← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 5139 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-02-21
2003-02-21 08:03 | User Profile
From CounterPunch, available online at: [url=http://www.counterpunch.com/alam02202003.html]http://www.counterpunch.com/alam02202003.html[/url]
**The Motives for a Flawed War
Israel's Proxy War?**
By M. Shahid Alam February 19, 2003
It has been apparent to all but the purblind--a defect in understanding assiduously cultivated by America's mass media--that the war United States is ready to wage against Iraq has almost nothing to do with its security.
In an age when the people believe that their voices must be heard, the United States must sell its wars the way corporations sell their products. In the past, the people were asked to lay down their lives for visions of glory; now, governments appeal to their self-interest. The first Gulf War had to be fought to protect American jobs. If Saddam Hussain stayed in Kuwait, he would raise the price of oil, and Americans would lose their jobs.
The argument this time is different. It had to be weightier than any fear of losing jobs. This new war seeks regime-change; it involves greater risks. American forces must invade Iraq, defeat the Iraqi army, occupy Baghdad, and stay around, even indefinitely. Americans understand that "regime-change" is serious business. They would not back this war unless Iraq threatened American lives. That explains why the war against Iraq had to supersede the war against terrorism, and why Saddam replaced Osama as the new icon of America's loathing.
This substitution was quite easily executed. Most Americans take the President at his word when he talks about foreign enemies; this trust comes more easily when a Republican occupies the White House. George Bush told Americans that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and he had to be stopped before he could transfer them to Al-Qaida. (Why hadn't he done this already?) For many Americans, it was an open and shut case. Saddam had to be removed.
The flaws in this argument did not matter. If Saddam hadn't used WMDs during the first Gulf War--when his army was being pummeled--why would he use them now? The CIA warned that a war, or the threat of it, would increase the risk of Iraq using WMDs. Others, like Scott Ritter, a former chief weapons inspector for the UN, pointed out that Iraq did not have any WMDs that mattered. More than 90 percent had been destroyed by inspectors; if any escaped, they would be past their shelf life. At least initially, few Americans gave any credence to these doubts, though that has been slowly changing.
Why then is United States straining to go to war against Iraq?
The most popular theory on the left is that this war is about oil. According to one version of this theory, the White House, a captive of oil interests, wants to corner Iraq's oil for American oil corporations. I do not find this credible. The power brokers in United States would not allow a single industry lobby, even a powerful one, to drag the country into a war which could hurt all of them, and perhaps badly, if the war plans went awry and produced a spike in oil prices. At the least, it is doubtful if oil interests, on their own, can account for the unobstructed rush to a mad war.
There is another oil theory. It argues that the American economy needs cheaper oil; this will save tens of billion dollars. Once Saddam has been removed, and Iraq's oil supply restored to levels that existed before the first Gulf War, the oil prices will come down substantially. It is hard to reconcile this theory with a US-imposed sanctions regime that has drastically curtailed Iraq's oil output for the past twelve years. If there were concerns that Saddam might use the oil revenues for a military build-up, that could be addressed by an inspections regime and selective economic sanctions.
There is also a third oil theory, one offered recently.[1] It maintains that this war preempts the Euro threat to the hegemony of the dollar. By pegging oil to the dollar, OPEC has been a key player in the arrangements that have maintained the dollar as the currency of international reserve. In October 2000, Saddam Hussein offered the first challenge to this system by switching Iraq's dollar reserves to Euro. If OPEC follows Iraq's lead it could spell trouble for the dollar. This can only be stopped by dismantling the OPEC, and this demands war against Iraq.
An OPEC challenge to the dollar sounds naïve at best. This is hardly the kind of revolutionary action we can expect from an OPEC packed with client states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE; the oil price hike of 1974 could only occur in the backdrop of the Cold War. A precipitate dethronement of the dollar could produce consequences for United States and the world economy which would make the East Asian financial crisis of 1997 look like a storm in a teacup. Not even the EU would push for such results. On the other hand, there is a small chance that the war itself might validate this theory--if it convinced OPEC that the war aims to dismantle the oil cartel.
If it isn't oil, then, is this civilizational war, a war of the Christian West against Islam? This conjecture flies in the face of some obvious facts. First, this is America's war. It is opposed by two key Western allies, France and Germany; and apart from Britain and Israel, the support of other Western countries lacks depth. More to the point, the overwhelming majority of Westerners outside the United States oppose this war. In United States itself, the anti-war sentiment has grown rapidly, and the most recent polls indicate a majority against the war if it happens without the support of the United Nations.
Is it then America's war against Islamists? Even that is doubtful. Apart from the right-wing Christian extremists, led by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, nearly all Christian denominations have come out against the war. Everyone would agree that Al-Qaida constitutes the most serious Islamist threat to United States; they had proved it on September 11, 2001. And yet, we are ready to push this threat aside in order to wage war against one of the most decidedly secular of Arab states, one that spent ten years waging war against 'fundamentalist' Iran? Why not Wahhabi Saudi Arabia which supplied 16 of the 19 hijackers of September 11. Why not Shiite Iran? Their turn too will come, one hears neoconservative voices, to be followed by Syria, Egypt and Pakistan.
Why then is United States ready to wage this war against Iraq, ostensibly against its own best interests? Most sensible people agree that this is a war whose consequences cannot be controlled, or even foreseen. It may destabilize friendly regimes, bringing radical Islamists to power in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It may disrupt oil supplies, causing a price hike at a time when the global economy already weak and vulnerable to shocks. It may force Saddam to use his chemical and biological weapons--if he has them--leading United States to nuke Baghdad or Basra. It may fuel global terrorism for years to come, leading to attacks on American interests globally.
These anomalies quickly melt away if we are willing to entertain a sel-dom-aired hypothesis. This may not be America's war at all, much less a war of the West against Islam or Islamists. Instead, could this be Israel's war against the Arabs fought through a proxy, the only proxy that can take on the Arabs? This will most likely provoke derisive skepticism. Could the world's only superpower be persuaded to fight Israel's war? Is it even possible? Could the tail wag this great dog?
Consider first Israel's motives. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan do not threaten the United States; but they are a threat to Israel's hegemonic ambitions over the region. This conflict between Israel and her neighbors was written into the Zionist script. A Jewish state could only be inserted into Palestine by resort to a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. After such inauspicious beginnings, Israel could only sustain itself by keeping its neighbors weak, divided, and disoriented. It has since waged wars against Egypt in 1956; against Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967; against Iraq in 1981; against Lebanon, since 1982; and against Palestinians continuously since 1948.
Israel's contradictions have deepened since the mounting of the second Intifada. When the Palestinians rejected the Bantustans offered at Oslo, Israel chose Ariel Sharon, a war criminal, to ratchet its war against Palestinian civilians. Faced with Apaches, F-16s, tanks and artillery, in desperation, the Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombings. Sharon's brutal war was not working, and Israel's losses began to catch up with Palestinian casualties. In April 2002, Israeli tanks reoccupied the Palestinian towns, destroyed Palestinian civilian infrastructure, increasingly placing Palestinians under curfews, sieges, destroying their workshops, stores, hospitals, orchards and farms. This was the new strategy of slow ethnic cleansing through starvation.
This slow ethnic cleansing is only a stopgap. The most serious threat which Palestinians pose is demographic: their growing population could soon turn the Jews into a minority inside greater Israel. Since the Palestinians won't live under an Israeli aparthied, the Likud, with growing popular support, is turning to Israel's second option. If the aparthied plan were to fail, Israel would engage in large-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, more massive than the ones implemented in 1948 and 1967.
But Israel cannot do this alone. This ethnic cleansing can only be implemented in the shadow of a major war against the Arabs, a war to Balkanize the region, a war to bring about regime-change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, a war that only United States can wage. Israel needs United States to wage a proxy war on behalf of Israel.
It should be clear that Israel has the motive; but does it also possess the capability to pull this off? Is it possible for a small power to use a great power--the only superpower, in this case--to wage its own wars. Historically, great powers have often waged wars through lesser proxies; but that does not mean that this relationship can never get inverted.
What makes this eminently possible is the way an indirect democracy--in particular, democracy in United States--works. The demos elect candidates picked by powerful lobbies, ethnic, industry and labor lobbies; once elected, the officials work for the lobbies. By far the most powerful political lobby in this country works for Israel, led by American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC). There is scarcely a member of the Congress whose election campaigns have not been funded by AIPAC; several are funded quite heavily.[2] The power of the pro-Israel lobby in United States, however, does not start or end with AIPAC. The result of this massive power is a Congress packed with Israeli yes-men. No member of the Congress has dared to contradict Israeli interests and remained in office. Just last year, two members of Congress, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKenny, were defeated by pro-Israeli money because they had stepped out of line.
Consider some of the achievements of the pro-Israeli lobby over the years. First, an estimate of the cost of Israel to US taxpayers. Since 1985, without debate or demurral, the Congress has sheepishly voted an annual foreign aid package of $3 billion to Israel, nearly two thirds of this in outright grants, and constituting one-third of all US foreign assistance. When estimated in 2001 constant dollars, the total foreign aid to Israel since 1967 adds up to $143 billion.[3] That amounts to a transfer of $28,600 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The official aid is only a small part of the cost of Israel to the US economy. We need to account for loan guarantees and write-offs, bribes paid to Egypt and Jordan in support of our Israeli policy, subsidies to Israel's military R&D, boost in oil prices (attributed to US support for Israel in the 1967 war), losses due to trade sanctions imposed on Israel's enemies, etc. When Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington, added up all these costs, he concluded that since 1973 Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion.[4] In per capita terms, this amounts to $320,000 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The US record on vetoes cast in UN Security Council constitutes another major achievement of the pro-Israel lobby. The US has cast 73 vetoes out of the 248 cast by all permanent members of the Security Council. On 38 occasions, these vetoes were cast to shield Israel from any criticism directed against its violation of human rights of Palestinians or the territorial rights of its neighbors. On another 25 occasions, US abstained from such a vote.[5] This does not include the votes cast by United States--along with Israel, Tuvalu and Nauru--against UN General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israeli violations of human rights or Security Council resolutions. It would be difficult to maintain that the strategic interests of United States always demanded such a consistent voting record on Palestine.
I am aware that the notion of an Israeli proxy war against Iraq will be greeted with skepticism by not a few. I hope to have established that Israel possess in abundance both the motive and capability for such a war. There is some evidence that it has demonstrated this capability in the past also. In the words of Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of Britain, the Zionist leaders promised that if the Allies supported the creation of "a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied Cause. They kept their word."[6] It is doubtful if Zionist influence now is weaker than it was in 1917.
This is not to argue that the pro-Israeli lobby is the only reason for the projected US war against Iraq. At present, there are several forces in United States that are pushing for this war. Prominent among these indigenous forces are the oil corporations, the arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, and the right-wing Christian evangelists. However, it is doubtful if these indigenous groups, on their own, could have pushed United States so decisively towards the present catastrophic confrontation with the Islamic world. Certainly, the intellectual justifications for this hazardous confrontation have come almost entirely from the pro-Israeli lobby. And their intellectual input may have been vital.
Notes:
[1] [url=http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/07/arpubwc020703.htm]http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/07/arpubwc020703.htm[/url] [2] [url=http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm]http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm[/url] [3] [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html]http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html[/url] [4] [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html[/url] [5] [url=http://middleeastinfo.org/print.php?sid=63]http://middleeastinfo.org/print.php?sid=63[/url] [6] Lilienthal, Alfred M., What price Israel(Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953): 20-21.
M. Shahid Alam is Professor of Economics at Northeastern University. His last book, Poverty from the Wealth of Nations, was published by Palgrave in 2000. He may be reached at [email=m.alam@neu.edu]m.alam@neu.edu[/email].
2003-02-21 13:08 | User Profile
Exactly.
I just sent this letter to the editor of The State. Of course, I greatly increased the chances of it actually getting published by NOT mentioning ISRAEL.
"I am a veteran and I support our troops by NOT wanting to send them into an unnecessary and foolish war. One MUST know this war is unnecessary and foolish when Bush says Iraq is an imminent ââ¬Åthreatââ¬Â to the United States (yes, like those oversized Iraqi bottle rockets could actually hit Americaââ¬â¢s east coast and the machine gun equipped Iraqi Navy rowboat is, apparently, sitting off the coast of Florida waiting to attack) and, especially, Iraqââ¬â¢s neighbors and Turkey is now demanding $32 Billion to ââ¬Åallowââ¬Â the United States to remove this ââ¬Åthreatââ¬Â. Further, most of the world thinks Bush has lost his mind.
If Bush was really interested in ââ¬ÅHomeland Securityââ¬Â, our military would NOT now be half way around the world but would instead be guarding and securing Americaââ¬â¢s borders. And in the meantime, North Korea is actually DOING everything that Bush is accusing Iraq of and North Korea must be wondering just what they have to do to get the attention of Bush and the American military. Any American supporting this non-sense war is stupid or brainwashed. "
2003-02-21 15:26 | User Profile
In the words of Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of Britain, the Zionist leaders promised that if the Allies supported the creation of "a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied Cause. They kept their word."[6] It is doubtful if Zionist influence now is weaker than it was in 1917.
According to one-time Zionist insder Benjamin Freedman, the Zionist Movement, in exchange for the Balfour Declaraction, torpedoed the German peacer offer to Birtain in 1916 and engineered America's entry into World War One. Without America's participation, the war most likely would have ended in stalemate and Hitler never would have risen to power in Germany.
Benjamin Freedman Speaks: A Jewish Defector Warns America
From National Alliance - For 'Fair use only'
Free Speech - June 1995 - Volume I, Number 6
Benjamin Freedman Speaks:
A Jewish Defector Warns America
by Benjamin H. Freedman
Introductory Note:
Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing
individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a
successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the
principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized
Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder
of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at
least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped
the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he
had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and
Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was
personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow
Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many
more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a
patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on
behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.
Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has
become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the
West -- is more urgent than ever before. --
K.A.S.
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have
complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too
complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-
religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute
monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement,
but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few
people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side
by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany,
Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but
won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the
world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain
stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food
supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had
mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the
defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were
picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war
anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had
crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England
peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers
call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let
everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of
1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either
accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering
them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the
Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am
going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents
to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet
win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the
negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if
the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in
the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were
powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States
into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will
promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made
this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The
price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated
Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to
promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise
Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that
Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right
in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay
the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they
did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I
don't know how many here remember it - - the United States, which was
almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the
newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the
media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and
they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them
had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.
The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this
war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking
firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the
extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France
and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money
into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick
the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine,
went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed,
like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers
had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the
difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially
and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were
villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were
cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr.
Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice
Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from
England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the
United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the
war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than
we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was
absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded
into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so
that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something
that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew
why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they
said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something
in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us
Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would
last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a
receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very
cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all
about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the
Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the
United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you
hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think
I could make it more emphatic than that.
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war.
The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war
ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in
1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews,
headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?
The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and
parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain
part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they
produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour
Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was
the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for
the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the
terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists
wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans
realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had
never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in
Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important
in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr.
Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and
the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker
for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the
big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very
well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was
quite a sellout."
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation:
Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were
winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you
peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China
came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into
the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the
likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after
that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our
Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens
working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was
through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would
we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that
one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be
enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would
feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice
to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia
failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to
Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely.
And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other
than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish
commonwealth."
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read
about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and
1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their
statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the
fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish
intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews
themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered
that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner
Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those
people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political.
It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany
whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema'
Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in
the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was
due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing
defeat.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which
Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being
successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must
remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of
300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three
hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between
the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state.
And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their
navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the
world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What
happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down
Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid
reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map
politically.
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they
naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed.
Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had
access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his
book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo
Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate
the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found
them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody
treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them
were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the
Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and
ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international
affiliations.
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria
for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other
Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser
ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were
going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to
meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for
security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were
still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the
Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair
on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the
Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't
fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting
the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90
million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one
per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled
all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had
come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up
practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to
really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans
resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say,
discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The
same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics,
or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought
about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews
from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And
they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into
his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was.
You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an
ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what
did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews
in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was
the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole
conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the
studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast
throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the
world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a
sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into
surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That
will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."
And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be
imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they
exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's
population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more
than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have
here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr.
Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of
self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National
Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody
was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New
Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that
time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against
Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any
store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In
fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump
millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that
their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked
"made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler,"
"murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking
place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which
was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a
woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in
Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20
years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been
a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's
boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying
"murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair
on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering,
there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott
against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries
come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally
resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why
should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of
a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews
of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor
was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a
young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a
German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the
Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having
street fights and so forth.
Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless,
but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only
reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they
were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott.
Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this
thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and
Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In
the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had
decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in
between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if
possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States
recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful,
and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are
strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is
going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83
or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against
40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their
devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which
we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I
know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a
term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a
capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first
developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity
of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the
Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a
nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It
will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I,
Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of
the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are
determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them
permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government.
That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but
many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys
may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more
than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the
British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at
that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't
permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House
knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was
liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President
Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was
"confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the
finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the
treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of
the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President
Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal
Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.
Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two
fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent
when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is
how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys
over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as
their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know
whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who
you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I
don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way
a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his
testimony.
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they
are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as
so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews,
who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call
themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who
lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the
Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large
Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist,
nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest
country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other
monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers.
That's how big and powerful they were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go
into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also
the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world.
The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom
that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either
Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really
Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe,"
he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He
sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up
thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people
became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who
ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but
back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the
Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by
saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised
Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave
you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on
Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are
pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were
converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as
it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only
died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as
their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from
Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million
Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were
lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must
be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had
its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish
became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the
Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different
people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a
religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a
Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because
their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just
the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a
Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what
we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian
countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige
to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their
Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they
control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book
publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and
the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too
surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you
heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd
start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the
misery that has befallen the world.
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so
sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be
a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of
Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first
prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You
repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer,
you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or
pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and
void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the
pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And
further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or
pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the
Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can
you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as
the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate
as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.
Breaking The Silence
2003-02-21 18:47 | User Profile
Okay, Z, that rates another "Exactly".
Too bad none of this is in American textbooks.
2003-02-21 20:30 | User Profile
The War of Israeli Succession to the throne of the world.