| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:50 am Post subject: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration |
| http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://nogw.com/warforisrael.html
www.counterpunch.org
Weekend Edition
February 28 / 29, 2004
A CounterPunch Special Report
Serving Two Flags
Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration
By STEPHEN GREEN
Since 9-11, a small group of "neo-conservatives" in the Administration have effectively gutted--they would say reformed--traditional American foreign and security policy. Notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions of international law....all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons' past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration's new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region--Iran and Syria.
Have the neo-conservatives--many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President--had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?
A review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them strongly suggests the answer.
Dr. Stephen Bryen and Colleagues
In April of 1979, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Keuch recommended in writing that Bryen, then a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, undergo a grand jury hearing to establish the basis for a prosecution for espionage. John Davitt, then Chief of the Justice Department's Internal Security Division, concurred.
The evidence was strong. Bryen had been overheard in the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop, offering classified documents to an official of the Israeli Embassy in the presence of the director of AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was later determined that the Embassy official was Zvi Rafiah, the Mossad station chief in Washington. Bryen refused to be poly-graphed by the FBI on the purpose and details of the meeting; whereas the person who'd witnessed it agreed to be poly-graphed and passed the test.
The Bureau also had testimony from a second person, a staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, that she had witnessed Bryen in his Senate office with Rafiah, discussing classified documents that were spread out on a table in front of an open safe in which the documents were supposed to be secured. Not long after this second witness came forward, Bryen's fingerprints were found on classified documents he'd stated in writing to the FBI he'd never had in his possession....the ones he'd allegedly offered to Rafiah.
Nevertheless, following the refusal of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to grant access by Justice Department officials to files which were key to the investigation, Keuch's recommendation for a grand jury hearing, and ultimately the investigation itself, were shut down. This decision, taken by Philip Heymann, Chief of Justice's Criminal Division, was a bitter disappointment to Davitt and to Joel Lisker, the lead investigator on the case, as expressed to this writer. A complicating factor in the outcome was that Heymann was a former schoolmate and fellow U.S. Supreme Court Clerk of Bryen's attorney, Nathan Lewin.
Bryen was asked to resign from his Foreign Relations Committee post shortly before the investigation was concluded in late 1979. For the following year and a half, he served as Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and provided consulting services to AIPAC.
In April, 1981, the FBI received an application by the Defense Department for a Top Secret security clearance for Dr. Bryen. Richard Perle, who had just been nominated as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, was proposing Bryen as his Deputy Assistant Secretary! Within six months, with Perle pushing hard, Bryen received both Top Secret-SCI (sensitive compartmented information) and Top Secret-"NATO/COSMIC" clearances.
Loyalty, Patriotism and Character
The Bryen investigation became in fact the most contentious issue in Perle's own confirmation hearings in July, 1981. Under aggressive questioning from Sen. Jeremiah Denton, Perle held his ground: "I consider Dr. Bryen to be an individual impeccable integrity....I have the highest confidence in [his] loyalty, patriotism and character."
Several years later in early 1988, Israel was in the final stages of development of a prototype of its ground based "Arrow" anti-ballistic missile. One element the program lacked was "klystrons", small microwave amplifiers which are critical components in the missile's high frequency, radar-based target acquisition system which locks on to in-coming missiles. In 1988, klystrons were among the most advanced developments in American weapons research, and their export was of course strictly proscribed.
The DOD office involved in control of defense technology exports was the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) within Richard Perle's ISP office. The Director (and founder) of DTSA was Perle's Deputy, Dr. Stephen Bryen. In May of 1988, Bryen sent a standard form to Richard Levine, a Navy tech transfer official, informing him of intent to approve a license for Varian Associates, Inc. of Beverly, Massachusetts to export to Israel four klystrons. This was done without the usual consultations with the tech transfer officials of the Army and Air Force, or ISA (International Security Affairs) or DSAA (Defense Security Assistance Agency.
The answer from Levine was "no". He opposed granting the license, and asked for a meeting on the matter of the appropriate (above listed) offices. At the meeting, all of the officials present opposed the license. Bryen responded by suggesting that he go back to the Israelis to ask why these particular items were needed for their defense. Later, after the Israeli Government came back with what one DOD staffer described as "a little bullshit answer", Bryen simply notified the meeting attendees that an acceptable answer had been received, the license granted, and the klystrons released.
By now, however, the dogs were awake. Then Assistant Secretary of Defense for ISA, (and now Deputy Secretary of State) Richard Armitage sent Dr. Bryen a letter stating that the State Department (which issues the export licenses) should be informed of DOD's "uniformly negative" reaction to the export of klystrons to Israel. Bryen did as instructed , and the license was withdrawn.
In July, Varian Associates became the first U.S. corporation formally precluded from contracting with the Defense Department. Two senior colleague in DOD who wish to remain anonymous have confirmed that this attempt by Bryen to obtain klystrons for his friends was not unusual, and was in fact "standard operating procedure" for him, recalling numerous instances when U.S. companies were denied licenses to export sensitive technology, only to learn later that Israeli companies subsequently exported similar (U.S. derived) weapons and technology to the intended customers/governments.
In late1988, Bryen resigned from his DOD post, and for a period worked in the
private sector with a variety of defense technology consulting firms.
Bryen and the China Commission
In 1997, "Defense Week" reported (05/27/97) that, ...." the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence reaffirmed that U.S.- derived technology from the cancelled [Israeli] Lavi fighter project is being used on China's new F-10 fighter." The following year, "Jane's Intelligence Review" reported (11/01/98) the transfer by Israel to China of the Phalcon airborne early warning and control system, the Python air-combat missile, and the F-10 fighter aircraft, containing "state-of-the-art U.S. electronics."
Concern about the continuing transfer of advanced U.S. arms technology to the burgeoning Chinese military program led, in the last months of the Clinton Administration, to the creation of a Congressional consultative body called the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The charter for the "The China Commission", as it is commonly known, states that its purpose is to...."monitor, investigate, and report to the Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China." The charter also reflects an awareness of the problem of "back door" technology leaks: "The Commission shall also take into account patterns of trade and transfers through third countries to the extent practicable."
It was almost predictable that in the new Bush Administration, Dr. Stephen Bryen would find his way to the China Commission. In April 2001, with the support of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) Bryen was appointed a Member of the Commission by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Last August, his appointment was extended through December of 2005.
Informed that Bryen had been appointed to the Commission, the reaction of one former
senior FBI counter-intelligence official was: "My God, that must mean he has a "Q
clearance!" (A "Q" clearance, which must be approved by the Department of Energy, is the designation for a Top Secret codeword clearance to access nuclear technology.)
Michael Ledeen, Consultant on Chaos
If Stephen Bryen is the military technology guru in the neo-con pantheon, Michael Ledeen is currently its leading theorist, historian, scholar and writer. It states in the website of his consulting firm, Benador Associates, that he is "...one of the world's leading authorities on intelligence, contemporary history and international affairs" and that...."As Ted Koppel puts it, 'Michael Ledeen is a Renaissance man....in the tradition of Machiavelli.'" Perhaps the following will add some color and texture to this description.
In 1983, on the recommendation of Richard Perle, Ledeen was hired at the Department of Defense as a consultant on terrorism. His immediate supervisor was the Principle Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, Noel Koch. Early in their work together, Koch noticed with concern Ledeen's habit of stopping by in his (Koch's) outer office to read classified materials. When the two of them took a trip to Italy, Koch learned from the CIA station there that when Ledeen had lived in Rome previously, as correspondent for The New Republic, he'd been carried in Agency files as an agent of influence of a foreign government: Israel.
Some time after their return from the trip, Ledeen approached his boss with a request for his assistance in obtaining two highly classified CIA reports which he said were held by the FBI. He'd hand written on a piece of paper the identifying "alpha numeric designators". These identifiers were as highly classified as the reports themselves....which raised in Koch's mind the question of who had provided them to Ledeen if he hadn't the clearances to obtain them himself. Koch immediately told his executive assistant that Ledeen was to have no further access to classified materials in the office, and Ledeen just ceased coming to "work".
In early 1986, however, Koch learned that Ledeen had joined NSC as a consultant, and sufficiently concerned about the internal security implications of the behavior of his former aide, arranged to be interviewed by two FBI agents on the matter. After a two hour debriefing, Koch was told that it was only Soviet military intelligence penetration that interested the Bureau. The follow-on interviews that were promised by the agents just never occurred.
Koch thought this strange, coming as it did just months after the arrest of Naval intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard on charges of espionage for Israel. Frustrated, Koch wrote up in detail the entire saga of Ledeen's DOD consultancy, and sent it to the Office of Senator Charles Grassley, then a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which had oversight responsibility for, inter alia, the FBI.
A former senior FBI counter-intelligence official was surprised and somewhat skeptical, when told of Koch's unsuccessful attempts to interest the Bureau in an investigation of Ledeen, noting that in early 1986, the Justice Department was in fact already engaged in several on-going, concurrent investigations of Israeli espionage and theft of American military technology.
Machiavelli in Tel Aviv
Koch's belated attempts to draw official attention to his former assistant were too late, in any event, for within a very few weeks of leaving his DOD consultancy in late 1984, Ledeen had found gainful (classified) employment at the National Security Council (NSC). In fact, according to a now declassified chronology prepared for the Senate/House Iran-
Contra investigation, within calendar 1984 Ledeen was already suggesting to Oliver North, his new boss at NSC...." that Israeli contacts might be useful in obtaining release of the U.S. hostages in Lebanon." Perhaps significantly, that is the first entry in the "Chronology of Events: U.S.- Iran Dialogue", dated November 18,1986, prepared for the Joint House-Senate Hearings in the Iran-Contra Investigations.
What is so striking about the Ledeen-related documents which are part of the Iran-Contra Collection of the National Security Archive, is how thoroughly the judgements of Ledeen's colleagues at NSC mirrored, and validated, Noel Koch's internal security concerns about his consultant.
- on April 9, 1985, NSC Middle East analyst Donald Fortier wrote to National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane that NSC staffers were agreed that Ledeen's role in the scheme should be limited to carrying messages to Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres regarding plans to cooperate with Israel on the crisis within Iran, and specifically that he should not be entrusted to ask Peres for detailed operational information;
- on June 6, 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz wrote to McFarlane that, "Israel's record of dealings with Iran since the fall of the Shah and during the hostage crisis [show] that Israel's agenda is not the same as ours. Consequently doubt whether an intelligence relationship such as what Ledeen has in mind would be one which we could fully rely upon and it could seriously skew our own perception and analysis of the Iranian scene."
- on 20 August, 1985, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense informed Ledeen by memorandum that his security clearance had been downgraded from Top Secret-SCI to Secret.
- on 16 January, 1986, Oliver North recommended to John Poindexter "for [the] security of the Iran initiative" that Ledeen be asked to take periodic polygraph examinations.
- later in January, on the 24th, North wrote to Poindexter of his suspicion that Ledeen, along with Adolph Schwimmer and Manucher Ghorbanifar, might be making money personally on the sale of arms to Iran, through Israel.
During the June 23-25, 1987 joint hearings of the House and Senate select committees' investigation of Iran-Contra, Noel Koch testified that he became suspicious when he learned that the price which Ledeen had negotiated for the sale to the Israeli Government of basic TOW missiles was $2,500 each.
Upon inquiring with his DOD colleagues, he learned the lowest price the U.S. had ever received for the sale of TOWs to a foreign government had been a previous sale to Israel for $6,800 per copy. Koch, professing in his testimony that he and his colleagues at DOD were not in favor of the sale to begin with, determined that he--Koch--should renegotiate the $2,500 price so that it could be defended by the "defense management system." In a clandestine meeting on a Sunday in the first class lounge of the TWA section of National Airport, Koch met over a cup of coffee with an official from the Israeli purchasing mission in New York, and agreed on a price of $4,500 per missile, nearly twice what Ledeen had "negotiated" in Israel.
There are two possibilities here--one would be a kickback, as suspected by his NSC colleagues, and the other would be that Michael Ledeen was effectively negotiating for Israel, not the U.S.
Like his friend Stephen Bryen (they've long served together on the JINSA Board of Advisors) Ledeen has been out of government service since the late1980s....until the present Bush Administration. He, like Bryen, is presently a serving member on the China Commission and, with the support of DOD Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, he
has since 2001 been employed as a consultant for the Office of Special Plans OSP). Both involve the handling of classified materials and require high-level security clearances.
The Principals: Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith
One might wonder how, with security histories like these, Messrs. Bryen and Ledeen have managed to get second and third chances to return to government in highly classified positions.
And the explanation is that they, along with other like-minded neo-conservatives, have in the current Bush Administration friends in very high places. In particular, Bryen and Ledeen have been repeatedly boosted into defense/security posts by former Defense Policy Council member and chairman Richard Perle (he just quietly resigned his position), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
As previously mentioned, Perle in 1981 as DOD Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy (ISP) hired Bryen as his Deputy. That same year, Wolfowitz as head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff hired Ledeen as a Special Advisor. In 2001 Douglas Feith as DOD Under Secretary for Policy hired, or approved the hiring of Ledeen as a consultant for the Office of Special Plans.
The principals have also assisted each other down through the years. Frequently. In 1973 Richard Perle used his (and Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson's) influence as a senior staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to help Wolfowitz obtain a job with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In 1982, Perle hired Feith in ISP as his Special Counsel, and then as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy. In 2001, DOD Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz helped Feith obtain his appointment as Undersecretary for Policy. Feith then appointed Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In some cases, this mutual assistance carries risks, as for instance when Perle's hiring of Bryen as his Deputy in ISP became an extremely contentious issue in Perle's own Senate appointment hearings as Assistant Secretary.
Every appointment/hiring listed above involved classified work for which high-level security clearances and associated background checks by the FBI were required. When the level of the clearance is not above generic Top Secret, however, the results of that background check are only seen by the hiring authority. And in the event, if the appointee were Bryen or Ledeen and the hiring authority were Perle, Wolfowitz or Feith, the appointee(s) need not have worried about the findings of the background check. In the case of Perle hiring Bryen as his deputy in 1981, for instance, documents released in 1983 under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the Department provided extraordinarily high clearances for Bryen without having reviewed more than a small portion of his 1978-79 FBI investigation file.
RICHARD PERLE: A HABIT OF LEAKING
Perle came to Washington for the first time in early 1969, at the age of 28, to work for a neo-con think tank called the "Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy." Within months, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson offered Perle a position on his staff, working with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And within months after that--less than a year--Perle was embroiled in an affair involving the leaking of a classified CIA report on alleged past Soviet treaty violations.
The leaker (and author of the report) was CIA analyst David Sullivan, and the leakee was Richard Perle. CIA Director Stansfield Turner was incensed at the unauthorized disclosure, but before he could fire Sullivan, the latter quit. Turner urged Sen. Jackson to fire Perle, but he was let off with a reprimand. Jackson then added insult to injury by immediately hiring Sullivan to his staff. Sullivan and Perle became close friends and co-conspirators, and together established an informal right-wing network which they called "the Madison Group," after their usual meeting place in--you might have guessed--the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop.
Perle's second brush with the law occurred a year later in 1970. An FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Perle discussing with an Embassy official classified information which he said had been supplied to by a staff member on the National Security Council. An NSC/FBI investigation was launched to identify the staff member, and quickly focused upon Helmut Sonnenfeldt. The latter had been previously investigated in 1967 while a staff member of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, for suspected unauthorized transmission to an Israeli Government official of a classified document concerning the commencement of the 1967 war in the Middle East.
In 1981, shortly before being appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (ISP)--with responsibility, inter alia, for monitoring of U.S. defense technology exports, Richard Perle was paid a substantial consulting fee by arms manufacturer Tamares, Ltd. of Israel. Shortly after assuming that post, Perle wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Army urging evaluation and purchase of 155 mm. shells manufactured by Soltam, Ltd. After leaving the ISP job in 1987, he worked for Soltam.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ : A WELL PLACED FRIEND
In 1973, in the dying days of the Nixon Administration, Wolfowitz was recruited to work for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). There was a certain irony in the appointment, for in the late 1960's, as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz had been a student and protege of Albert Wohlstetter, an influential, vehement opponent of any form of arms control or disarmament, vis a vis the Soviets. Wolfowitz also brought to ACDA a strong attachment to Israel's security, and a certain confusion about his obligation to U.S. national security.
In 1978, he was investigated for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government, to an Israel Government official, through an AIPAC intermediary. An inquiry was launched and dropped, however, and Wolfowitz continued to work at ACDA until 1980.
In 1990, after a decade of work with the State Department in Washington and abroad, Wolfowitz was brought into DoD as Undersecretary for Policy by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. Two years later, in 1992, the first Bush Administration launched a broad inter-departmental investigation into the export of classified technology to China. O particular concern at the time was the transfer to China by Israel of U.S. Patriot missiles and/or technology. During that investigation, in a situation very reminiscent of the Bryen/Varian Associates/klystrons affair two years earlier, the Pentagon discovered that Wolfowitz's office was promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM-9M air-to-air missiles.
In this instance, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, aware that Israel had already been caught selling the earlier AIM 9-L version of the missile to China in violation of a written agreement with the U.S. on arms re-sales, intervened to cancel the proposed AIM (-M deal. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time was General Colin Powell, currently Secretary of State.
Wolfowitz continued to serve as DoD Undersecretary for Policy until 1993, well into the Clinton Administration. After that, however, like most of the other prominent neo-conservatives, he was relegated to trying to assist Israel from the sidelines for the remainder of Clinton's two terms. In 1998, Wolfowitz was a co-signer of a public letter to the President organized by the "Project for the New American Century." The letter, citing Saddam Hussein's continued possession of "weapons of mass destruction," argued for military action to achieve regime change and demilitarization of Iraq. Clinton wasn't impressed, but a more gullible fellow would soon come along.
And indeed, when George W. Bush assumed the Presidency in early 2001, Wolfowitz got his opportunity. Picked as Donald Rumsfeld's Deputy Secretary at DoD, he prevailed upon his boss to appoint Douglas Feith as Undersecretary for Policy. On the day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, September 12, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz raised the possibility of an immediate attack on Iraq during an emergency NSC meeting. The following day, Wolfowitz conducted the Pentagon press briefing, and interpreted the
President's statement on "ending states who sponsor terrorism" as a call for regime change in Iraq. Israel wasn't mentioned.
Douglas Feith: Hardliner, Security Risk
Bush's appointment of Douglas Feith as DoD Undersecretary for Policy in early 2001 must have come as a surprise, and a harbinger, even to conservative veterans of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administration. Like Michael Ledeen, Feith is a prolific writer and well-known radical conservative. Moreover, he was not being hired as a DoD consultant, like Ledeen, but as the third most senior United States Defense Department official. Feith was certainly the first, and probably the last high Pentagon official to have publicly opposed the Biological Weapons Convention (in 1986), the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (in 1988), the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1997), the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (in 2000), and all of the various Middle East Peace agreements, including Oslo (in 2000).
Even more revealing perhaps, had the transition team known of it, was Feith's view of "technology cooperation," as expressed in a 1992 Commentary article: "It is in the interest of U.S. and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them. Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and promote peace thereby."
What Douglas Feith had neglected to say, in this last article, was that he thought that individuals could decide on their own whether the sharing of classified information was "technical cooperation," an unauthorized disclosure, or a violation of U.S. Code 794c, the "Espionage Act."
Ten years prior to writing the Commentary piece, Feith had made such a decision on his own. At the time, March of 1972, Feith was a Middle East analyst in the Near East and South Asian Affairs section of the National Security Council. Two months before, in January, Judge William Clark had replaced Richard Allen as National Security Advisor, with the intention to clean house. A total of nine NSC staff members were fired, including Feith, who'd only been with the NSC for a year. But Feith was fired because he'd been the object of an inquiry into whether he'd provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The FBI had opened the inquiry. And Clark, who had served in U.S. Army counterintelligence in the 1950's, took such matters very seriously.....more seriously, apparently, than had Richard Allen.
Feith did not remain unemployed for long, however. Richard Perle, who was in 1982 serving in the Pentagon as Assistant secretary for International Security Policy, hired him on the spot as his "Special Counsel," and then as his Deputy. Feith worked at ISP until 1986, when he left government service to form a small but influential law firm, then based in Israel.
In 2001, Douglas Feith returned to DoD as Donald Rumsfeld's Undersecretary for Policy, and it was in his office that "OSP", the Office of Special Plans, was created. It was OSP that originated--some say from whole cloth--much of the intelligence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have used to justify the attack on Iraq, to miss-plan the post-war reconstruction there, and then to point an accusing finger at Iran and Syria.....all to the absolute delight of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Reason for Concern
Many individuals with strong attachments to foreign countries have served the U.S. Government with honor and distinction, and will certainly do so in the future. The highest officials in our executive and legislative branches should, however, take great care when appointments are made to posts involving sensitive national security matters. Appointees should be rejected who have demonstrated, in their previous government service, a willingness to sacrifice U.S. national security interests for those of another country, or an inability to distinguish one from the other.
Stephen Green can be reached at: green@counterpunch.org | |  | | Alpha | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:02 am Post subject: misunderstanding |
| The title 'Serving two flags' shows that the writer is in the dark.
USA Jews through AIPAC control both House and Senate; to make sure that USA foreign policy supports Israel.
There is just one flag, until Jewish power in the USA ends.
Gretta Duisenberg, wife of the first and now former ECB bank, she leads a pro Palestine movenment called 'Stop the occupation', stated a week or so ago in a Dutch tv debate between Zionist Jews, a anti Zionist Jew, a Palestinian and herself, 'that Israel and the USA is four hands on one belly'.
This is the Dutch expression for complete loyalty.
When mrs Duisenberg began her movement New York bankiing Jews, made it clear to mr Duisenberg, who had a job comparable to Greenspan's, 'that he was no longer welcome in the USA'. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:16 am Post subject: Re: misunderstanding |
| | foppe37 wrote: | The title 'Serving two flags' shows that the writer is in the dark.
USA Jews through AIPAC control both House and Senate; to make sure that USA foreign policy supports Israel.
There is just one flag, until Jewish power in the USA ends.
Gretta Duisenberg, wife of the first and now former ECB bank, she leads a pro Palestine movenment called 'Stop the occupation', stated a week or so ago in a Dutch tv debate between Zionist Jews, a anti Zionist Jew, a Palestinian and herself, 'that Israel and the USA is four hands on one belly'.
This is the Dutch expression for complete loyalty.
When mrs Duisenberg began her movement New York bankiing Jews, made it clear to mr Duisenberg, who had a job comparable to Greenspan's, 'that he was no longer welcome in the USA'. |
That is an interesting coincidence that you mention that as I was thinking the same as these Zionist (Israel firster) traitors are only serving what they consider to be Israel's best interests (from a Likudite perspective) and are using the USA (US military, BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars) to do such. Utterly incredible how the American people can put up with this, but then again they don't know any better because their press/media has been hijacked by the Zionists as well..... Look at the link at the upper left of www.wrmea.com to see how much treasure is being pillaged by the pro-Israel (AIPAC) lobby-corrupted US government (which is also infested with Zionists who care more about Israel than America) when such US taxpayer BILLIONS should be used in America instead (to take care of US states which are going broke and to pay Social Security payments as well). | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:18 am Post subject: Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties |
| Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=40235&d=28&m=2&y=2004
Saturday, 28, February, 2004
Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties
Michael Saba, Special to Arab News —
WASHINGTON, 28 February 2004 — Stephen Green, the author featured in last week’s story, “The Article That Almost Wasn’t” wrote in the foreword to “The Armageddon Network” 20 years ago, “What you are about to read is first a spy story. It involves, in the classic pattern, the apparent misappropriation of highly classified documents belonging to the US Department of Defense and unauthorized dissemination of these materials to a foreign government.”
Green went on to say, “Those that are involved in the affair are still ‘at large’ and in fact currently hold senior positions in the Pentagon....” and also states, “this is an unfinished story of a possible cover-up and effort to abort the normal investigating and prosecutorial processes...” Green is still pursuing some of the same individuals who were featured in “The Armageddon Network” two decades ago but many other American journalists and media outlets refuse to confront this issue because even though it deals with illicit activities with a foreign country, that country is America’s “sacred cow” — Israel.
Last week we noted that over 20 major publications had rejected Green’s current article titled “The Pentagon’s Internal Security Problem: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ledeen” featured in the online CounterPunch weekend edition of Feb. 28-29 entitled “Serving Two Flags”.
Green’s article begins by pointing out that neoconservatives in the Bush administration have effectively “gutted” traditional American foreign and security policy. He states that notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force and the undermining of the principal instruments and institutions of international law including the UN all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Green adds that some feel that the underlying agenda of the neocons is the alignment of US foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing.
Green asks whether the neocons, many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President, had dual agendas while professing to work for the security of the United States against its terrorist enemies. He then proceeds to review the internal security backgrounds of some of the most prominent neocons and concludes that by looking at their security backgrounds, one can answer the questions that he poses in the article.
The individuals named in Green’s article include Stephen Bryen, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Let’s take a closer look at these individuals and how Green compiled the information on each of them.
Stephen Bryen and Michael Ledeen currently serve on the United States-China Economic Security and Review Commission. Both were appointed by the Republican congressional leaders in early 2001. Ledeen also serves as vice chairman of this China Commission. Additionally, according to Green, with the support of Department of Defense (DOD) Undersecretary Doulas Feith, Ledeen was employed as a consultant to the now infamous Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the DOD. Much has been written about the OSP and how major intelligence that led the US into the most recent war with Iraq was “cooked” in the OSP.
Green states that when a former senior FBI counterintelligence official heard of Bryen’s appointment to the China Commission, he said “My God, that must mean he has a ‘Q’ clearance. “ A “Q” clearance, which must be approved by the Department of Energy, is the designation for Top Secret codeword clearance to access nuclear technology.
Ledeen serving on both the China Commission and in the OSP would have access to classified materials and therefore would require high level security clearance.
Bryen and Ledeen have both been investigated by the US government extensively for improperly passing information to Israel.
In April of 1979 Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Keuch recommended in writing that Stephen Bryen, a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee undergo a Grand Jury hearing to establish the basis for a prosecution of Bryen of espionage for Israel. The investigation conducted over a year had over 1000 pages of information documenting many issues regarding Bryan’s relationship with Israel and leaking information to Israel.
In Green’s article he points out that after Bryen was appointed by Richard Perle to a high level DOD position during the Reagan administration and received another security clearance, he was confronted various times by his colleagues and superiors including current Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage about his overzealous attempts to help export restricted technology to Israel.
Michael Ledeen was hired by the DOD as a consultant on terrorism in 1983 and his immediate superior was Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch. Koch told Green that Ledeen had somehow obtained classified information that he should not have been allowed to see. Koch then informed his executive assistant that Ledeen was to be denied classified materials in the future.
In the mid-1990s Ledeen left the DOD and joined the National Security Council (NSC) as a consultant. In that capacity, Ledeen became a major player in the “Iran-Contra” scandal. Ledeen was noted for carrying messages to then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Ledeen had his NSC security clearance downgraded while in that position. He moved downward from Top Secret to Secret. Also in Iran-Contra document Oliver North recommended that Ledeen “be asked to take periodic polygraph examinations”. Noel Koch testified that he was suspicious of Ledeen because he learned that Ledeen was negotiating the sale of US basic TOW missiles for $2500 each when the normal cost to another foreign government was $6800 per missile. Throughout their governmental careers, Bryen and Ledeen have consistently been promoted to high-level defense and security positions by their fellow neocons; former Defense Advisory Board Chairman Richard Perle, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.
Journalist Sy Hersh has reported that in 1970 while Richard Perle was working for Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington, Perle was caught by an FBI wiretap discussing classified information with an official at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC. And according to the New York Times, in 1978 CIA Director Stansfield Turner asked Sen. Jackson to fire Perle after Perle was named as a recipient of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Perle is currently embroiled in various other scandals including an investigation into his business dealings with Conrad Black and the Hollinger Corporation. Perle serves on the board of Hollinger and allegedly received a multimillion dollar unreported payment which potentially violates the law.
Paul Wolfowitz was brought into the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) in 1973. He was known, according to Green, for his “strong attachment to Israel’s security”. In 1978 an investigation was conducted after, according to Green, Wolfowitz was “found to have provided a classified document on the proposed sale of US arms to an Israeli official through an AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) intermediary.
Also, according to Green, in 1990 when Wolfowitz was undersecretary for policy in the DOD under then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, an investigation was conducted that indicated “Wolfowitz had been internally promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM 9-M air-to-air missles” which were a restricted security item.
Douglas Feith has long been a major supporter of Israel. In 1982 Feith was a Middle East analyst for the NSC initially working under NSC head Richard Allen in the Reagan administration. When Allen was replaced by Judge William Clark, he fired nine staff members including Feith. According to Green, Feith was fired because he had been the subject of an FBI inquiry into whether, without authorization, he had provided classified information to a representative of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Stephen Green cites credible individuals and substantive documents in his article on these five current (as this article was being written Richard Perle announced his resignation from the Defense Policy Advisory Board) US government and government-related organizations. Though some of the 22 media outlets that rejected his article claimed there was “nothing new” in his piece, there is, in fact, much new and previously unreported public information in his commentary. That new information includes the 1978 inquiry on Paul Wolfowitz, the circumstances behind the Feith firing in 1982, the 1988 incidents concerning Bryen and the information on Ledeen provided by Noel Koch.
The most important point in the article is not just the interconnections of these five neocons. Perle hired Bryen 1981 to work at DOD. Wolfowitz hired Ledeen in 1981 as a special adviser. In 2001 Feith at DOD hired Ledeen as a consultant in the OSP.
Nor is it the assistance this group has given each other over the years. In 1973 Perle used his influence to help Wolfowitz obtain a job with the ACDA. In 1982 Perle assisted in hiring Feith at the DOD. In 2001 Wolfowitz helped Feith get his appointment at DOD and Feith appointed Perle as chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board.
And whatever sympathies these officials have to Israel is their own personal choice to which they have a right. Rather though, it is much more important that despite extensive investigations and files that exist on these individuals concerning leaking information to a foreign government, they continue to receive top level government positions and the highest level security clearances. It is not necessarily what is in these files that determines whether they receive security clearances, it is who does the hiring or appointing and whether the appointer feels that the appointee should receive the security clearance. And in the cases of Bryen, Ledeen, Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith, they each have usually managed to be the official that makes the decision about each other.
Former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Aikens in reviewing “The Armageddon Network” in 1984 said, “(The Armageddon Network) describes how high-placed American government officials have confused their loyalties; the story is a frightening one. Even more frightening is the failure of the American government to determine what damage has been done to the United States through their misguided action. The book is an instructive lesson on how the American government can be manipulated.”
Sound familiar?
— Dr. Michael Saba is the author of “The Armageddon Network” and is an international relations consultant. | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:57 am Post subject: USA and European democracy |
| USA democracy can be described as voting for a president, senators and representatives.
There is no doubt that voting exists, though it is not so that automatically any USA citizen is invited to vote, as are W European citizens.
This seems to be all about USA democracy.
Western European democracy also has voting, but on top a that a few things that the USA does not have.
First and foremost W European countries have governments that are controlled by and responsible to the elected representives of the citizens.
Once a parliament states that they no longer trust a government they all are out of a job the next moment.
In European countries one cannot imagine that a parliament has to sue a government member for handing over documents, as the senate is suing Cheney about Enron.
Secondly western European governments think one of their duties was and is to inform the citizens, not directly, but by institutions created for supplying impartial information, especially radio and tv organisations.
The row between the BBC and Tony B-liar shows how important these independent institutions are, independent despite being paid from taxes.
The third main difference between the USA democracy and W European democracies is that since 1900, or even earlier, governments began to cooperate with trade unions.
European social legislature was created under pressure from trade unions.
The result is a more egalitarian distribution of income, less crime, and no gate communities.
The USA to me still is a frontier state, anyone for himself, and God for all of us.
Who is poor and/or criminal has just him-, or herself, to blame. | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:41 am Post subject: USA Jewry, as seen by a 'dissident' Israeli journalist |
| The Man Higher Up
By Israel Shamir
(A Chapter from the Pardes)
Three thieves, lucky enough to escape their pursuers but broke and despondent, find their ways crossed in a small Midwest town - opens a droll short story The Man Higher Up by the American virtuoso of the genre, O.Henry. They represent three kinds of graft: Bill is a burglar, Jeff is a cheat, while Alfred sells junk shares. Eventually, Bill robbed a bank and opened a poker room. Jeff spiked cards and cleaned out Bill, ‘leaving him a black cat and wanderlust’. But Jeff’s joy was short-lived: he invested the profits of his ‘business’ operations in gold mine shares, only to discover too late that the shares are signed by the CEO A.L. Fredericks, who is nobody but his fellow felon Alfred E. Ricks. Thus, the profits of the burglary went to a businessman and ended up with a speculator, at which point Jeff the cheat exclaimed: Wall Street speculation and burglary ought to be wiped out by law!
This story could be read as a parable of the American fortunes. Bill the Burglar symbolizes the primary acquisition. The original pioneers killed off the natives and robbed the new continent. They dug for gold and oil, turned prairies into corn fields and remained on the Marlboro billboards as intrepid cowboys. Jeff the Yankee, a typical American businessman, skinned Bill, opened shops and banks, marketed Coca Cola, created oil companies, carpet-bagged the South, turned Latin America into his banana-producing backyard, only to find his money invested with A.L. Fredericks a.k.a. Goldman Sachs, Marc Rich, Michael Milken, Andrew Fastow et al.
In real life as in the short story, A.L. Fredericks had cheated Jeff the Cheat. He took his real dollar and turned it into ‘funny money’, ‘unredeemable, non-interest-bearing promissory notes of the Fed, that are not backed by anything other than the confidence of the credulous’, in the words of one Internet wit. For 650 billion dollars issued, the Fed has just 17 billion dollars worth of equity, ‘the real cover’. The US has now $38 trillion of aggregate debt incurred by Alfred in relation to a GDP of $10 trillion produced by Bill and Jeff. The greatest pyramid of all is built on the same principles as the Albanian pyramid that ruined this small Balkan country a few years ago. Sooner rather than later, Jeff, the American middle class, will feel the pinch of AN approaching crisis that threatens to dwarf 1929. Bill, the American worker, feels it already. The ruination of the American working class and even its middle class is unavoidable, for the incredible riches of the US have disappeared into Alfred’s black hole.
Can we try and identify ‘Alfred’, the Man Higher Up, with greater precision than as simply a ‘bad rich man’? Who are the net gainers of the pyramid? A new national study (http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/relgwlth.htm) by Lisa Keister, associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University, says that ‘the wealth (or median net worth) of Jewish people in the US is $150,890, more than three times the average wealth of Americans ($48,200). (In comparison, in 1956 the median net worth of a Jew was just below average). The wealth of conservative Protestants (Bill of the story) IS $26,200, or about half the overall average. The wealth of mainstream Protestants and Catholics (Jeff of the story) is about the average for the whole sample. Thus, the Jew has three times more wealth than the much-maligned Jeff the WASP, and six times more wealth than even more despised Bill the Redneck.
‘What parcels out the world is the fact of belonging or not belonging to a given species. The cause is the consequence; you are rich because you are a Jew, you are a Jew because you are rich’, in the ringing words of a prominent Marxist scholar of colonialism, Frantz Fanon (mutatis mutandis: he spoke of ‘whites’ in the colonial reality of Africa).
Lenni Brenner, the Trotskyite author of the book Jews in America wrote recently: “Why then is the Zionist lobby so powerful when their own scholars write endlessly about the alienation of their youth from the movement? The answer is simple: the Jews are the richest ethnic or religious stratum in the US. Because their standard of living is so high, they are the most educated. Because they are the most educated, they are the most scientifically oriented, hence most inclined towards atheism or religious scepticism. But the true believer minority still has an unbelievable amount of money to throw at the politicians.”
Keister found that full “one-third of the Jews invest in high-risk, high-return assets such as stocks and bonds, compared with none of the conservative Protestants, and 4 percent of Catholics.” While the Jews have no monopoly on Wall Street speculation, they do constitute the hard core of the collective A.L. Fredericks. It is a part of their tradition: Jay Gould and Joseph Seligman caused the "Black Friday" stock market crash in the late 19th century, while Jacob Schiff caused the notorious 'Black Thursday' panic that led to a nationwide economic depression. Seligman was also the mover behind the Panama affair, a stock market swindle that became proverbial in France.
“During Prohibition," notes Robert Rockaway, the author of an apologetic book on Jewish gangsters, "fifty per cent of the leading bootleggers were Jewish, and Jewish criminals financed and directed much of the nation's narcotics traffic”. The present leadership of American Jewry are to a large extent the sons of Jewish gangsters, killers, smugglers and fraudsters; for instance, the Bronfmans, sons of Bronfman the Bootlegger, or Michael Steinhardt, the son of a mafioso “Red Steinhardt”, one of Democratic presidential hopeful Joseph Lieberman's key backers.
Dr. William Pierce wrote an interesting piece on Jewish crooks. Oh yes, Dr Pierce is a far-right racialist, but this does not invalidate his observations. Half of the antizionist discourse was build upon books of Benny Morris, an Israeli Nazi, who extolled ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and regretted that Palestine is not Goy-free. If we use the works of Morris, we have no reason to disregard Dr Pierce, who wrote:
“It's not that Jews are the only crooks who steal from the American people. George Bush is a crook, and he's not a Jew. Bill and Hillary Clinton are crooks, and they're not Jews either. There probably are more Gentile swindlers in America than Jewish swindlers, simply because Gentiles outnumber Jews 40 to one in the overall population.
“No, Jews aren't the only crooks, but they're certainly the biggest crooks. If you hear about a 100-thousand-dollar swindle, it could be anybody. If you hear about a 100-million-dollar swindle, then you know that it has to be a Jew.”
It will be a mistake to see these data as ‘racist’. The ideologists of Jewry indignantly deny any connection between the ‘religion’ or ‘ethnicity’ or ‘origins’ of the crooks, and their crooked deeds. This is to be expected – that is what they are paid for. But as a matter of fact, A.L. Fredericks is devoted to the Jews, whether he is a Jew or not. Enron's chief financial officer was Andrew Fastow, described by the rabbi of his synagogue as ‘a mentsh, a very committed member of the community. He's active in supporting Jewish causes, is a devoted supporter of Israel’, while his wife Lea (now plea bargaining) Weingarten, who ‘hails from a prominent and well-respected philanthropic family’, did not miss a lesson in the synagogue.
But Kenneth Lay, the Goy top man of Enron scandal, was equally devoted to the Jewish cause. He and his equally Gentile wife Linda chipped in $850,000 at a fund-raising event last year for the Holocaust Museum in Houston, Texas, informed the Jerusalem Report, and concluded: “in all, Enron was connected with about a third of the $3.5 million raised at the event, which honoured former Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen and Holocaust chronicler Ruth Gruber.»
We see again this uncanny, mind-boggling, closely-knit connection of crooks and – not Jews, but Jewish causes, be it the Holocaust cult or the Zionist cause. Lay and Fastow stole billions of dollars from Jeff the Investor; they stole even more from Bill the Worker while Lea Fastow-Weingarten siphoned their money into tax shelters on the Cayman Islands. But when it came to charity, they did not care for poor Americans, or starving Africans. They gave their tithe to the Jewish cause.
Kenneth Lay is not alone. ‘Sir’ Conrad Black, a Goy media baron, (admittedly married to a nasty Jewish supremacy columnist) is totally devoted to the Jewish and Zionist cause. He owns the Jerusalem Post, an extreme Zionist paper which criticizes Sharon for his lack of fervour. Expectedly, he turned out to be a crook. He stripped the assets of companies he chaired and stole hundreds millions of dollars. But a wealthy man who likes the Jews and spends so much on the Jewish causes is invariably a crook, whether he is a Jew like Fastow or a Goy like Lay.
A Jewish crook is pushed by society-enforced feeling of victimhood, for as perennial victim, the Jew feels the need to correct ‘injustice’ by some extra-legal action. Theft of Palestinian lands was explained (by Rabbi Lerner, among others) by the need to correct the ‘injustice’ of the Roman occupation of Palestine 2000 years ago. Establishment of the Jewish state is explained by the ‘injustice’ of Arabs having 22 states, while the Jews had none. Daylight robbery of Swiss banks corrected the ‘injustice’ of Nazi confiscations, though the banks never held Jewish deposits. In a way, the Holocaust museums are an important factor in the growth of Jewish criminality, for they enforce the feeling of Jewish victimhood.
Extreme combativeness, the state of war with [Gentile] society, a constant feature of the Jewish tendency, provides another explanation of Jewish criminality. The state of war which allowed the Jews to charge interest, collect exorbitant taxes, deal with slums accommodation and stolen property, has became to an extent the norm of neo-liberal ‘open society’, where everyone is at war with everybody else.
These features of the Jewish setup appeal to certain non-Jews whom we call ‘Mammonites’; they prefer the somewhat Luciferian paradigm of an outsider, at war with the society, free from the moral constraints imposed by the majority, and yet still chosen by a higher entity. These ‘copycat Jews’ rightly feel that they will prosper in the Jewish-arranged world. That is why they support the Jewish cause and admire the State of Israel, the country of no moral restraints, a wholesale assassin and nature destroyer, black money launderer, mass killer, and a leading exporter of weapons and torture equipment.
Jacob Ben Efrat, an Israeli pro-democracy activist, calls us to “look at Tel Aviv, a fourth of whose population now consists of migrant workers from East Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. Capitalist globalisers want a flexible labour force, which they can transport at will from country to country. As the result, the gap between haves and have-nots increases. Israel is a shining example. Here the topmost fifth of the population earn 21 times more than the bottommost fifth (compared with 11 times more in the US)”. This quality makes Israel much loved by the Gentile Mammonites.Thus, for an American, European or Russian the conclusion is clear: their pro-Israel, pro-Jewish politicians are the worst for the people and the best for the crooks. A potential investor in Enron, equipped with this short essay, could just check Enron’s contributions to the Holocaust museum and he would know enough to carry his money elsewhere, unless he wants to lose it for tax purposes. A California voter could just ask for Diane Feinstein’s opinion about the Jewish state, and vote for her, if he likes the War in Iraq, expensive privatised electricity and a flood of illegal workers.
Indeed, Diane Feinstein, a nominal Democrat, contributed to the War in Iraq more than the average Republican: “Within minutes of Powell's war speech, leading Senate Democrats such as Joseph Biden of Delaware and Diane Feinstein of California were proclaiming it an unanswerable indictment of Iraq, preparing the way for their party to line up behind the war that is now only days or weeks away”, noted The World Socialist Web Site in February 2003. The present competition for the Jewish and Mammonite vote in the US Presidency elections is a bad sign for Bill and Jeff, for they are competing who will skin them better.
In Sweden, their unique welfare state entrenched by the antizionist Prime Minister Olof Palme is being undone by Göran Larsson, their present Prime Minister, perennial organiser of holocaust conferences.
When voting or investing, a prudent American, European or Russian should pick the company or the candidate that does not support the Jewish or the Zionist cause. For sure, it can be a vote for a politician of Jewish origin, like Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who was killed in a well-timed plane crash in October 2002. Wellstone was the strongest voice against the war in Iraq, and supported Palestinian struggle. Michael Howard, the new leader of the Conservative Party, is another good example. Indeed, a non-Jew who likes the Jewish cause – like Tony Blair or Condoleezza Rice, Bill Clinton or George Bush – is much more dangerous than a Jew who keeps clear of the Jewish causes.
Immanuel Wallerstein compares the events of 1968 to a ‘ship-wreck’, in aftermath of which the talented A.L. Fredericks scrambled to shore, ‘undeterred by the thought of drowning companions’, but (to continue Wallerstein’s parable in our terms) the drowning Bill and Jeff came to interpret the ability of the talented to swim to shore as evidence of hope for them. Wallerstein missed the point: this interpretation was not made by Bill and Jeff, but by the wholly-owned subsidiary of A.L. Fredericks, the Jewish-owned media with its Jewish pundits. Without this tool, Fredericks would have been tarred and feathered, if not lynched in the best American tradition.
The financial capital of speculators and banks exceeded the industrial and agricultural capacities and created the giant dollar bubble soon to burst. This explains the hysterical campaign against ‘antisemites’: A.L. Fredericks does not want his name and address to be known to Bill and Jeff; he prefers to hide behind an anonymous ‘rich white man’ front. To be on the safe side, ‘antisemites’ are always lumped with ‘racists’ and Jews - with Blacks or other immigrant minorities, as if struggle against Alfred has anything to do with the racial or other qualities of Jim, the Black half-brother of Bill, or Ahmed, a powerless outsider.
Why should we care who pocketed Bill’s cash – an all-American Jeff the Cheat, or cosmopolitan Alfred the Swindler? However, Alfred the Jew is in a class by himself, and not because of his cruelty. The Sultan of Brunei builds a palace and gives a Boeing to his daughter. Paul Getty locks himself up in a far away place. Wealthy Jews buy media, and media is a mind-altering tool. Thus, their influence goes way beyond market dominance into previously uncharted waters of mind control.
This pattern is seen all over the world. Sulzberger and Zuckerman own a string of newspapers in the US from the NY Times to the USA Today, while their brethren have monopolised editorial and other prominent positions in the discourse. Connecting wealth and media influence, Benjamin Ginsberg, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University wrote in 1993:
“Today, though barely 2% of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and most influential newspaper, the New York Times.”
This makes supreme sense, for otherwise, the free media would point its accusing finger in their direction. The people of America would demand from Alfred that he pull out his pockets and fully refund the stolen goods. However, such a remedy does not even occur to them today. The reason is the Jewish involvement in the discourse. Thus, we can complete the first level of our analysis on a purely materialistic note, so dear to the hearts of vulgar Marxists. The rich Jews buy media so it will cover up their (and their brethren’s) misdeeds. The Jews in the media are giving protection to the rich Jews: in the right-wing media, they protect all rich and powerful men; in the left-wing media, they blur the distinction between Jeff and Alfred.
Is that what the Jews want?
{This question is answered in the following chapters of the PARDES. The Full text is available to donors or active contributors of this list just for asking. Send an email to Shamir@home.se with subject ‘pardes’ to receive the PDF file}. | | | | Ed Toner | | Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 1:18 pm Post subject: |
| Wisdom of the Gospels - Let us attend:
Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 21:12-13
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Matthew 23:1-4
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Matthew 23:13-15
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Matthew 26:57-60
Before the Sanhedrin
And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
Matthew 27:15-26
Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Luke 16:13-14
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
John 2:13-16
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
John 7:10-13
But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?
And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.
Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.
John 8:42-59
The Children of the Devil
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
The Claims of Jesus About Himself
Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Revelation 3:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:43 am Post subject: on request |
| I was asked to post what is below; I responded to a question if I knew an URL about Schultz being a Jew.
Let me add that the early Jewish Palestine communities were communist, or socialist, whatever word you prefer.
But the leading principle was, some of these kibbutz as they (later ?) were called, still have the principle, that people put in effort in the kibbutz to their capacities and got food, clothing, a bed and so on according to their needs.
I cannot imagine for instance Henry Ford sr. having a mansion in a communist/socialist community, being also the financial supporter of that community.
The London Rothschilds, after WW I until 1938 Munich, yearly received a substantial part of Chechslovak national income from their controlling interests in a major part of Chechoslovak industry.
These Rothschilds also had a Palestine company for the sale of Chechoslovak products.
One more remark, Jewish colonisation of Palestine from 1880 until 1917, when the British conquered Palestine, was a German colonisation.
The German empire was good friends with the Ottoman empire.
Many German schools were established in Palestine.
I do not, and I do not put much faith in URLS.
If Schultz is Jew or not depends on what you define as a Jew.
I did discover that sympathy for the Jewsish enterprises, especially Israel, remains long after official Jewry went.
A USA historian whose great grandfather around 1870 converted to christianity, in Germany, is of the opinion that what Jews want is more important than what non Jews want.
Hitler saw a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, of communist and capitalist Jews.
I always thought Hitler was crazy.
After I saw on a 1890 picture of one of the early Palestine Jewish colonies the mansion of a Rothschild I began to doubt.
After a USA citizen living in Paris said about the neocons 'there is no conspiracy, just a sociological occurrence', and after reading a British Observer article on Jewish tribalism, I also concluded there is no conspiracy, 'just a sociological occurrence'.
In the Jewish case the occurrence is worldwide tribalism, especially of Asjkenazi Jews.
But also descendants of Sephardic Jews, in case Asjkenazi Jews are criticised, seem to have the idea that Jews can be criticised by Jews, but not be non Jews.
The main things in which tribes differ from non tribal people is in relations to concepts as 'truth', 'loyalty' and 'guilt'.
In a tribe what the chief says is true.
Loyalty within the tribe supersedes any commitment outside the tribe.
Guilt in a tribe is collective guilt, individual guilt does not exist, in relation to non tribe members. | | | | Ed Toner | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
