Eyes in Gaza: What We Saw, What Can You Do?

Zionist troops are there indulging in atrocities so horrible that the entire liberal opinion of the world stands aghast and raises the query once more whether ‘israel’ can really be trusted with the powers of self-government


Featuring Dr. Mads Gilbert Dr. Gilbert will address the US role in Israel’s ‘Operation Cast Lead,’ the use of illegal weapons on a civilian population; the ethics of weapons’ sales to countries that have used or tested weapons illegally; the aftermath of Cast Lead and the continuing siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip 3 years on.

It will include details of Dr. Gilbert’s January 2012 visit to Gaza 3 this past January, and information on the recent International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) decision not to prosecute the Israeli government or military for war crimes carried out against thousands of Gazans, their homes, businesses and land during the three week illegal assault on the Gaza Strip.

Dr. Mads Gilbert will also look at the broader, regional context of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle within the ‘Arab Spring’.

Mads Gilbert is a renowned Norwegian Physician long known for his studies on children and infants in time of war.

He received his PhD at the University of Iowa, is a specialist in anesthesiology and a leader of the Emergency Medicine Department at the University of Tromso in Norway since 1995.

In addition to his research and practice at Tromso hospital in Norway, Dr. Gilbert co-founded NORWAC, a Norwegian-Palestinian humanitarian aid organization.

He worked in an underground Palestinian refugee camp hospital in Beirut during the 1982 Israeli invasion and bombardment of Lebanon and again in Beirut during the Summer 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon.

He and his colleague, Dr. Erik Fosse, were two of only a small handful of westerners in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead from Dec. 27th 2008 to January 18th, 2009. Both testified as expert witnesses at subsequent Human Rights Committee Sessions held at the United Nations in Geneva after the attack.

An in depth description of the WMDs injuries and deaths, condition of Gaza hospital etc.

How ‘IsraHell is shaping Biden’s Iran policy

First published … March 10, 2021

While Joe Biden the candidate wanted to quickly normalize relations with Iran and re-enter the JCPOA, Joe Biden the president has, as the developments that have happened so far, deviated from his stated course of action.

To a large extent, Biden has appropriated Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy and has refused to lift sanctions on Iran and simply make the US a part of the Iran nuclear deal.

To a significant extent, this dramatic change in policy, while not completely surprising for the Iranians, is a result of the way Israel is pushing the Biden administration away from reconciliation and normalisation.

In fact, a crucial reason for Biden’s appropriation of Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy is the way the Israelis have very quickly implanted their own discourse vis-à-vis Iran in the mindset of the Biden administration.

Echoing what the Israelis have been saying for years, Anthony Blinken recently remarked that Iran was only “weeks” or “months” away from making a bomb.

Blinken and constituents

Although there is a huge difference between having the capacity to build a bomb and actually building and using a bomb, the US sees this [doubtful] proximity to building a bomb as a crucial factor that has made the Biden administration change its plans from re-joining the JCPOA to emphasising renegotiations. It has led it to refuse to lift sanctions.

The hard-line position that the Biden administration has taken feeds directly into the Israeli narrative.

What Blinken said matches perfectly with what Israeli officials have also recently claimed.

According to a recent assessment issued by Israel’s Militray Intelligence Directorate, “Iran may be up to two years away from making a nuclear weapon if it chooses to do so.”

The report further says that Iran’s current enrichment level brings it closer to various “breakout” estimates about how quickly it could enrich uranium to 90%, and also begin to build better missiles and a weapons system that might lead to a nuclear weapon.

For Israel, therefore, it is of utmost importance that the US remains focused on the “violations” that Iran has committed by enriching uranium beyond the limits imposed by the JCPOA.

A recent report of The Jerusalem Post thus sums Israel’s current approach.

It says, “What is important for Israel is that the brinkmanship continue, and that Iran’s violations and Israel’s concerns continue to be recognized.

For that to happen, it is also important for close US-Israel cooperation and discussion in order to prevent nuclear proliferation by the Tehran regime.”

The report refers to an IDF intelligence officer Maj.-Gen. Tamir Heiman who said in a briefing on the IDF assessment that Iran is at an unprecedented low point and is “battered, but on its feet,” following actions carried out by Israel and the US.

Tehran is banking on the Biden administration for some breathing room. It is incumbent on the US – and Israel – to make sure that is not allowed to happen for nothing.”

Now, the fact that the Biden administration has refused to take a step back and lift its sanctions to pave the way for the US’ re-entry shows how closely the US and Israel are already coordinating their policies vis-à-vis Iran.

The Biden administration’s announcement that the US would not re-join the agreement or even lift sanctions unless Iran halts enrichment dovetails perfectly with what Netanyahu had said just before the US elections.

To quote him, “There can be no going back to the previous nuclear agreement. We must stick to an uncompromising policy of ensuring that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons.”

The Biden’s administration’s capitulation to Israel’s uncompromising policy vis-à-vis Iran has led Iran to stick to its own path. An official Iranian statement released on February 28 said that:

“the way forward is quite clear. The US must end its illegal and unilateral sanctions and return to its JCPOA commitments.

This issue neither needs negotiation, nor a resolution by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to actions with action and just in the same way that it will return to its JCPOA commitments as sanctions are removed…”

The hardening of US and Iranian position serves Israeli interests in the best possible way. An unresolved nuclear power tussle in the Middle East would keep Israel at the centre stage of regional politics.

Given Israel’s recent rapprochement with the UAE and other Gulf states, tensions in the Gulf would not only reinforce Israel’s direct security ties with these Gulf states, but the scenario could very well make other Gulf states join The Abraham Accords.

Tensions with Iran, therefore, could allow Israel to establish itself as the new regional hegemon.

Israel has already got supporters in the form of not only the UAE but Saudi Arabia as well.

They have both stated that they would be open to a deal only if it went well beyond the previous one. According to them, any deal, in addition to putting limits on Iran’s nuclear program, must include provisions aimed at reversing Iran’s ballistic missile program, ending its “meddling” in other countries and the militias it supports in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.

Israel, as it stands, is already leading the Gulf states in lobbying the US for an agreement that not only limits Iran’s nuclear program, but also curtails its national power potential in many other ways.

As some reports in the US mainstream media show, the Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen, and a team of experts will soon travel to Washington to brief senior American officials about what they see as the threats still posed by Iran, hoping to persuade the US to hold out for harsher restrictions on Iran in any deal.

Iran, on the other hand, is unlikely to change its position vis-à-vis any new deal, especially the one that tends to force it into a virtual capitulation.

China and Russia continue to support an unconditional US return to the JCPOA in exchange for Iran’s return to full compliance with the deal.

An unconditional return “is the key to breaking the deadlock,” said Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China’s foreign ministry, in a recent news conference.

But “breaking the deadlock” is not what Israel and its allies in the Gulf are seeking to achieve.

They are pushing the US to adopt a policy that keeps the deadlock alive unless Iran’s power and regional influence can be fully and permanently curtailed.

For the Israelis, the path to Iran’s capitulation demands a US capitulation to Israel first so that they can shape the US policy in a way that best serves their interests. So far, the Israelis have been successful.

The Power To Make War

by Andrew P. Napolitano Posted on March 11, 2021

Two weeks ago, while the House of Representatives was finalizing its 700-page legislation authorizing the Treasury to borrow and spend $1.9 trillion in the next six months, and the Senate was attempting to confirm more of President Joseph R. Biden’s cabinet nominees, Biden secretly ordered the Pentagon to bomb militias in Syria.

The United States is not at war with Syria. It is not at war with the militias that were bombed, and it didn’t seek or have the permission of the Syrian government to enter its air space and engage in deadly military activities.

Biden later claimed that the bombing was conducted as “a lesson to Iran,” another country with which the U.S. is not war.

His campaign promises to the contrary notwithstanding, Biden has followed in the footsteps of his immediate predecessors.

They bombed civilians in an aspirin factory in Kosovo (Clinton), bombed civilians in Iraq (G.W. Bush), bombed military targets and government buildings in Libya and bombed a cafe in the Yemen desert targeting an American who was having tea (Obama), bombed the same location as Biden in Syria, and bombed a convoy of trucks in Iraq targeting an Iranian general who was on his way to lunch with an Iraqi counterpart (Trump).

All of these bombings and targeted killings violated the US Constitution, the U.N. Charter – which is a treaty largely written by the US, and to which the US is a signatory – and international law.

What is going on with American presidents and war?

The Constitution specifically separates the power to make war from the power to wage war.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 spent more time debating this than any other topic – beside the makeup of Congress. In the end, they were adamant and unanimous that only Congress can declare war and only the president can wage war.

Congress cannot tell the president how to deploy the military, and the president cannot use the military against foreign targets without a congressional declaration of war.

James Madison – the scrivener at the Convention – famously offered that if a president could declare war and wage war, or even use the military to target any foreign entity he wished, then he would be a king, not a president.

He argued that war exacerbates the president’s “strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses.”

And when he drafted the Bill of Rights, Madison had the presidency in mind when he wrote in the Fifth Amendment that the government may not take life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Taken together, the exclusive constitutional delegation of war-making to Congress and the Due Process Clause absolutely restrain the legal ability of the president to use violence in another country without a declaration of war from Congress; and in the case of violence against an American, without a conviction by a jury and all the constitutional protections attendant upon that. And, against civilians – never.

When President George W. Bush decided to invade Afghanistan in retaliation for what he argued was providing haven and resources for those who planned, paid for and carried out the attacks on 9/11, he first went to Congress. Congress did not declare war on Afghanistan.

Instead, it enacted a resolution called the Authorization to Use Military Force of 2001.

That authorized Bush and his successors to use the military to target the perpetrators of 9/11 wherever and whenever they found them.

Unlike traditional declarations of war, the AUMF of 2001 did not have an endpoint, and that is its fatal flaw.

Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Biden disingenuously cited it as their legal authority to bomb Middle Eastern targets that had no conceivable relationship to the perpetrators of 9/11.

When Bush sought to invade Iraq to locate and destroy what he claimed were weapons of mass destruction, Congress enacted another AUMF in 2002. It, too, has no endpoint.

Last week, a bipartisan group of senators offered legislation to repeal both AUMFs and Biden has indicated that he will sign the repeal. That is a good start toward taming the executive appetite for military violence, but it is not enough.

Under international law and the natural law, the US may only use force defensively.

That means it may attack the military of a foreign country or group that has attacked the US or an ally, and it may attack the military of a foreign country or group that is imminently about to attack the US or an ally.

Those are the only instances in which the president may deploy US forces for violent purposes without a congressional declaration of war.

Congress must do more than just repeal the two AUMFs if it believes that the Constitution means what it says.

Congress needs to repeal the War Powers Resolution of 1973 – which purports to permit presidents, upon notification to Congress, to wage 90-day offensive wars, in violation of the Constitution and international law.

Congress needs to prohibit absolutely the unauthorized presidential expenditure of money and deployment of armed personnel on any nondefensive violent actions.

I say “personnel” rather than “military” because modern presidents have often used the CIA to fight wars and argued that because those wars did not involve the military, no congressional approval or notification was needed.

Congress should criminalize such presidential violence and the expenditures of resources to support it, as it is a crime to kill without lawful authority. And Congress should call nondefensive killings – by the government or anyone – by their legal name: Murder.

 

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2019 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO – DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

israel’s top military chief has ORDERED Biden not to return to the Iran nuclear deaL

Another headline for the same story:
World War 3: Israel military chief orders plans to attack Iran – Biden given ultimatum
ISRAEL is ready to launch an attack on Iran and has warned the US against a return to the Iran nuclear deal. Historically, the israel regime will bait the US regime into war. This Zionist imperialist outpost is like NATO: all the allies must come to it’s aid and support anything israel does. That’s the rule. israel doesn’t ask us.

Israel’s top military chief has said the army is preparing to combat the threat posed by Iran and has ordered US President Joe Biden not to return to the Iran nuclear deal – even if the accord is strengthened.

Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz told Fox News that the Israeli military is updating its plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program and is prepared to act independently.

United States is only superpower in the world and it gives billions of aids to Israel every year. it is easy to believe U.S. is the boss of Israel. However, israel is doing what ever they want in the middle east. We are trapped in Iraq and now there is Iran. And they opens a new front in Lebannon and bomb that little country to hell.

Gantz falsely portrayed Iran’s recent steps to advance its civilian nuclear program as the Islamic Republic racing to develop a bomb, something he said Israel would stop.

“If the world stops them before, it’s very much good.

But if not, we must stand independently and we must defend ourselves by ourselves,” he said.

Gantz cited nuclear activity that Iran is willing to quickly reverse if the US lifts sanctions and returns to the nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.

But Gantz, like most Israeli officials, is opposed to a revival of the agreement.

Israeli officials have been making veiled threats about attacking Iran if President Biden rejoins the JCPOA.

Other incidents in the region that are being blamed on Iran are causing some to fear that Israel might be preparing an attack sooner rather than later.

Without providing evidence for the claim, Israel blamed Iran for an explosion on an Israeli-owned cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman that happened last week.

No crew members were hurt, and the ship was back at sea a few days after the incident.

When asked about possible retaliation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was “striking at” Iran throughout the region.

On Wednesday, Israel blamed Iran for another incident in the region.

Israeli Environmental Protection Minister Gila Gamliel claimed Iran was responsible for a large oil spill that hit Israel last month.

Surprisingly, Israeli military and intelligence officials doubted Gamliel’s claim, as did other officials in the Environmental Protection Ministry.

Regardless of whether Iran was responsible or not, Israel could be planning a strike against the Islamic Republic over the two incidents.

Sources told Business Insider that the Biden administration and its European allies are fearing that Israel is planning a “substantial” attack on Iran.

Hello Biden: A War With Iran Predicted

Since the days of the Tower of Babel, there has been no defilement in the world like the defilement of Zionism. ~Rabbi Yehuda Greenwald

Terrorist acts, economic sabotage and the nuclear threat all violate the Charter of the United Nations, but Israel is the only member state of that organization that does not to abide by its rules, and has not done so for three quarters of a century.

The designation of regular Americans, who exercised their right to protest on Capitol Hill, as “Domestic Terrorists”, along with Biden’s plan to introduce a “Domestic Terrorism” bill or Patriot Act 2.0, seems to be in preparation prior to bombing Iran and thereby cowering the opposition and preventing “right-wingers” (aka the millions upon millions who voted for Trump and are against such a war) from protesting in mass.

“And as the inevitable companion to Patriot Act 2.0, there will be war overseas,” predicts Pepe Escobar.

So prepare for a possible war with Iran under Biden. A war that could start by hitting Syria first. And since Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact, Iran would be dragged in, followed by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

All in all, the ultimate target is Iran, the head of the axis of resistance against Apartheid Israel’s destructive expansion in the Middle East.

Bahrain opposition rejects Israel normalization, calls for resistance

Thousands of Bahrainis have flocked to the streets of Manama today in what they called “The Friday of Resisting Normalization” in protest against the normalization deal between their regime and the occupation state. The protesters raised the flag of Palestine and chanted slogans in solidarity with Palestine.

Although of the strict security measures, thousands of Bahrainis took part in the protests that started following Friday prayers and marched throughout the capital.

The protesters held signs that read “normalization is betrayal” and “we reject humiliation and surrender to the dictates of the US and UK”.

The kingdom of Bahrain has signed an agreement to normalize ties with the occupation state last September, following another deal between the UAE and the occupation state.

A group of Bahraini political and civil society associations, including the Bahrain Bar Association, on Sunday voiced their opposition to the deal in a joint statement.

“What results from normalization will not enjoy popular backing, in line with what generations of Bahrainis have been brought up on in terms of adherence to the Palestinian cause,” the statement said.

America’s Costliest Wars Unjustified and ‘Stupid’

The decision by the US to fight both of those “stupid” wars was made by powerful people in government and industry for their own selfish economic and political purposes.
The little people who actually had to do the fighting and dying had no say in the matter and either went because they had to, or volunteered because they had been lied to and convinced that it was the patriotic thing to do.
These US soldier testimonies educational, heartbreaking and valuable.


In the latest scandal precipitated by Commander in Chief Donald Trump — a man who notoriously got a doctor to lie for him about his having debilitating “bone spurs” so he wouldn’t have to serve in the military during the Vietnam War — we have a president who is the leader of the military but who, it is reliably confirmed, has disparaged the people who fought in those wars.

He has called them “losers” for being killed or captured in battle. He has declined to memorialize them.

He has had wounded veterans kept out of military parades because he felt vets in wheelchairs and on walkers or crutches or missing limbs “are not a good look.”

He has called soldiers who served in Vietnam “losers and suckers” for going and fighting and dying there, since, as he knew from his own experience, the draft was “easy to get out of.” 

And he has declined to visit the graves in France of US dead from WWI, calling them “losers” for getting killed. 

It’s all pretty outrageous, particularly for a man who as president of the US, has for four years been sending American military personnel into battle or keeping them in battle zones in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe, creating more dead “losers” in the process.

But let’s also at least acknowledge that, whether by accident or not, the president did say two correct things, for which he should not be criticized.

One was that Vietnam was a “stupid” war.  The other was that, in the case of World War I, it was hard to know “Who were the good guys in this war?” 

Braindead US pundits have reflexively attacked the president for saying these things about these two wars as though that is a sacrilege and somehow an insult to American veterans, but they’re wrong.

Those wars were indeed both stupid and unnecessary.

There are two issues to be raised here. One is the national policies and leadership that have historically sent Americans abroad into battle to kill, fight, be maimed for life and even to die.

The other is the behavior in battle of those soldiers who have been dispatched to fight America’s wars.

And let me be clear: Trump’s dismissal of WWI and Vietnam as “stupid” wars is not indication that he is anti-war.

His unilateral abrogation of the multi-national agreement with Iran on limiting its nuclear power program, his pull-out from the Reagan-Gorbachev Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, his continuation of President Obama’s trillion-dollar nuclear-weapons “modernization” and development program, his creation of a US Space Force, officially militarizing outer space, and his record expansion of the US military budget make it clear that he is as much a warmonger as most of his predecessors.

That still doesn’t mean we should criticize the two valid criticism he has made about two of America’s major wars.

Trump’s problem, as a man of supreme self-importance with a complete lack of human empathy, is that he cannot see the difference between criticizing a war, and criticizing the soldiers who had to fight in it.

To Trump, a man who casually used his father’s money and connections to escape a draft that less wealthy and powerful young men couldn’t avoid, those who ended up in the “stupid” Vietnam War probably deserved whatever happened to them.

They were to Trump “losers and suckers” for ending up in Nam. The same for the soldiers and marines who ended up being chewed up on the front line trenches in France during World War I.

I happen to know a bit about World War I and the sacrifices US fighting men made. My maternal grandfather, a gifted athlete who had a potential Olympic opportunity as a sprinter that was forfeited because of the war, was hit with mustard gas on the front which left his lungs scarred for life, ending his athletic career.

He wound up being a coach and head of the athletic program for the school system in Greensboro, NC.  My other grandfather on my father’s side earned a silver star for heroically driving an ambulance on the front lines in France through that war, rescuing allied and German wounded.

It was an experience so horrible that my father, a Marine in WWII, said his dad never once spoke of it to his children.

My silver-star grandfather, the son of two German immigrants to this country, who died in his 40s of colon cancer, probably had no idea why he was fighting soldiers from the nation of his parents; origin. Trump is right that there was no real moral issue in that most bloody of wars.

It was simply a war of competing empires — the old British and French and Italian ones on one side, and the rising German and Austria-Hungarian one, aided by the declining Ottoman Empire on the other. 

(The picture was complicated by the convergent timing of the Russian Revolution which ousted the Tsar and eventually led to the Communist government which sued for peace and left the field of battle, only to become the target of the WWI victors, including the US, after the so called Great War ended in 1918.)

I know a bit about the Vietnam War too, as a war resister who decided before my 18th birthday that the US invasion of Vietnam was a criminal enterprise against a nation simply seeking independence and that I would not allow myself to be drafted to fight in it.   

Trump, certainly not for any intellectual or moral reason (which would be beyond him),  is nonetheless correct that both wars were stupid and never should have been fought.

But that doesn’t make the men who fought and died in those wars “stupid” or “losers.”

First of all, most of the people who fought for the United States in those wars were drafted into the military. They went because they had little alternative.

Those who enlisted “voluntarily” were often driven to do so by the promise of a job or out of a sense of patriotism —  itself the response to massive government and media propaganda.

In the case of WWI, the target of that propaganda was the “evil Germans” while with Vietnam, it was about an imagined “Communist menace” that we were warned would sweep the globe if Vietnam, half a world away, were to “fall” under the sway of that alien ideology of worker revolution against the rich.

We can say that American military enlistees were brainwashed or deluded in volunteering to fight such wars, but that doesn’t make them “losers” or “suckers.” 

In fact many American soldiers, sailors and marines have shown themselves in battle to be courageous, selfless in defending their comrades in arms, often noble in extending compassion and generosity to those that they have captured or defeated, and heroism in risking or sacrificing their own lives in order to save others. 

(Of course there are plenty of examples of US soldiers, just as with soldiers of other countries, behaving criminally and brutally, but that too, is not a reflection on soldiers in general.)

The point is, as Commander in Chief, President Trump, himself a draft-dodging liar, has demeaned, as a class of people, American soldiers for whom he, as their commander and chief policy maker when it comes to sending them into battler or ending the battles they are engaged in, has exhibited a reprehensible disrespect for their service and their sacrifice.

But at the same time, let’s not condemn the president for the two truthful things he has said in this latest Trump scandal:  that the Vietnam War and World War I should never have been fought. 

It’s no dishonor to those who fought, died or were gravely injured in those wars that they fought in them.

The decision by the US to fight both of those “stupid” wars was made by powerful people in government and industry for their own selfish economic and political purposes.

The little people who actually had to do the fighting and dying had no say in the matter and either went because they had to, or volunteered because they had been lied to and convinced that it was the patriotic thing to do. 

They deserve to be honored for doing their duty or for going beyond the call of duty for what they at least thought was right, and Trump should be tossed out of the White House and his role as Commander in Chief for mocking them and dishonoring them.

At the same time, let’s also acknowledge that this nation still has a great reckoning that is overdue. We all need to recognize too the honor, courage and heroism of those brave people who, when the war drums were beating in the early days of World War I, and during the late 1950s and early 1960s as US involvement in the Vietnam War grew and through the course of those two wars, struggled to oppose them, who refused to fight them, and who as a result lost jobs, went to jail, left the country, were deported, and were condemned by the more deluded of their fellow citizens.

We especially need to honor those servicemen and women who, once in the military, realized the true nature of the wars they were being sent to fight, and who refused to continue, either deserting or simply refusing to fight, facing arrest and prison, a life of struggle with a dishonorable discharge, exile and public disrespect.

Destroying Libya to ‘save it’

“If separation is not possible, Israel will increasingly run the risk of becoming a binational, Arab-Jewish state. That would compromise the Zionist mission and its Jewish-democratic ethos, and tear at the fabric that has bound America and Israel together.”

The White House’s policy advisor and Israeli lobby official Dennis Ross claimed that “up to 100,000 people could be massacred, and everyone would blame us for it.”
Ross has produced no proof of a massacre—and Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen both confirmed, “We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.”
Russian military has been monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, and they say that the claimed “slaughter” is imaginary. CIA √

Libyans are already reeling from nine years of conflict in which families have been bombed out of their homes, health care facilities have been destroyed, infrastructure has crumbled, and the economy has collapsed, Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said at the end of a visit to the country this week.

“In Benghazi and Tripoli, I saw first-hand how civilians are suffering because of the catastrophic consequences of this conflict,” said Maurer. “

Neighbourhoods on the former front lines in Tripoli are badly scarred and families have little if anything to return to.

People are also at risk of being killed or injured by dangerous unexploded munitions. At the same time, infrastructure all over the country is falling apart.

People have little electricity, drinking water, sanitation, or medical care in the middle of a growing pandemic.”

In Benghazi, Maurer met with Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA), followed by a meeting in Tripoli with Fayez Al-Sarraj, head of the Presidential Council and Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord (GNA) of Libya.

In Benghazi, he also met leadership of the Libyan Red Crescent, which has been playing a role in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

The conflict has battered Libya’s health system. Hospitals and clinics have been damaged in the fighting, while others were forced to shut their doors because they were close to the frontlines.

Other facilities are decaying from underinvestment.

The Anger Campaign Against China

Nothing was permitted that might prevent the successful recruitment of American soldiers for a war that only the Jews wanted.

Larry Romanoff • August 6, 2020

Introduction

It shouldn’t be a secret, though it still seems to be, that neither of the two World Wars were started (or desired) by Germany, but were the creation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany.

However, that thesis is not the purpose of this essay and I will not expand on it here, but the content should prove to the average reader that World War I certainly fits this description.

The main purpose of this essay is to demonstrate not only that ‘history repeats itself’ but that the history being repeated today is a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (but most especially Americans) in preparation for World War III – which I believe is now imminent.

In 1940, these European Zionist and media owners (hiding behind the stage-set of the UK government) initiated what they called an “anger campaign” with the stated cause of “instilling personal hatred against the German people and Germany”, the related parties pleased that the original 6% of the British population that ‘hated Germany’ increased to over 50% by the end of the campaign, and it didn’t stop there.

The radio waves were full of descriptions of the “cruelty and blackness of the German soul”.

There were articles in the British newspapers advocating the “systematic extermination of the entire German nation” to be carried out after the war ended.

Thus, after victory over Germany, every person of German extraction was to be executed and the nation of Germany itself to disappear forever.

Those executions were actually begun – Eisenhower’s Death Camps, followed by the Morgenthau Plan, both of which eventually failed.

The methods of “instilling personal hatred” of Germany was perhaps too successful.

The anti-German hysteria became so severe that King George V had to change his German name of ‘Saxe-Coburg’ to ‘Windsor’, and relinquish all his German titles.

It wasn’t only the US and UK where this hatred of Germans was being propagated.

In countries all around the world, the media spread the same message of hatred against Germany and the Germans.

Teams of ‘specialists’ were following the same script in most other nations, all instilling massive hatred for the Germans who were in every nation vehemently portrayed as evil incarnate, this nature stemming merely from the fact of their being of German origin.

In Brazil, anti-German demonstrations and riots consumed the country, with German businesses being destroyed and Germans being assaulted and killed.

In almost every nation, the German-language press and use of the German language completely disappeared during the war from fear of reprisal, as did all German schools and most businesses.

None re-opened. Brazil initially was determined to remain neutral, but a newly-created university student union was co-opted and used with such great effectiveness that within a year Brazil declared war on Germany.[9]

In Brazil, the US, Canada and Australia, many names of towns, streets, foods, were changed to eliminate their German origin.

Throughout the world, as in the US, false wartime propaganda was used during both World Wars to incite entire populations into an irrational hatred of everything German, even to the extent of powerful media recommendations that the entire German race be exterminated – in all nations.

With all of this and much more, America was a hotbed of hatred for the entire German population.

After the Second World War, Germany was widely accused of using propaganda against the Jews, while our history books have airbrushed out the massive and unspeakably evil storm of worldwide hate propaganda against Germans by the Jews prior to and during both World Wars. Details below.

The Origins of Mass Manipulation of the Public Mind

Many years ago, the Jewish-American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind.

This was the beginning of not only the American hysteria for freedom, democracy and patriotism, but of all manufactured political opinion, a process that has been operative ever since.

Lippmann created these theories of mass persuasion of the public, using totally fabricated “facts” deeply insinuated into the minds of a gullible public, but there is much more to this story.

An Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of Lippmann’s most precocious students and it was he who put Lippmann’s theories into practice.

Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass manipulation of the public mind.

Bernays claimed “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind” it will be possible “to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it”.

He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the ‘engineering of consent’, and to accomplish it he merged theories of crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud.

Bernays regarded society as irrational and dangerous, with a “herd instinct”, and that if the multi-party electoral system (which evidence indicates was created by a group of European elites as a population control mechanism) were to survive and continue to serve those elites, massive manipulation of the public mind was necessary.

These elites, “invisible people”, would have, through their influence on government and their control of the media, a monopoly on the power to shape thoughts, values, and responses of the citizenry.

His conviction was that this group should flood the public with misinformation and emotionally-loaded propaganda to “engineer” the acquiescence of the masses and thereby rule over them.

According to Bernays, this manufactured consent of the masses, creating conformity of opinion molded by the tool of false propaganda, would be vital for the survival of “democracy”. Bernays wrote:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.

Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

People are governed, their minds molded, their tastes formed, their ideas suggested, largely by men they have never heard of.

This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner .

In almost every act of our daily lives we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.

It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

In his main work titled ‘Propaganda’, which he wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy because individuals were inherently dangerous (to the control and looting of the elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit.

He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy to accomplish. He wrote further that:

“No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any … wise idea.

The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by … those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion.

It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.

Fortunately, the … politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people.

So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that [they produce] an irresistible pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless.

And it wasn’t only the public masses that were ‘inherently dangerous’, but a nation’s leaders fit this description as well, therefore also requiring manipulation and control.

Bernays realised that if you can influence the leaders of a nation, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you can control the government and the country, and that is precisely where he set his sights. Bernays again:

“In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power.

There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions.False Prophets Invisible People mLP - YouTube

It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.

Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities.

The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses.”

And in this case, the “few” are the wealthy industrial elites, their even wealthier banker friends, and their brethren who control the media, publishing and entertainment industries.

Until the First World War, these theories of creating an entirely false public opinion based on misinformation, then manipulating this for population control, were still only theories, but the astounding success of propaganda by Bernays and his group during the war laid bare the possibilities of perpetually controlling the public mind on all matters.

The “shrewd” designers of Bernays’ “invisible government” developed a standard technique for what was essentially propaganda and mind control, or at least opinion control, and infiltrated it throughout the US government, its departments and agencies, and its leaders and politicians.

Coincident with this, they practiced infecting the leaders of every identifiable group – fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social – and encouraging these men to likewise infect their supporters.

Many have noted the black and white mentality that pervades America.

Much of the blame must be laid on Bernays’ propaganda methods.

Bernays himself asserted that propaganda could produce rapid and strong emotional responses in the public, but that the range of these responses was limited because the emotional loading inherent in his propaganda would create a kind of binary mentality, eventually forcing the population into a programmed black and white world – which is precisely what we see in the US today.

This isn’t difficult to understand. When Bernays flooded the public with fabricated tales of Germans shiskababbing babies, the range of potential responses was entirely emotional and would be limited to either abhorrence or perhaps a blocking of the information.

In a sense, our emotional switch will be forced into either an ‘on’ or ‘off’ position, with no other reasonable choices.

The elite few, as Bernays called them, realized early on the potential for control of governments, and in every subsequent US administration the president and his White House staff, the politicians, the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies, all fell prey to this same disease of shrewd manipulation.

Roosevelt’s “intense desire for war” in 1939 was the result of this same infection process and, once infected, he of course approved of the infection of the entire American population.

Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

Bernays – Marketing War

In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays’ war effort.

At the time, the European Zionist Jews had made an agreement with England to bring the US into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant the Jews the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland.

Palestine did not ‘belong’ to England, it was not England’s to give, and England had no legal or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless.

US President Wilson was desperate to fulfill his obligations to his handlers by putting the US into the First World War as they wished, but the American population had no interest in the European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating.

To facilitate the desired result, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (The Creel Commission), to propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America, but Creel was merely the ‘front’ of a group that consisted of specially hand-picked men from the media, advertising, the movie industry, and academia, as well as specialists in psychology.

The two most important members were Walter Lippman, whom Wilson described as “the most brilliant man of his age”, and Bernays who was the group’s top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this game.

Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud’s psychiatric insights with mass psychology blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control.

It was Bernays’ vast propaganda schemes and his influence in promoting the patently false idea that US entry to the war was primarily aimed at “bringing democracy to all of Europe”, that proved so successful in altering public opinion about the war.

Thanks to Edward Bernays, American war marketing was born and would never die.

Note to Readers: Some portion of the immediately following content which details the specifics of the propaganda of Lippman and Bernays for World War I is not my own work. It was extracted some years ago from a longer document for which I cannot now locate the original source. If a reader is able to identify this source, I would be grateful to receive that information so I can properly credit the author for his extensive research.

“Wilson’s creation of the CPI was a turning point in world history, the first truly scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire population.”

With Wilson’s authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out “a program of psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about”.

Having received permission and broad authority from the US President and the White House to “lead the public mind into war”[21] and, with their success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment among the public, these men determined to engineer what Lippman called “the manufacture of consent”.

The committee assumed the task to “examine the different ways that information flowed to the population and to flood these channels with pro-war material”.

Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication, since the Committee had the power not only to officially censor news and withhold information from the public, but to manufacture false news and distribute it nationally through all channels.

In a very short time, Lippman and Bernays were well enough organised to begin flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature, movies, songs, media articles and much more.

According to Bernays, the key was to dehumanize and demonize the German people by filling American minds with fabricated tales of horror.

The compliant media, largely Jewish-owned, obediently carried fake stories of poisoned candy being dropped from airplanes, German soldiers skewering babies like shish kebabs, the raping of nuns, and so much more.

Eventually, the stories were accepted as true and the public’s natural resistance to war was overcome.

They [Bernays and his group] practiced revealing fabricated stories of atrocities, false accusations of terror and brutality against any nation or people they wanted the public mind to view as “the enemy”, then tested and evaluated public reactions to their manipulations of this false propaganda.”

In his 1922 book Public Opinion, Lippman wrote, “The only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event … For it is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities.”

And it was this psychological manipulation that these men employed to turn an entire nation of peaceful Americans into rabid war-mongers.

The historical record of this years-long tapestry of lies and hate has been quite well buried, and the White House, Congress and the Committee conspired after the war to destroy most of the evidence of their crimes, but I believe both America and the Jews will one day need to openly acknowledge this chapter of history.

Because of Bernays, atrocity propaganda – the deliberate spreading of fabricated evils and inhuman war crimes – became the foundation of the Committee’s efforts. Harold Lasswell wrote,

“So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about who the public is to hate … if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity.

It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.”

Of course, the causes and aims of the propaganda were far more evil than anything the supposed ‘enemy’ had contemplated, but the goal was to not only invent an enemy but to make that enemy “appear savage, barbaric, and inhumane”, and thus worthy of destruction.

“Halt communist aggression in Vietnam” United Front in Support of South Vietnam, 1968

Usually, the compliant media repeat and embellish the stories without attempt at confirmation and, in virtually every instance, later attempts to confirm the atrocity tales prove fruitless with researchers able to uncover no evidence whatever of the events, the Bryce Report being typical, the entire catalogue of “authoritative documentation of German atrocities” suddenly disappearing without a trace when time came to confirm them.

Lippman and Bernays divided their Committee into nineteen ‘divisions’, each responsible for a different type of propaganda, and each utilizing the abilities of vast numbers of psychologists, advertising experts and media personnel.

The intention was to flood every means of communication with the goal of inciting hatred of everything German and to promote American entry into the war as the only option for patriotic Americans.

Their new Committee produced tens of thousands of articles filled with anti-German hate propaganda and literally stuffed every part of US print media with them .

In an average week more than 20,000 newspaper columns carried entirely false propaganda articles produced by the Committee, promoting hatred of Germany and Germans, describing atrocities that had never occurred and painting Germans as vicious and inhuman monsters.

The Committee enforced a powerful self-censorship in the American media by implementing “voluntary guidelines” meant to suppress contradictory content.

They created a ‘Syndicated Features’ Division employing popular writers to produce essays containing “official” propaganda, and which reached 10 to 15 million people each month.

Another division was responsible for the cartoon sections of newspapers and other media, with the stated intention to “mobilize and direct the scattered cartoon power of the country for constructive war work”.

They employed thousands of cartoonists who “achieved new heights in hate-mongering”, picturing the Germans as primitive and evil animals who stole, killed or raped everything they encountered.[28]

They created a similar Division for cinema that resulted in the production of dozens of outrageous and virulently anti-German movies, hate films containing completely fictional tales of atrocities and bestialities committed by the Germans.

This was the source of the movie scenes where Germans (and Japanese) machine-gunned brave American pilots while parachuting to the ground.

None of these tales were ever true; these and many more were total fabrications.

Then, as now, the motion picture industry in the US was mostly controlled by Jews, who were eager to assist.

One Jewish editorial stated that “every individual at work in this industry wants to do his share” and that “through slides, film leaders and trailers, posters and newspaper publicity they will spread that propaganda so necessary to the immediate mobilization of the country’s great resources”.

In addition to movies produced by the film studios, the CPI created its own Film Division which produced 60 or 70 “official” films that were viewed by many tens of millions of people each week.

They created an Advertising Division to influence general commercial advertising, and which inserted anti-German war propaganda into advertising in newspapers and magazines which often gave them free space, with almost every major US publication carrying a large quota of these ads.

They also produced and distributed many thousands of ‘official’ press releases, virtually functioning as the information arm of the US government and were in fact the major provider of war news to the nation.

They enlisted the aid of most of America’s Christian religions that were more than eager to cooperate in warmongering as they had always done.

Lippmann and Bernays organised the “Four Minute Men”, with 75,000 volunteers delivering nearly 8 million prepared brief speeches on German atrocities in schools, movie theaters, churches, synagogues, union halls, anywhere and everywhere.

Bernays claimed they delivered nearly 8 million speeches to about 315 million people. A huge amount of this was conducted by Jews. See the extensive note

They created a ‘Division of Work With The Foreign Born’ to reach all immigrants in the country in their own languages, and used members of these communities to propagandize their own people, and especially targeted all military-age foreigners who might be conscripted in a war. Lippman and Bernays wrote:

“It is a matter of pride to the Committee on Public Information, as it should be to America, that the directors of English, French, and Italian propaganda were a unit in agreeing that our literature was remarkable above all others for its brilliant and concentrated effectiveness”.

They used farmers to appeal to farmers and businessmen to appeal to businessmen. In total, their speakers gave more than 7 million speeches to more than 300 million Americans, all provoking hatred of Germany and Germans, and urging war.

After many of these emotional travesties, people from the audience would gather into mobs that would attack and destroy German homes and businesses in their city.

The Committee particularly targeted women, establishing a major women’s Division to counter female resistance, from fear that women “might constitute a subversive element in the nation, detrimental to wartime unity and the smooth functioning of [mandatory military conscription]”.

Through their close media contacts, they controlled the cover and much of the content of many women’s magazines, which they used to encourage women to send their sons to war, claiming he would return as “a man” instead of as a corpse.

They created a music division and hired thousands of songwriters to create songs with anti-German lyrics, then again milked their media contacts to have these played constantly on the nation’s radio stations.

Another division was responsible for public library content, tasked with the removal of all German books, including the works of famous German authors and philosophers.

Everything favorably German was censored, removed from public accessibility, or destroyed.

Perhaps the division most indicative of the moral bankruptcy of these men was their work with public school children.

They heavily utilised psychologists in programs to spread hatred of Germany throughout America’s public school system where small children were taught the full gamut of Bernays’ hateful propaganda, then used as traveling salesmen to visit other schools and spread the propaganda to their classmates, instilling totally fabricated tales of German atrocities into the minds of all small children.

After these inflamed propaganda sessions, many American children demonstrated their “patriotism” by attacking German-Americans in groups and stoning them, sometimes being congratulated by local newspapers for “doing their duty”.

Bernays’ group published many thousands of children’s books and comics containing the most vile and hateful propaganda lies.

Sunday School children were given coloring books depicting and encouraging violence against Germans. Libraries sponsored anti-German children’s’ ‘story hours’ that used hate propaganda supplied by Bernays.

Bernays’ Public literature attacked everything German in America, including schools and churches.

In many schools the German language was forbidden to be taught to “pure Americans”, and administrators were urged to fire “all disloyal teachers”, meaning any Germans.

The names of countless towns and cities were changed to eliminate their German origin: Berlin, Iowa became Lincoln, Iowa.

German foods and food names were purged from restaurants; sauerkraut became ‘liberty cabbage’; dachshunds became ‘liberty dogs’ and German Shepherds became ‘Alsatians’.

All American orchestras were ordered to eliminate from their performances any music by classic German composers like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

In some states, the use of the German language was prohibited in public and on the telephone.

German professors were fired from their universities, German-language or German-owned local newspapers were denied advertising revenue, constantly harassed, and often forced out of business.

The ‘patriotic’ Boy Scouts of America contributed to the effort by regularly burning bundles of German newspapers that were on sale, and Germans were regularly insulted and spat upon by other citizens.

Bernays instituted a program of questioning the patriotism and loyalty of all Germans in America, labeling any with anti-war views as prima facie evidence of treason.

Germans were forced to gather in public meetings and denounce Germany and its leaders.

They were forced to purchase war bonds and publicly declare their allegiance to the US flag. As Bernays’ rhetoric reached dangerous levels, the anti-German hysteria and violence increased proportionately.

Many Germans were forcibly removed from their homes, often torn from their beds during the night, taken out into the street and stripped naked, beaten and whipped, then forced to kneel and kiss the American flag.

Many were tarred and feathered, then forced to leave their cities or towns. Some were lynched from trees. Priests and pastors were dragged out of their churches and beaten for giving sermons in German.

The anti-German hysteria had people seeing spies everywhere, with House and Bernays greatly inflaming this trend by preparing Wilson’s infamous “Flag Day” speech where he claimed “The military masters of Germany have filled our unsuspecting communities with vicious spies and conspirators and have sought to corrupt the opinion of our people”.

Newspaper editors were screaming that all Germans were spies who were poisoning American water supplies or infecting medical shipments to hospitals, and that most “ought to be taken out at sunrise and shot for treason”.

Congressmen recommended hanging or otherwise executing all Germans in America, State Governors urging the use of firing squads to eliminate “the disloyal element” from the entire state.

The US Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels stated that Americans would “put the fear of God into the hearts” of these people.

Most Americans are aware that during the [again Bernays-induced] national hysteria during the Second World War the US government forced more than 100,000 US-born Japanese into concentration camps, but history has deleted the fact that many more Germans were interned in concentration camps in the US prior to and during the First War, and again during the Second World War, after which all their assets were seized.

While Bernays was “making the world safe for democracy”, that safety was not meant for Americans.

Under the coaching of Col. E. M. House who was Wilson’s Jewish handler, Wilson passed oppressive legislation including the Espionage Act and Sedition Act that were entirely fascist in content and which made illegal anything that might hinder American entry into the war.

Freedom of speech and assembly, and press freedom virtually disappeared from America during this time, it eventually becoming illegal to say or write anything critical of the US government, its officials and even its “symbols”.

Any expression of objection to American entrance into the war would result in a fine of $10,000 (ten years’ average wages at the time) or 20 years in prison, with much of the policing power given to what were in effect private vigilante groups like the infamous American Protective League that operated virtually without oversight.

The suppression of public opinion and of dissent, and the control exercised on anti-war communication was universal.

The Espionage Act stated “Every letter, writing, circular, postal card, picture, print, engraving, photograph, newspaper, pamphlet, book, or other publication, matter or thing of any kind containing any matter which is intended to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States is hereby declared to be non-mailable.”

Nothing was permitted that might prevent the successful recruitment of American soldiers for a war that only the Jews wanted.

With all of this and much more, Bernays and Lippman turned America into a hotbed of hatred for the entire German population, accomplishing the goal of the Zionist Jews to use the US military as a tool, their own private army, in the European war to fulfill their ambition for Palestine, and thus these two men changed the course of history.

This wouldn’t be the last time Lippman and Bernays would use these techniques against Germany.

This massive attack was repeated little more than ten years later to destroy Germany and push it into yet another war the Germans didn’t want.

In the 1930s, the same Jewish European bankers with largely the same agenda wanted the US to join another war they planned to initiate against Germany .

In 1933 they embarked on an extensive worldwide commercial war intended to destroy Germany financially, with newspaper headlines reading “Judea Declares War on Germany”.

[33][34][35][36] They had already induced in Roosevelt “an intense desire for war”, but were having the same problem again with the unwilling American public, hence the “anger campaign” referred to earlier, and they repeated the German atrocity stories in all Western countries until almost the entire world wanted to kill all Germans.

Bernays theories and the template for the manipulation of public opinion would form the plan and pattern that the US government would use repeatedly for the next century to successfully deceive the American public about its motivations and actions in more than 100 military adventures, and to blind everyone to the tragic results of America’s brutal foreign policy.

In all of this, Lippman and Bernays were not working independently or without guidance.

Prior to their massive ‘war effort’ in the US for World War I, they had operated a successful pilot test case in the UK, using British newspapers owned by Rothschild and other Jews, to determine the efficacy of their methods.

The plan to mass-engineer public opinion began in a propaganda factory at Wellington House in London in the early 1900s, with Lords Northcliffe and Rothmere, Arnold Toynbee, and of course our two war-marketing geniuses Lippman and Bernays.

It was from this source that the scheme was hatched to force the Rothschild’s privately-owned Federal Reserve banks onto the US Congress, and that trained and coached Lippman and Bernays on the methods of molding American public opinion to push the US into the First World War for the promotion of Zionism.

Bernays’ book ‘Propaganda’ offers a clear vision of his training, not only for war marketing but for the pathology of American consumption, automobiles, the hysteria of patriotism and much more.

Wellington House eventually morphed into the Tavistock Institute, which was created at Oxford University in London by the founders of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Round Table, and was essentially a kind of mass brainwashing facility beginning as a psychological warfare bureau.

It was the Tavistock Institute’s studies in psychological programming that were used to create and then exploit a grand mass hysteria during the cold war, evoking fearful delusions of a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union that even led to millions of Americans building bomb shelters in their back yards.

In Tye’s biography of Bernays, he wrote that “It is impossible to fundamentally grasp the social, political, economic and cultural developments of the past 100 years without some understanding of Bernays and his professional heirs.”

Funding reportedly came from the UK Royal Family, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, and eventually included the formation of trans-Atlantic relationships.

At various periods, memberships in the Tavistock Institute, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Rothschild’s Round Table, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Stanford Research Institute, the Trilateral Commission and NATO, were interchangeable.

They also created the ideology for the large American Foundations like Rockefeller and Carnegie that today play a silent but major role in population management.

Many dirty things emerged from this rat’s nest of Satan-worshippers, one being Britain’s Psychological Warfare Bureau which hatched a plan to destroy Germany not by attacking the military but by virtual genocide of the population.

It seems that international bankers owned munitions plants and other valuable military targets on both sides of the war fence, and wanted their property maintained in working order in spite of the war.

The Jewish solution recommended to Churchill was saturation bombing of the civilian population to collapse the morale of the German people.

These ‘scientific sociologists’ determined that the destruction of 65% of German housing, usually including its occupants, would be sufficient to achieve such a collapse.

This was the origin of the fame of the British aviation hero “Bomber” Harris, who carried out these night raids – always at night – that culminated in the fire-bombing of Dresden.

The explanation of night raids is usually given as safety for the bomber crews, but its purpose was mostly to engender more terror among the civilian population.

Harris himself testified that his directive was to not specifically aim at anything, but just “blast German cities as a whole. Working class housing areas were targeted because they had a higher density and firestorms were more likely.”

This would disrupt the German workforce and Germany’s ability to produce war materials in its defense.

Harris’ widespread deliberate massacres of German civilians – and those by the Americans as well – were desperately kept secret from the public and still appear nowhere in history books in useful detail or with any sincere attempt to accurately estimate civilian casualties.

This was the plan that US General Curtis Lemay was following, the same low-level night raids attempting to exterminate the populations of Japan and Korea.

Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism.

That template has been in constant use by the US government (as the Bankers’ Private Army) since the Second World War, ‘engineering consent and ignorance’ in the American and Western populations to mask almost seven decades of atrocities, demonizing innocent countries and peoples in preparation for 60 or 70 politically-inspired color revolutions or ‘wars of liberation’ fought exclusively for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers using the US military as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of millions of innocent civilians.

Bernays carries the blame for more than American entry into the two world wars, having been instrumental in paving the way for the US cannibalization and military colonization of much of the world, and for the US installing and supporting the dozens of brutal military dictatorships around the world.

His first international project was helping to engineer the US overthrow of the popular elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

The US government launched a coup against the elected government of Guatemala on the flimsy grounds of Guatamala becoming a hotbed for Soviet/Communist activity when in reality it was really a powerful American owned company that had its business interests threatened.

At the time, the Rockefellers’ United Fruit Company and various US elites and international financiers owned most of Guatemala including 70% of all the arable land, the communications facilities, the only railroad and shipping port, and controlled most exports.

When Arbenz commenced expropriations and land redistribution, Bernays developed a massive propaganda campaign that colored Arbenz as communist, a terrorist, an enemy to democracy, a blot on humanity, and much more, to the extent that American public opinion supported an outrageous travesty and one of the most brutal violations of human rights in US history.

Bernays’ template has been used about 70 times with US invasions of that many nations, which is one source of the vast disconnect between what the American people believe their government has done and what it has actually done.

As a side note, Guatemala appealed to the United Nations to stop the Americans’ massive interference in their country, a plea that was sympathetically received by UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold who proved troublesome for the US. He would do so again a few years later, and would be assassinated by the CIA for his trouble.

Quick Summary

Many of us have seen stories of German soldiers skewering babies on bayonets, of machine-gunning parachuting soldiers, tales of tubs-full of eyeballs collected by the Nazis, of Germans slashing off the breasts of every woman they encountered, of eating babies, of rendering the bodies of massacred civilians for fat and glycerine to make weapons.

After the war, Bernays openly admitted that he used fabricated atrocities to provoke hatred against Germany and, in both World Wars, no evidence was ever discovered to prove any of these outrageous accusations.

We can easily think of George W. Bush’s demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass slaughters, the gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves, the nuclear weapons ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of incubators, Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents.

We can think of the tales of Libyan Viagra, all proven to have been groundless fabrications – typical atrocity propaganda. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other wars and invasions followed this same template to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war launched only for political and commercial objectives.

Fast Forward to 2020

We are at the same place today, with the same people conducting the same “anger campaign” against China in preparation for World War III. John Pilger agrees with me, evidenced in his recent article “Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now.” And so does Gordon Duff.

The signs now are everywhere, and the campaign is successful. It is necessary to point out the need for an ‘anger campaign’ as opposed to a ‘hate campaign’.

We are not moved to action from hate, but from anger. I may thoroughly despise you, but that in itself will do nothing.

It is only if I am moved to anger that I want to punch your lights out. And this, as Lippman and Bernays so clearly noted, requires emotionally-charged atrocity propaganda of the kind used so well against Germany and being so well used against China today.

Since we need atrocity propaganda to start a war, there seems to be no shortage.

Then we have Huawei, the world’s single most dangerous spying entity, who are no doubt responsible for “Beijing trying to ‘steal’ the American COVID-19 vaccine” but, in further breaking news, the Chinese are “Trying to steal everything”.

Not only that, but China recently hacked into the Vatican, and here’s why they did it.

Everyone knows that Hong Kong’s new Security Law spells “the death knell of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong”.

We have read much of China’s “threatening militarism” in its own China Pond, but not everyone knows that China is presenting the Japanese air force with “a relentless burden” with 947 (count them) incursions into Japanese airspace “in the last fiscal year ending in March.”

I didn’t know that provocative military incursions operated on a fiscal year, but maybe things are different in Japan.

Then, Mr. Pompeo tells us, “The truth is that our policies . . . resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.”

Further, that (due to COVID-19) China “caused an enormous amount of pain, loss of life,” and the “Chinese Communist Party will pay a price”. Of course, we all know that “China” stole the COVID-19 virus from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, then released it onto the world – and Pompeo has proof, and even “A Chinese virologist has proof” that “China” engaged in a massive cover-up while contaminating the world and then “fleeing Hong Kong” because “I know how they treat whistle-blowers.”

And of course, “China needs to be held accountable for Covid-19’s destruction” which is why everyone in the US wants to sue “China”. “Australia” demands an international criminal investigation of China’s role in COVID-19.What a surprise.

And of course we have an almost unlimited number of serious provocations, from Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Seas, to Chinese consulates, media reporters, students, researchers, visa restrictions, spying, Huawei, the trade war, all done in the hope of making the Chinese leaders panic and over-react, the easiest way to justify a new war.

The list could continue for several hundred pages. Never in my life have I seen such a continuous, unabating flood of hate propaganda against one nation, surely equivalent to what was done against Germany as described above to prepare for US entry into the First World War.

And it’s working, doing what it is intended to do. Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, India, Brazil, are buying into the war-mongering and turning against China. More will follow.

The Global Times reported “Mutual trust between Australia and China at all-time low”.

“Boycott China” T-shirts and caps are flooding India, Huawei is being increasingly banned from Western nations, Chinese social media APPs like Tik-Tok are being banned, and Bryan Adams recently slammed all Chinese as “Bat-eating, wet-market-animal-selling, virus-making, greedy bastards”

In a recent poll (taken because we need to measure the success of our handiwork in the same way Bernays and the Tavistock Institute did as noted earlier), half of all ethnic Chinese in Canada have been threatened and harassed over COVID-19.

About 45% of Chinese in Canada said they had been ” threatened or intimidated in some way”, fully 50% said they had recently been insulted in public, 30% said they had experienced . . . “some kind of physical altercation”, and 60% said the abuse was so bad “they had to reorganise their daily routine to avoid it”. One woman in her 60s said a man told her and her daughter “Every day I pray that you people die”.

This deliberate, systematic targeting of China and the Chinese (by the Jewish media, I’m sorry to say) has resulted in a 700% increase in hate crimes against Chinese, and Canada is by no means the only country experiencing this phenomenon.

It is not better in the US, the UK, Australia, and much of Europe. It would seem the laws against hate speech are only for the benefit of the Jews, certainly not for the Chinese. Lippmann and Bernays would be proud.

Several years ago, CNN was sued by one of their news anchors for being ordered to lie in the newscasts. CNN won the case.

They did not deny ordering the news anchor to lie. Their defense was based simply on the position that American news media have “no obligation to tell the truth”.

And RT recently reported that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans see a “medium or high” bias in all media coverage, yet, as we can see, most of those same people, and a very large portion of the population of many nations still succumb to the same hate propaganda.

I would add four final points to this essay.

(1) There is no way to avoid the conclusion that history is indeed repeating itself, demonizing yet another nation, deliberately engendering sufficient hatred and anger to justify another world war.

(2) While the impetus for this is surely from the US, the Americans are not entirely to blame because they are merely following orders.

The root of all this absolutely resides in Europe among the cabal of International Jews and Zionists, with the Americans once again being “The Bankers’ Private Army”.

Our New World Government cannot come into existence without the destruction of both China and Russia (and Iran), but China is the primary stumbling block and must be eliminated.

World War Three will have China and Russia on the same side and, with luck, both will be destroyed in one swoop. That is the plan. Your belief in it is not material to its execution.

(3) The International Jews have some reason (in their minds) to resent China.

For one, China was intended to be dismembered and turned into a perpetual cash cow, a plan frustrated by Mao and his revolution.

Everyone is aware that the Jews had been evicted from many countries many times over many hundreds of years, but no one seems aware that two of these evictions occurred relatively recently, one from Japan immediately prior to World War Two (the source of the huge Jewish Ghetto in Shanghai, not escapees from Hitler as the myths tell us), and the second from China.

It was not “the British” but the International Jewish banking families, the Rothschilds, Sassoons, Kadoories and others that were entirely responsible for China’s 150 years-long opium travesty.

I won’t go into details here, but immediately after World War Two, one of Mao’s first acts was to expel all the Jews from China and confiscate all their opium assets – including all of the city of Shanghai and the Mainland Branches of the HSBC. They haven’t forgotten, and they want their money back.

(4) Given the source of the push for a Third World War and the planned destruction of China, one is left to consider what, if anything, can be done to prevent a third worldwide holocaust.

Even knowing the sources, it is hardly practical to declare war on at most a few thousand individuals scattered among perhaps ten nations.

I know of only one way to prevent the World War Three that is now imminent: make Israel pay for it.

If in the final position of authority, I would call in the Israeli ambassador and inform him that if my nation were pushed into a war with the US, my first retaliation would be not against the US but against Israel, that I would apply whatever portion of my nuclear arsenal was necessary to achieve that.

It is my thesis that Israel is too important to these people to be sacrificed, and that faced with such a threat deemed credible, they would back off. With everything I know, I do not believe a third world war can be otherwise prevented.

Notes

[1] https://hofs.online/david-irving-churchills-war/

[2] https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/01/13/germanys-war-chapter-4-the-allied-conspiracy-to-instigate-prolong-wwii/

[3] https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/the-war-criminal-churchill/

[4] ttps://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/schul05.htm

[5] “Germany is getting too strong. We’ve got to smash her.” – Winston Churchill speaking during a private lunch in 1936. Reminiscenses in 1961 of General Robert E. Wood. World War II. By Carl J. Schneider, Dorothy Schneider. Page 15.

[6] “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast). “This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.” – Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)

[7] “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler of a Jesuit priest.” – Winston Churchill [1940]; Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 45); This book was published in Great Britain in 1950 under the title “Winston Churchill in war and peace.” The American version titled “Winston Churchill: British bulldog : his career in war and peace”, was published in 1955 and was an edited version with selected quotations removed.

John Foster Dulles’ initiation of covert actions in Vietnam

Ho Che Minh wrote President Harry S. Truman on Feb. 15, 1946, to request the U.S. support for Vietnam’s independence:

“Our Vietnam people, as early as 1941, stood by the Allies’ side and fought against the Japanese and their associates, the French colonialists…. But the French Colonialists… have come back and are waging on us a murderous and pitiless war….  we request of the United States as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.”

Truman did not respond.

James DiEugenio:

It was not just ideological because the Dulles Brothers, prior to becoming parts of the government, had pretty high positions in one of the giant, probably the predominant corporate law firm in the United States called Sullivan & Cromwell.

In fact, John Foster Dulles was actually the managing partner there and he brought his younger brother Allen in as a senior partner. It’s not completely correct to say that this was all ideological because it wasn’t.

A large part of this was for commercial reasons in the sense that a lot of the clients that the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm represented had these large business interests in all different parts of the globe and sometimes this included Third World countries.

That’s another reason of course the Dulles Brothers were so intent upon putting down this rebellion against the French attempt to recolonize the area.

Because to them, it was an example of an industrial or already commercialized western power going ahead and exploiting cheap labor and cheap materials in the Third World.

In large part, that’s what that law firm represented. So that’s absolutely correct. It was not just ideological.

It was also a commercial view of the world and what the Dulles Brothers stood for in relation to the use of the natural resources in the Third World.

Now, what happened at Dien Bien Phu, and I don’t think the Burns-Novick film really explained this as well as it should have, is that the French under Henri Navarre decided that they were losing the guerrilla war.

NARMIC’s top 100 defense contractors list, which continued after the war. Here is a 1977 edition.

“In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.”

So they decided to try and pull out the North Vietnamese forces, led by General Giap, into a more open air kind of a battle ground.

They took over this low-lying valley in the northern part of Vietnam, not very far from the western border.

The strategic idea was to get involved in a large scale battle where they would be able to use their air power and overpowering artillery to smash Giap’s forces.

Well, it didn’t work out that way for a number of reasons. But one of them was that the Russians went ahead and transported these huge siege cannons to Giap, and Giap used literally tens of thousands of civilian supporters to transport these huge siege guns up this incline overlooking Dien Bien Phu.

They began to bombard the airfield there, which negated a lot of the military advantage that the French thought they were going to be able to use.

When that started happening, John Foster Dulles began to arrange direct American aid. And I’m talking about military aid.

He actually began to go ahead and give them fighter planes, which he had repainted and drawn with French insignia run by CIA pilots.

I think there were about 24 of them that he let them use. Then when that didn’t work, then he went ahead and started giving them large imports of other weapons to try and see if they could hold off the siege that was going to come.

Finally, when that didn’t work, he arranged for Operation Vulture. Operation Vulture was the arrangement of a giant air armada.

It was originally planned as something like, if I recall correctly: 60 small bombers, 150 jet fighters in case the Chinese intervened and also, three, I think there were B-36 Convair planes to carry three atomic bombs.

Dulles could not get this through Eisenhower. Eisenhower refused to agree to it because the British had turned him down.

He didn’t want to do this by himself. Even though Dulles tried to convince the British to help, they turned them down twice.

Then Dulles, in a very strange move, he actually offered the atomic bombs to the French Foreign Secretary Bidault, Georges Bidault, in a separate private exchange which is a really remarkable thing to do because I’ve never been able to find any evidence that Eisenhower knew about that.

That’s how desperate he was not to see Dien Bien Phu fall. But the French refused, the guy said straight to Foster Dulles, “If I use those, I’m going to kill as many of my troops as I will General Giap’s.”

Dien Bien Phu fell, and at this point, two things happened that will more or less ensure American involvement in Vietnam.

At the subsequent peace conference in Geneva, Switzerland, it’s very clear that the United States is calling the shots.

Secondly, when the Chinese and Russians see that, they advised Ho Chi Minh to go along with whatever the western powers leaned towards.

If not, they feared that the Americans would intervene immediately. In fact, Richard Nixon in a private talk with American newspaper editors, actually floated the idea of using American ground troops to intervene at Dien Bien Phu.

What happens now is that, John Forster Dulles goes ahead and orally agrees that there will be general elections held in two years in 1956, and whoever wins, will then unify Vietnam.

He didn’t sign it because the lawyer that he was understood that that would expose him later, but he did advise his representative at the conference to go ahead and say they will abide by that decision.

This begins, for all intents and purposes, the American intervention in Vietnam and it begins – and this is really incredible to me that the Burns-Novick series never mentioned – Ed Lansdale, and how you can

make a series, an 18-hour series about Vietnam and American involvement there and not mention Lansdale is mind-boggling.

They did show his picture but they didn’t say his name. The reason it’s so mind-boggling is that Allan Dulles now made Lansdale more or less the action officer for the whole Vietnam enterprise.

In other words, the objective was, number one to create an American state in South Vietnam, and number two, to prop up an American chosen leader to be the American president of this new state.

Lansdale did it and I’ll tell you, it’s an incredible achievement what he did. Because he set up this giant psychological propaganda campaign, that scared the heck out of all the Catholics because the French had occupied the country.

We found some letters, John Newman and myself, up at Hoover Institute near Stanford in which he essentially admitted that he was really working for the CIA the whole time.

He had done a lot of covert operations, most famously in the Philippines before he was chosen by Allen Dulles to lead this giant – which I’m pretty sure at that time – was the biggest CIA operation in their history.

What he was doing here with this pure psychological warfare to get all these people to come south.

And if you expose who Lansdale is, there isn’t any way that you can say that this was not a CIA-run operation.

This whole idea is to thwart the whole Geneva agreement, and number two to thwart the will of the people of Vietnam.

Because the reason this was done of course, and Eisenhower admitted this later, was that there was no way in the world that the CIA could find any kind of a candidate that was going to beat Ho Chi Minh in a national election.

The CIA did these polls and they found out that Ho Chi Minh would win with probably 75 to 80% of the vote if there was an honest, real election.

That’s why the CIA under Lansdale decided first to get all these new people into the south and then prop up this new government in the south to separate it from what they then called Ho Chi Minh’s area in the north.

Now, understand: that didn’t exist before. France had colonized the whole country.

So now you had the beginning of this entirely new country created by the CIA. There’s no other way around that statement and I really think that the Burns-Novick film to be mild, really underplayed that.

There would have been no South Vietnam if it had not been for Lansdale.

He’s the guy who created the whole country. Now, they picked a leader, a guy named Ngo Dinh Diem who was going to be their opposition to Ho Chi Minh.

Well, the problem with picking Ngo Dinh Diem was number one, he spoke perfect fluent English; number two, he dressed like a westerner that is, he wore sport coats and suits and white shirts and ties and number three, he even had his hair cut like an American.

His family was the same thing: his brother Nhu and Nhu’s wife Madame Nhu.

How on earth anybody could think that somehow Diem and his family was going to win the allegiance of all the people in Vietnam and win elections… well, that wasn’t going to happen.

What Lansdale did is and … You got to admire the way these guys think even if you don’t like the goals they achieve, the way they do it is very clever.

Lansdale, number one, wanted to get rid of Bao Dai because he did not want to have anymore – him and John Foster Dulles had agreed – they had to get rid of the stigma of French colonialism.

They sponsored a phony plebiscite, an up or down plebiscite on bringing Bao Dai back in 1955.

Now, anybody who analyzes that election in 1955 will be able to tell you very clearly that it was rigged.

To give you one example, Bao Dai was not allowed to campaign. It was pretty easy to beat somebody if the other guy cannot campaign, and Lansdale, for all practical purposes, there’s no other way to say this, he was Diem’s campaign manager.

Ed Lansdale

It was CIA money going in and running his campaign and there’s a famous conversation where Lansdale, because he has all this money and because they’ve already built up a police force in South Vietnam, he essentially tells Diem that, “I don’t think that we should make this very blatant. I don’t think you should win with over 65% of the vote.”

Well, Lansdale decided he should be out of the country during the actual election so it wouldn’t look too obvious.

So Diem then went ahead and decided he wanted to win with over 90% of the vote and that’s what it was rigged for. And as everybody who analyzed that election knows it was so bad that you actually had more people voting for Diem in certain provinces than actually lived there.

That’s how bad the ballots were rigged. But it did what they wanted to do. It got rid of Bao Dai, so now in a famous quote by John Foster Dulles, he said words to the effect that: Good, we have a clean face there now. Without any kind of hint of colonialism.

Now, you can believe he said that, it’s actually true. And it shows you the disconnect between the Dulles Brothers and Eisenhower with the reality that’s on the ground there because Diem is going to be nothing but a losing cause.

Now that Diem is in power, Lansdale then goes ahead and advises him to negate the 1956 election and that’s what happens. The agreements that were made in Geneva were now cancelled, and this is the beginning of two separate countries.

You get the north part of Vietnam led by Ho Chi Minh and with its capital at Hanoi and you get South Vietnam which is a complete American creation with its capital at Saigon led by Diem.

By the end of 1957, and this is another problem I had with the Burns-Novick series – they try and say and imply that the war began under Kennedy. Simply not true.

And by the way, this is something that Richard Nixon liked to say. He liked to say that, “Well, when I became President I was given this problem by my two predecessors.” No no, not at all.

In the latter part of 1957, I think in either November or December, the leadership in the North, that is Ho Chi Minh and Le Duan and General Giap, they had decided they were now going to have to go to war with the United States.

They began to make war plans at that early date and those war plans were then approved by the Russian Politburo.

And both Russia and China, because in some ways it had been their fault that this happened by advising Ho Chi Minh to be meek and mild at the Geneva conference; they agreed to go ahead and supply Ho Chi Minh with weaponry, supplies and money.

The war now begins. In the first Indochina War, France against the Vietnamese, the rebels in the south were called the Viet Minh.

While now the Viet Minh are converted into the Viet Cong. This rebel force in the south now begins to materialize again except their enemy is Diem.

Now begins the construction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail which crosses down through Laos and Cambodia and this is going to be a supply route to supply these rebels in the south and actually infiltrate troops into the south.

The other way they’re going to do it is through a place called Sihanoukville in Southern Cambodia, there they’re going to bring in supplies by sea.

Now, for all intents and purposes, the war now begins in around 1958.

There begins to be hit and run raids against the Diem regime in the south.

The United States now begins to really build up, not just a police force, which they had done before, but they now begin to build up a military attaché in the south.

By the end of the Eisenhower regime, there’s something like about, if I recall, about 650 military advisers there with the police force that is trained at Michigan State University under a secret program.

The battle in the countryside now begins in earnest: 1958, 1959, 1960. Diem, as he begins to be attacked, now gets more and more tyrannical.

He begins to imprison tens of thousands of suspects in his famous tiger cages.

These bamboo like 2′ by 4′ cages which people are rolled up like cinnamon rolls and kept prisoner, there were literally tens of thousand of those kinds of prisoners by 1960. He actually began to guillotine suspects in the countryside.

As more and more of this militarized situation takes place, it begins to show that the idea that the United States is supporting a democracy is a farcical idea: because it’s not a democracy in the South because the police force is run by his brother Nhu and Diem is very much pro-Catholic and anti-Buddhist and unfortunately, for the United States, about 70% of the population in South Vietnam was Buddhist, even with the hundreds of thousands of people who fled south.

The situation, and by the way, Lansdale was still there. He’s still supervising Diem, trying to hold on to this thing because he had so much invested there.

As time goes on and the situation becomes more militarized, there actually comes to be a coup attempt against Diem in 1960, and the American ambassador in Saigon, I think his name was Elbridge Durbrow, he even lectures Diem that you’ve got to democratize this country, or else you’re going to be the symbol of this whole militaristic situation and you’re going to be under a state of siege, and this won’t work.

That’s the situation that occurs during the election of 1960 with Kennedy versus Nixon. That’s the situation that whoever wins that election is going to be presented with.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Israel has a long history of actions against its Christian minority. Israeli forces have desecrated churches, rabbis have endorsed killing non-Jewish civilians (including children), New Testaments have been burned. While there are many Israelis who have opposed these actions and respect Christians, the fact is that discrimination against Christians is endemic in the Israeli system. Like Muslims, Christians have been persecuted by Israel ever since it was established in 1948…

‘It is permitted to kill non-Jews, rape women, burn down churches’

The Holy Land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea contains some of the most sacred spaces for Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. Jerusalem is the holiest site in Judaism, the home of Jewish patriarchs and prophets since the 10th century BCE.

On the same land, Muhammad both received revelation and ascended into heaven at the Dome of the Rock. For Christians, it is the birthplace of Jesus and the site of his crucifixion and ascension into heaven.

The Christian population in this area has long thrived among its Jewish and Muslim neighbors. However, the increasingly destructive Israeli occupation, endorsed by the current U.S. administration, has made the area essentially uninhabitable.

The result is a noticeable exodus of Christians from this territory. Before 1948, Palestinian Christians made up about 18 percent of the region’s population. Today they make up less than one percent.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

If the current trend persists, pilgrims and tourists will likely be the only Christian representatives in the region in years to come.

Causes of Exodus

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

A dhimmi kneels before Muslim leaders 

Christian Zionist media, including the Christian Friends of Israel, presents the Palestinian Christian population as a recently-formed community of Arab migrants.

In reality, Palestinian Christians are some of the most deeply-connected members of the faith, tracing their ancestry in the region back to Biblical times.

Pro-Israel sources report that the exodus of Palestinian Christians is caused by two factors.

Firstly, they suggest that many Christians convert and intermarry with Muslims as a result of declining Christian birthrates. Secondly, they argue that Palestinian migration is part of a larger, historical exodus of Christians from the Holy Land.

They believe that migration dates back to the Ottoman Empire when Christians sought jobs in North and Latin America. This exodus is largely blamed on Islamic Fundamentalism and the discord between Islam and Christianity. After the 2003 Iraq War, one theory posits, destabilization allowed extremist groups to gain power. The violence of ISIS in the region is frequently cited as evidence of this religious discord.

Some reference the ancient dhimmi system as evidence of discrimination within the Muslim faith.

This historical distinction, meaning “protection” or “protected person,” was used to distinguish and ensure the legal rights of non-Muslims living in an Islamic state. Its use today, however, is an outdated scapegoat for the real cause of the exodus.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

While the claims of the religious-discord argument are not entirely false, the larger flaw of this position is its problematic revisionist narrative that erases the struggles of Palestinian people.

The exodus of Christians actually betrays the oppressive ethnic cleansing inflicted upon the people of Palestine by the Israeli government.

As the U.S. continues to extend a hand to the Israeli regime, Palestinians are increasingly more opposed to the U.S. than to their Muslim neighbors.

Arab America interviewed with Rateb Rabie, founder, and president of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF), he revealed the real reasons of the exodus, as well as his own predictions for future peace in the region.

While some point to the religious tension between Muslims and Christians, most Palestinian Christians report that it is Israeli oppression that pushes them from their native land. Rabie cites discrimination against Palestinians as the primary cause of the exodus.

2017 study by the Dar al-Kalima University in the West Bank has found that “the pressure of Israeli occupation, ongoing constraints, discriminatory policies, arbitrary arrests, confiscation of lands” has contributed to “the general sense of hopelessness among Palestinian Christians.” Only a two percent minority of Palestinian Christians cite Muslim violence and extremism as the reason for their departure.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

While it is true that Christians face persecution and are not guaranteed the same rights as their Muslim counterparts, at its heart the conflict is political, not religious. It is a “landed conflict,” Rabie says, stemming from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. “We are Palestinian first before we are Christian,” Rabie states.

The conflict (and subsequent exodus) is a question of identity and ownership above religious belief.

Aside from their minority status, the relative ease with which the Christian population is able to assimilate into the culture of Western host countries also accounts for their particular population decrease.

Rabie suggests that “Muslims would leave if possible,” or if the process of cultural assimilation was less draining and demeaning.

The discrimination and Islamophobia that many Muslims face is a major deterrent to immigration. Because of their shared faith, Western societies are more accepting of Palestinian Christians than Palestinian Muslims.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

While the population of historical Palestinian (including Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel) today has increased to six million, Christians make up less than 1.7 percent. The majority of Palestinian Christians are Greek Orthodox.

Christianity itself began in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians living there were the original followers of Jesus. As Rateb Rabie says, Palestinians have been “saving the face” of the Christain faith for over 2,000 years. In spite of oppression and discrimination, they have nobly upheld their practice and traditions.

Today, the plight of Palestinians is intertwined with Islamophobia. Western Christian organizations are eager to offer charitable support, especially when their donation is inspired by a deep-seated Islamophobia that encourages them to selectively help Christian populations in Muslim-majority countries.

Other Christians in countries like Syria, Rabie points out, avoid getting directly involved to distance themselves from the Islamophobia of Western Christian donors.

Restrictions on Faith and Livelihood

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

On a fundamental level, the Israeli occupation has made it very difficult for Palestinian Christians to practice their faith.

Restrictions imposed by the Israeli government prevent Christians from accessing their holy sites, as described in the 2011 State Department “Report on International Religious Freedom:”

“Strict closures and curfews imposed by the Israeli government negatively affected residents’ ability to practice their religion at holy sites, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, as well as the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.”

“The separation barrier significantly impeded Bethlehem-area Christians from reaching the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and made visits to Christian sites in Bethany and Bethlehem difficult for Palestinian Christians who live on the Jerusalem side of the barrier.”

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Physical barriers and other limitations prevent a complete celebration of faith. In addition, non-Christian settlers in Israel take out their anger toward the Israeli government on the Palestinian population. These attacks often involve the desecration and vandalism of Christian and Muslim holy sites and the targeting of religious leaders.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has even admitted to this brand of ethnic cleansing, stating that:

“The government has been taking actions to increase the number of Jews, and reduce the number of Palestinians, living in the city”

Denied access to ancient holy sites, Palestinian Christians struggle to prove that their “center of life” rests in Jerusalem.

Without this confirmation, they are liable to have their residency rights and social benefits revoked. While the illegally-housed Jewish population has the right to move freely throughout the region, native Christian Palestinians are bombarded by arbitrary borders and restrictive permits.

It is very difficult for Palestinians to find jobs under the occupation. There is currently a 22 percent unemployment rate in the region, and many families struggle to support themselves financially.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Furthermore, the Israeli government protects Jewish extremists in their brutal, physically violent attacks on Palestinian Christians.

In March of this year, Israeli forces carried out attacks on Christian worshippers during a Palm Sunday procession in Jerusalem.

Bombs, guns, and knives have all been used against Palestinians, who may also be subject to arbitrary arrests.

Extremists burn farmland and destroy crops, making livelihood and sustenance impossible.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

These attacks on Christian territory, as on the entire Palestinian population, are justified using religion. Zionists claim that the Jewish people have an inherent religious connection to the land.

This is a complete oversight of the religious ties of both Christians and Muslims. The brutality of the attacks contrast the sanctity and divinity of a religious appeal, and many wonder how faith can be used to so blatantly defend massacre.

False Narratives in Tourism

Even in tourism, an economic staple in the region, the narrative and perception of Palestinians, and Palestinian Christians is highly distortedby Israeli tour guides.

This false, damaging narrative reached nearly 3.5 million tourists in 2013. Christians taken to the Holy Land on educational tours are given a skewed version of the region’s history, one in which the role of Christianity is highly downplayed, if not entirely neglected.

 Palestinians are painted in a very negative light, and their persecution is glossed over entirely.

Israeli tour guides often completely avoid Christian holy sites on their tours, largely to prevent showcasing the abuses and destruction these areas have endured under the occupation.

Tourists have reported on the crude insensitivities of Isreali tour guides, describing how they were made to participate in role-playing simulations of Israeli soldiers attacking Palestinian “terrorists.”

U.S. Involvement: “Trump Handed Israel Policy to Evangelicals”

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Vice President Mike Pence has been at the center of the controversy since Trump’s Jerusalem declaration last December. Pence’s Evangelical Christian faith aligns him with the Jewish Zionists. In his speech at the beginning of this year to the Knesset, the Israeli legislature, Pence stated:

“We stand with Israel because your cause is our cause, your values are our values, and your fight is our fight…we stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny.”

In an interview with Vox, American politics professor Elizabeth Oldmixon explains the American Christian Evangelical support of Israel. Evangelicals see the “gathering of Jews in exile” in the Holy Land as an indication of the highly awaited “end of times,” or Christ’s reign on Earth.

As strict followers of the Bible, Christian Zionists strictly abide by the passage in which God grants the Holy Land to the Jewish people.

Religious faith translates directly into political belief. Fifty-three percent of Trump’s evangelical demographic supported the Jerusalem move.

Palestinian Christian is not evangelical, so they do not possess the same religious vision.

Israeli control, coupled with Mike Pence’s faith-based declaration of American support, has wreaked havoc on the Palestinian population and ostracized their faith.

Understandably, Palestinians are broadly opposed to the current administration.

With America’s damaging influence exacted through the Israeli government, many have chosen to flee their native land altogether, escaping oppression both locally and from the West.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Pence had originally planned a pilgrimage to the Holy Lands, including meetings with many regional Christian leaders, but travel plans were canceled following uproar and protest about the Jerusalem move. Many church leaders felt the move would increase hatred and violence in the region. Although the protests were more muted than expected, the oppression continues for the Palestinian population.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

“To declare Jerusalem as the capital based on some biblical argument is a dangerous thing,” said Father Jamal Khader, the Catholic parish priest of Ramallah.

 “He’s wanting to separate Christians from the rest of the community. But we are part of the community.”

This sentiment resonates in the hearts of many Christians in the region for whom removal from their native land is an absolute last resort.

Iskander El Hinn, a Christian Palestinian who fled to Ramallah with his family in 1948, is emboldened by his Palestinian identity and connection to the land:

“As a Palestinian, I am living where I belong, everywhere I go here is Palestine to me and Jerusalem is its capital…we have been living here for thousands of years; no one can take us away from here.”

Future Hopes

In spite of the exodus and the immense suffering of the Palestinian people, Rabie is encouraged by the dramatic increase in media coverage of the conflict in the past 30 years. He sees the increased exposure of the human rights violations as indicative of the “beginning of the end of Zionist Israel.”

The public has come a long way in terms of its perception of Israel and support for Palestine, thanks to organizations like Rabie’s.

He says that Palestinians at home and abroad are hopeful for peace, but he emphasizes the need for continued education of American Christians on the severity of the conflict.

He recognizes that, even within Israel, much of the Jewish population and social media influencers are pro-peace. These incentives for peace, he argues, must be implemented.

Above all, Palestinians need justice. American Christians must commit themselves to this cause. Rabie discourages them from picking a side-Palestinian or Israeli.

Instead, he encourages Christians, Americans, and global activists to focus their energies and intentions on delivering justice where it is most needed to the long-suffering people of Palestine.

Perhaps then their land will become a home once more.

When israel Says Jump, US Asks How High

During Israel’s 2014 onslaught against Gaza, Israel said ‘jump,’ and Obama and Biden jumped… to the tune of a quarter of a billion taxpayer dollars

By Alison Weir 

President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor – and current Biden campaign senior advisor – recently described how Obama and Biden had helped Israel during its 2014 onslaught against Gaza.

Israel had said ‘jump,’ and Obama and Biden had jumped – to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars. (This is on top of the $10 million per day that Israel was already getting from American taxpayers.)

Here’s the story:

Tony Blinken served as Deputy National Security Advisor under President Barack Obama and currently is a senior advisor to presidential candidate Joe Biden.

He recently participated in the American Jewish Committee’s virtual Global Forum.

During the Forum he debated with Republican former Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland about which party is more pro-Israel.

In the course of the debate, Blinken boasted of an incident in which Obama and Biden had instantly done Israel’s bidding.

The incident took place during Israel’s 2014 onslaught against Gaza.

Keep in mind that Israeli forces had waged a massive air and land assault on Gaza in July 2014, killing about 2200 Palestinians – of which 1500 were civilians, including 500 children, 16 health care workers, and 9 journalists.

In response, Palestinian resistance fighters had killed 66 Israeli soldiers and 6 Israeli civilians and injured 550 Israelis – 85% of them invading soldiers.

In addition to the deaths, Israeli forces had damaged or destroyed 116,000 Gazan homes, leaving over 100,000 people homeless.

They had also destroyed or damaged 216 Gazan schools and 67 Gazan health care facilities.

Of the 11,000 Gazans injured, 3,300 were children; 1,000 of them are permanently disabled.

More than 1,500 Palestinian children were orphaned. (For more details go here.)

To demonstrate how pro-Israel the Obama administration was, Blinken proudly described to the virtual forum audience Obama and Biden’s role (and his own) in assisting Israel’s pulverization of Gaza.

He began dramatically:

“I got a call late one night from the Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, and he said, ‘Can I come over tonight? It’s something urgent.’

“And I said, of course, come on over.

“This is about 9 o’clock at night at the White House. And he and the military attache from the [Israeli] embassy laid out to me in detail why Israel urgently needed a replenishment of Iron Dome interceptors that were saving lives from missile attacks.”

(Gazan resistance fighters had begun launching rockets in 2001 following Israeli attacks.)

By 2014 the rockets – most of them small, home-made, largely ineffectual projectiles – had killed a total of 23 Israelis.

During the same time period, Israeli air strikes had killed thousands of Gazans.

“The next day,” Blinken continued, “I went to the Oval Office. I sat with President Obama and Vice President Biden.

I laid out what I’d heard from the ambassador and the military attache, and I got three words from both of them in response: ‘Get it done.’

“That was Friday morning. Tuesday, we had a quarter of a billion dollars from Congress to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome supply.

That’s the kind of real action — real deeds — that go to the heart of Israel’s security.”

Israel not ally – Congress to give it $38 billion

While Blinken was trying to claim that Democrats were more pro-Israel than Republicans, the fact is that politicians from both parties have kowtowed to Israel for decades, with only a few exceptions (see this, this, and this).

Today, a bill before Congress will give Israel a minimum of $38 billion over ten years – the largest military aid package in U.S. history.

The bill is co-sponsored equally by Republicans and Democrats. It has already passed the House, and last month the Senate Foreign Relations committee passed it in a unanimous voice vote, paving the way for it to be adopted sometime in the near future. U.S. media have failed to tell Americans about it.

While Americans are often led to believe that Israel is a U.S. ally, the reality is that Israel spies on us, steals our technology, involves us in wars on its behalf, and tried to sink a U.S. Navy ship, killing 34 Americans and injuring over 170.

The pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., the most powerful and pervasive lobby for a foreign country in our nation, is responsible for the massive financial and human capital that our politicians have expended on Israel, one of the world’s smallest nations – and one that was established through a war of ethnic cleansing.

The large majority of Gazans are refugee families violently expelled by Israel, their homes and lands confiscated for the new Jewish state.

Blinken’s 20+ years of senior foreign policy positions – more to come?

Joe Biden sits next to Tony Blinken in airliner
Photo from a tweet by Biden in December 2014: “Congrats to my close friend, Tony Blinken, the new Dep. Secretary of State. Admired in every corner of the world. -vp” (Twitter)

A longtime Israel partisan, Blinken has held senior foreign policy positions in two administrations over two decades.

 He is close to Biden and is currently a senior advisor to the campaign.

On May 18, 2020 he was featured in a video by the Democratic Majority for Israel, which works to rally liberal and progressives to support Israel, despite its long record of human rights abuses and systemic racism.