can you depend on their loyalty?  You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

And we’re going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.  You can’t depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge.  Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this.  Tomorrow’s going to be a long day.

Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: “well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it.”  Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I’m telling you.  And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement.  And when I couldn’t find a newspaper to take them — I paid cash, not credit — what happened?  My lawyer told me, “There’s an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement”.  So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that’s how I met him.

So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: “Well, I think he’s a little anti-Semitic.  I don’t know whether I can get him over here.  So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.

Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications.  I say it without any reservations.  And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn’t for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with “Common Sense” — he’s been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year — if it wasn’t for the work he’s been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires.  Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through “Common Sense”.

Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could.  I’m not as flush as I was.  I cannot go on spending the money. . . I’m not going to take up a collection.  Don’t worry.  I see five people getting up to leave.  (laughter)

I haven’t got the money that I used to spend.  I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out.  Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally.  So I said, “With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job”.  So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them.  Well, there’s always a bottom to the barrel.  I suppose we’ve all reached that at times.

I’m not so poor that I can’t live without working and that’s what worries the Anti-Defamation League.  I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line.  But Mr. McGinley is working.  He’s sick and he’s going at this stronger than ever.  And all I want to say is that they want to close up “Common Sense” more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.

So I just want to tell you this.  All they do is circulate rumors: “Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of ‘Common Sense’.”   The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don’t send any money to Common Sense. They don’t need it.  The’ve got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer.  That all has strategy.  They don’t want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off “Common Sense”. And all I’m telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven’t been able to.  And I will be very honest. One thing I won’t do is lie.  In the last year I’ve had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.

How he’s managed to survive, I don’t know. God alone knows.  And he must be in God’s care because how he’s pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don’t know.  But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of “Common Sense” go out with a new message.  And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around.  Plow that field.  Sow those seeds, you don’t know which will take root, but for God’s sake, this is our last chance.

[Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going.  He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials.  He then asks for questions from the audience.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Question inaudible]

Freedman:  All right, I’ll comment on that.  This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I’m going to make an attempt.  In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea.  Judea was a province of the Roman Empire.  Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius.  Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.

Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as ‘j’, and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts ‘ghu’.  Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic… all those languages.  Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn’t exist.  Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean.  I’ve seen those early… the earliest scripts available.

In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English.  There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read?  It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages.  Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English.  But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.

There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence.  There was no Judea.  People had long ago forgotten that.  So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as ‘gyu’, “jew”.  At the time, there was no printing press.

Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes… I have them all here.  If you want I can read them to you.  I will.  That word ‘gyu’ which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ‘ gyu ‘,  then ‘ giu ‘,  then ‘ iu ‘ (because the ‘ i ‘ in Latin is pronounced like the ‘ j ‘.    Julius Caesar is ‘ Iul ‘   because there is no ‘j’ in Latin) then ‘ iuw ‘,   then ‘ ieuu ‘,  then ‘ ieuy ‘,  then ‘ iwe ‘,  then ‘ iow ‘,  then ‘ iewe ‘, all in Bibles as time went on.  Then ‘ ieue ‘,  then ‘ iue ‘,  then ‘ ive ‘,  and then ‘ ivw ‘, and finally in the 18th century… ‘ jew ‘.  Jew.

All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin.  Now, there was no such thing as ‘Jew’, and any theologian — I’ve lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe — there was no such word as Jew.  There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was ‘gyu’  – Jew.  A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a ‘lab’, and gasoline ‘gas’… a tendency to short up.

So, in England there were no public schools; people didn’t know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it.   Now for a theologian to say that you can’t harm the Jews, is just ridiculous.  I’d like to know where in the scriptures it says that.  I’d like to know the text.

Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews.  What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews — the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers — they weren’t Jews, as I just explained to you.  They were Eastern Europeans who’d been converted to Talmudism.  There was no such thing as Judaism.  Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible].  No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism.  It didn’t exist.   They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.

Just like ‘anti-Semitic’.  The Arab is a Semite.  And the Christians talk about people who don’t like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites.  The only Semites in the world are the Arabs.  There isn’t one Jew who’s a Semite.  They’re all Turkothean Mongoloids.  The Eastern european Jews.  So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I’ll convince him and it’ll be one step in the right direction.  I’ll go wherever I have to go to meet him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, ma’am.  Well… I can answer that.  First of all, your first premise is wrong.  Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong.  Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish ‘race’; that they are the Jewish nation;  that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.

But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony.  In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot.  A civil war.

The Eastern Europeans said, “What the hell.  We should give up Kol Nidre?  That gives us our grip on our people.  We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, ‘Go to hell.  We’ll make any deal you want’, but they don’t have to carry it out.  That gives us our grip on our people”.  So, they’re not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .

Now, I’ll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race.  Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who — on behalf of the British Cabinet — negotiated the deal with these Zionists.

And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it.  The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry… who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief.  That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian ‘race’?  or a Christian religion?… or are the Christians united?

So the same disunity is among the Jews.  And I’ll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it.  That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal

————————————————

[Question inaudible]  Freedman:  You know why?  Because if they don’t, they’re decked up.  They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don’t . . . oh, you’re anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.

In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building.  And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name.  Then, the buyers are told, “When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven’t got a gold star, tell them that you won’t buy from them until they have the gold star”.  BLACKMAIL.  I don’t know what else you can call it.

Then what do they do?  They tell you it’s for ‘humanitarian purposes’ and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible.  So if they hadn’t sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax.  So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit — that air pocket — the gullible Christians have to make up.

They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax.  Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government.  So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland?  And you say, “Oh, well.  The poor Jews.  They have no place to go and they’ve been persecuted all their lives”.  They’ve never been persecuted for their religion.  And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me.  Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.

Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England?  King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds.  For four-hundred years there wasn’t a Jew.  But do you know why they were driven out?  Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it’s a sin to charge ‘rent’ for the use of money.  In other words – what we call interest [usury] is a sin.

So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn’t pay, they [Jews] foreclosed.  And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders.  So the king finally said — and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library.  When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders.  Edward the First.  And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.

But it got worse and worse.  So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, “I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders.  If they’re killed you have to pay me, because I’m his sole heir”.  That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out.  There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that’s how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.

When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did.  He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland.  So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion.  It has never happened.  It’s always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Yes, sir.  Well, they say most of those things themselves.  It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it.  Most of those things they say themselves.  But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.

When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object.  The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.

When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that’s the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia — who they were — that they had practiced this Talmudic faith — the Christians in Western Europe said, “They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!”

And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that — and he’s probably as good an authority on that subject as there is.  So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland.  And every word of it is true… they say it themselves.  I can give you half a dozen books they’ve written in which they say the same thing:  When they have money they become tyrants.  And when they become defeated, they become ruthless.  They’re only barbarians.  They’re the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.

What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did?  The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that.  There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn’t want that.  When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.

There was no need for that.  But they thought, “Now is the time”, and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word ‘Bolshevism’, you’ll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution.  One of them is, “Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you’ve got”.  It would pay you to read that.

You’d also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement.  And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement.  Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he.  And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Well, I can’t advocate that you do anything that’s criminal, but I can tell you this.  You can start what I call an endless chain.  If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement:  Mr. Kennedy’s office gave me this himself.  Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office — was in his office — and gave me this.  He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:

“For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th”.  ”Israel is here to stay.  It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party.  The White House must take the lead.  American intervention.  We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor.  I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation”.

Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression?  Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that?  Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.  Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed — the Texans were disarmed — and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo.  What would the United States say?

Would we say it’s aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves?  Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other.  Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?

Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, “No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!”, or “No, those Mexicans are in Texas.  they declared themselves a sovereign state.  Leave them there.  You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada.  Settle somewhere else”.

Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes?  So now, you’ve got to write to President Kennedy and say, “We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations — fifteen times in the last twelve years — called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms”.

[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

USAF Vets Talks About What Hit The Pentagon On 9-11

By James P. Tucker, Jr.
American Free Press
7-31-9

A veteran Air Force mechanic called to help clean up the Sept. 11, 2001 explosion at the Pentagon says the U.S. government’s blaming a plane for the damage makes no sense. The evidence was staged, he said.

He agreed to a face-to-face interview with AFP on condition he not be identified for obvious reasons: the Air Force would punish him severely (the same military harshness that gagged survivors of the 1967 USS Liberty attack for many years).

The airman, a tech sergeant, is richly experienced in hazardous waste cleanup, having been deployed twice to Afghanistan in the first Persian Gulf war under President Bush the Elder and, later, under George the Younger. He has 17 years of Air Force service.

The scene at the Pentagon “doesn’t look right,” the airman said. “There was only a piece of engine and sections of landing gear on the ground. It was like they were placed there. Where were the wings? Tail section? We expected to find a lot of debris but there was very little.”

There were “two massive engines” from planes that had, according to the government, penetrated the Pentagon “but the holes were too small” for that to be true, the airman said. The holes in the Pentagon were of the size made by Predators-the remote-controlled spy planes used in Iraq and Afghanistan-he said.

He indicated agreement with numerous construction experts interviewed by AFP who say the planes that struck the Twin Towers in New York could not have caused them to collapse as they did and bombs had to have been set off from inside.

Another oddity he noted was the story of young Israeli citizens, in this country illegally, who had set up a tripod camera on the roof of the warehouse where they worked and trained their camera on the Twin Towers shortly before the attacks. Witnesses told police the boys celebrated the attacks by joyfully jumping and slapping hands. Police held the men overnight and they were returned to Israel the next day. All this was reported in the mainstream media, but the story was immediately dropped. How did these Israelis know where to be and when to film the Trade Center disaster.

His “first instinct” is still with him. The airman told AMERICAN FREE PRESS: “We attacked ourselves to set up the invasion of Iraq.”

If true, this is the exact definition of treason, the penalty for which is death.

US public against Afghanistan, Iraq wars

As the Obama administration struggles to handle the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a majority of Americans are against the long-fought wars, a new poll says.

The AP-GfK Poll released on Thursday showed that 63% of respondents oppose the war in Iraq and 53% oppose the war in Afghanistan.

This is while 34% favor the Iraq battlefield and 44% favor the conflict in Afghanistan, according to the poll.

The survey also revealed that 56% of Americans approve President Barack Obama’s handling of the situation in Iraq and 55% approve his handling of Afghanistan. Both numbers are down just slightly since April.

July is already the deadliest month of the war for both US and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons.

Seven and half years after the US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan to allegedly root out the country’s militancy US Vice-President Joe Biden in an interview with the BBC said that groups based on Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan could ‘wreak havoc’ on the US and Europe.

“In terms of national interest of Great Britain, the US and Europe, (the war) is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt,” he added.

The US Vice President also warned “there are more to come” and US and UK casualties could be expected to climb.

The poll has been released days after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that the Obama administration will risk losing public support for the war in Afghanistan if the coalition forces fail to turn the situation around within a year.

The poll was conducted July 16-20 and involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 adults nationwide.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=101507&sectionid=3510203

Is a false flag in preparation to turn US public for the war  and hide the economic and dollar collapse??