The Case for International Zionism As The Orchestrators of 9/11
The only logical conclusion that a reasonable person can arrive at is this: The 9-11 attacks, the anthrax murders, and numerous other foiled terror plots, were planned, orchestrated, financed, carried out, and covered up by the forces of international Zionism. What other logical explanation can there be? As incredible as this may seem, what other conclusion is there that can so neatly tie up all of the "loose ends" and mysteries related to 9-11? This is the only scenario into which the many pieces of the 9-11 jig-saw puzzle snap snugly together to reveal a clear image.
This is the most comprehensive and compelling report I have seen to date that lays out the complete and convincing case for International Zionism being the top level guilty party for the planning and carrying out of the most sophisticated terror operation in world history. This report is posted on several web sites with the date of publication being 11-11-02 according to some versions (some don't have a date). Has anyone seen this report?
STRANGER THAN FICTION
AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF 9-11 AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
In most versions, the author is listed as Anonymous with the statement, "Due to concerns for his personal safety, the author has chosen to remain anonymous."
However, one version at http://www.voxfux.com/features/stranger_than_fiction.htm lists the author as Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd.
This report reads like how a case could be presented to a jury, complete with an opening statement and relevant historical context including sections on:
- ZIONISM AND WORLD WAR I
ZIONISM AND WORLD WAR II
GREAT BRITAIN'S TURN TO BE BETRAYED
AMERICA BECOMES THE ZIONIST'S WHORE
ZIONIST POWER STRUCTURE IN AMERICA
THE BUTCHER SHARON
This report has a wealth of information, much of which I haven't seen before, at least as compiled together in one place. For instance, in the section on ZIONIST POWER STURCTURE IN AMERICA:
MEDIA: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, UPN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Daily News, Time Magazine, Newsweek, People Magazine, US News and World Report and countless other media and Hollywood companies all have either a Zionist CEO, or a Zionist News President, or are owned by a media conglomerate which has a Zionist CEO. (39) Have you ever noticed how Hollywood movies always seem to portray Germans and Arabs as a bigoted fanatics or terrorists? Now you know why!
GOVERNMENT: AIPAC (the Israeli lobbying organization), and the ADL are the most feared pressure groups in Washington DC. By their own admission, they are capable of unseating Congressmen and Senators that do not carry out their requests. The majority of Congressmen from both political parties receive large donations from AIPAC. Writing for the Nation Magazine, journalist Michael Massing explains:
“AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Newspapers like the New York Times fear the Jewish lobby organizations as well. "It's very intimidating," said a correspondent at another large daily. "The pressure from these groups is relentless." (40)
PENTAGON: The Pentagon is under the control of a hard core group of Zionist moles led by Richard Perle. The civilian Defense Policy Board actually wields more control over the military establishment than the Defense Secretary or the generals and admirals. There are a number of other Zionists who serve on the board (Kissinger, Cohen, Schlessinger, Adelman, Abrahams) as well as non-jewish members who have always supported Israel and the expansion of the "War on Terror". The notoriously belligerent Perle, nicknamed the "The Prince of Darkness", is Chairman of the Board. (41) Perle is also a former Director of The Jerusalem Post.
With Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Zionist Paul Wolfowitz as Undersecretary of Defense, and Zionist award winner Douglass Feith as Undersecretary of Defense Policy, the Zionist Pentagon gang controls 3 of the top 4 civilian leadership positions of America’s armed forces. Careerist scoundrels like Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are either under their influence or unwilling to oppose their drive for WW III. The Perle-Wolfowitz-Feith gang represent a fanatical and warmongering "government-within-a-government". In league with these Zionist Pentagon conspirators are jewish Zionist and potential 2004 Presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) his partner in crime, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and scores of other Zionist or Zionist owned Senators and Congressmen from BOTH parties.
An Israeli journalist named Ari Shavit, lamenting the harsh treatments that his government dishes out to the Palestinians, made the following observation in Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli journal:
We believe with absolute certitude that now, with the White House and Senate in our hands along with the Pentagon and the New York Times, the lives [of Arabs] do not count as much as our own. Their blood does not count as much as our blood. We believe with absolute certitude that now, when we have AIPAC [the Israel lobby] and [Edgar] Bronfman and the Anti-Defamation League, we truly have the right to tell 400,000 people that in eight hours they must flee from their homes. And that we have the right to rain bombs on their villages and towns and populated areas. That we have the right to kill without any guilt. (42)
ZIONISTS WANT WORLD WAR III
In January of 2001, 9 months before the 9-11 attacks, a well known economist and political figure with worldwide intelligence connections issued the following prediction:
"A new Middle East war of the general type and implications indicated, will occur if certain specified incidents materialize. It will occur only if the combination of the Israeli government and certain Anglo-American circles wish to have it occur. If they should wish it to occur, the incidents to "explain" that occurrence, will be arranged." "Contrary to widespread childish opinion, most of the important things that happen in the world, happen because powerful forces intend them to happen, not because of some so-called "sociological" or other statistical coincidence of the types reported for the popular edification of the easily deluded. A new Middle East war, bigger than any yet seen, is inevitable under presently reigning global influences." 178
The man who made that prediction is the perpetual presidential "wannabe" Lyndon Larouche. Now Larouche may be a cult like figure with some really weird interpretations of history, but his intelligence contacts are legitimate and many of his political and economic forecasts have been accurate in the past. Considering all the history and recent events reviewed in this paper, and the logical conclusions which they lead us to, the above prediction was "right on the money."
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
beat you to it
Hi Keenan,
I posted of the same topic at the forum.
http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/?q=node/104
The author is Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd.
There are several versions of his work, some of them with his name and others with the anonymous authorship.
I believe most of what he says and nobody has quite put down any of his major assertions.
The version which I like best is at this url, I can't say much about the rest of the website though.
http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/Pastore_Investigation_of_%209-11/table_of_contents.htm
While I see the direct evidence linking the Zionists as part of the operational conspiracy, I hold in the back of my mind the possibility that the economic elite are ultimately behind this. Afterall, none of the big name financiers and families have ever spoken about 9-11 except for the Rockefeller guy who told Aaron Russo 11 months before 9-11 that something big will happen leading to a farcical war on terror.
What holds me back from completely embracing the NWO-Rothschild-Rockefeller did it theory is that there is no direct evidence from 9-11 events that plainly link to them, unlike the case for Mossad/Zionists. But as some here are recently rediscovering, there is a lot of historical context pointing to the economic elite for having the means, motives, and historical precedent for carrying out 9-11.
i think the point is...
that the NWO Rothschild crowd use Zionism and of course the Mossad as their pieces on the grand chessboard. they also used communism and nazism, and I would add "Islamofascism"
the sense you get when you really dig into the history is that in fact the "conspiratorial"view of history is far more compelling than the view that sees it as just "shit happening".
while in biological evolution natural selection trumps intelligent design, in social evolution intelligent design seems much more realistic to presume. powerful people don't just let shit happen. of course some shit does just happen but the big moves are always made consciously--and when you look at who has been involved in the disruptive social upheavals of communism, nazism, and zionism you see a program of problem/reaction/solution at work that benefits the global economic elite and few else...
conspiratorial history
always was suspicous, but after reading Zinn's A People's History and doing the 9/11 research, how else to believe? logical albeit psychopathological.
If God exists, he/she truly must wish for us to persevere against this evil, and fight the good fight.
was away for the week, nice to be back.
Benjamin Freedman speech
on the subject of Zionism. Freedman was a staunch anti-communist and anti-Zionist who converted to Christianity from Judaism. Definitely worth hearing what he had to say, this is back in the 1950s or very early 60s, not sure... refers to senator JFK anyway...
http://wtcdemolition.com/Freedman.mp3 (long version)
http://wtcdemolition.com/Freedmanexcerpt.mp3 (short version)
hi, mp3 link does not work
hi, mp3 link does not work
damn you're quick!
I posted the link before the upload finished... should work now...
"damn you're quick! I posted
"damn you're quick! I posted the link before the upload finished..."
Thankyou G! My mission is to watch this blog 24/7.
When you have the time, I hope you can assemble all the factoids (zionism, et al) into the website. I think the http://wtcdemolition.com/ web page deserves an update after all the things covered in the blog. I always wanted to read a grand theory of 9-11 in one site which I can refer others to. The essay by Albert Pastore comes closest to the grand theory but misses out on the NWO extension.
Regards from Tel-aviv!
all the factoids
Have you seen this one?
http://www.takeourworldback.com/zionistcrimes.htm#khazars
hi kate
Thanks for the article.
I like the way it tries to tie up the different incidents like the Bali bombing and other events to the Zionist angle. I think they are part of the overall conspiracy - very convenient timing.
I would like to caution though that one source cited in the article, the late Joe Vials' website for the micro nuke theory in the Bali blast is questionable. Vials did not rely on a qualified demolitions expert for the analysis of the blast. In contrast, the Oklahoma bombing was analyzed in detail by a USAF bomb expert who concluded that McVeighs truck bomb was incapable of doing the damage - I trust that. A similar analysis is attempted by Vials in the Bali bombing then theorizes that a micro nuke did it based on blast damage to nearby reinforced concrete. I don't quite trust his take on this. Vials also made a lot of other incredible claims on his website which make me question his reliability in general.
Juandelacruz
Thanks Kate
The takeourworldback website in general had a lot of interesting write-ups. I finally found a well written piece on why Bollyn is disinfo. I had previously given him the benefit of the doubt.
The Thirteenth Tribe
is a good book about the history of the Khazars...
are we legal there?
just kidding :)
Yeah, the site is long overdue for an update, just haven't had the muses to do it. if anyone has a muse they can send my way I would be much obliged.
Oh, and a big welcome back to Kate, who spent the last week holed up in a kiosk somewhere nice we hope!
holed up and beachy
newport, cod, nantucket and LBI - not to worry, nothing upscale, just b&bs and visiting old haunts and friends. 6 beaches in 7 days...LBI was the best water and sand for the effort.
Freedman's speech is way-off
Freedman's speech is way-off wrong on all of the facts. First, Freedman claims that the US media was pro-German up until 1916. That's total bollocks. The US media of that time had hardly anyone who could speak French, German or Russian and they were almost totally dependent upon British reporting. Walter Millis has some comments in these regards:
-----
For years the American public had received its day-by-day picture of Europe through a distinctly British perspective. Few American newspapers at that time maintained European staffs of their own; while those which did found few trained American foreign correspondents to man them... Both our newspapers and our press associations tended to cover Europe from London. Their London bureaus had general supervision over the correspondents on the Continent; the news was largely assembled by the London bureaus and forwarded by them. It was often heavily filled out with information or 'background' material derived from the British newspapers and magazines... The New York Times, which perhaps gave more serious attention to European events than any other American newspaper, had an Englishman, Mr. Ernest Marshall, as the head of its London bureau, and his subordiantes were largely Britishers. Its Berlin correspondent, Mr. Frederick William Wile, was an American, but the Times shared him with Northcliffe's Daily Mail, a leader in the anti-German propaganda in England. The New York World's London correspondent was an Irishman who had never worked in the United States; his staff, like Mr. Marshall's, was largely composed of British newspaper men. So was that of the Sun. Those correspondents who were American citizens, moreover, had often lived so long abroad as to absorb the British viewpoint. The dean of the American correspondents in London, Mr. Edward Price Bell of the Chicago Daily News, had arrived fresh from college to remain there for the rest of his active life, and it was naturally impossible for the others not to reflect the atmosphere by which they were daily surrounded.
-----
-- Walter Millis, ROAD TO WAR -- AMERICA: 1914-1917, pp. 42-3.
Given these influences the US was bombarded with British propaganda from the very start of the war. The violation of Belgian neutrality, stories of German soldiers allegedly cutting off the hands of Belgian babies and the breasts of Belgian women, the Bryce Report, Edith Cavell, the Lusitania and many other less-known stories were part of a steady diet of British propaganda which the US citizen was being fed from a very early stage in the war.
On top of that, J.P. Morgan and Co. began giving out generous loans to the Allies. One should be careful of overplaying this aspect of it as a "bankers plot" insofar as the ability of Morgan to influence was greatly strengthened by the pre-existing pro-British cultural bias. It isn't simply that Morgan and a small kabal created the pro-British bias, but they fed off of it and became well-attached to it. Some other comments by Millis are worth noting in this regard:
-----
On August 1 J.P. Morgan & Co. had launched a large French loan, followed on September 1 by a $250,000,000 United Kingdom loan -- the first publicly offered Allied financing since the Franco-British flotation of the year before, but only the beginning of a series of heavy issues which were quickly to follow. The American investor was now to undertake in earnest his financing of the Allied war effort...
It is true that the new Morgan loans, unlike the earlier one, were fully secured; and all were paid off on maturity in gold value. Nor were any of the vast additional loans later supplied by the American Government applied directly to this purpose; it is arguable, however, that without them the operation might have proved very difficult, and on these loans the American taxpayer is still awaiting payment.
-----
-- Walter Millis, ROAD TO WAR -- AMERICA: 1914-1917, pp. 334-5.
-----
Testifying before the Nye committee in 1936, J.P. Morgan had explained:
"When in 1914 the war was begun by Germany by the unexpected and criminal invasion of Belgium in violation of a treaty which had been respected for eighty years, we were deeply shocked. None of us had expected such a course to be taken by any civilized nation and in spite of President Wilson's urging impartiality 'even in thought' we found it impossible to be impartial between right and wrong."
-----
-- Harold Lavine & James Wechsler, WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE UNITED STATES, p. 76.
Second, Freedman attempts to argue from this false start that the US entry into World War One was motivated by the Balfour Declaration. There was a real Balfour Declaration. The central motive for Britain's issuing it at the time was that it was meant to appeal to Russian Jews on the opposite side of the world from America. Leonard Stein comments on this:
-----
But in the spring of 1917 the British Government was not much interested in the internal strains in Russian Jewry. It was satisfied that Zionism was a potent force in Jewish life and, overestimating the influence which the Jews were capable of exerting in Russian affairs, it thought that the Allied cause might benefit if an Allied victory were associated in their minds with the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations. As the outlook in Russia grew darker, it clung to the hope that, given a strong enough incentive, the Russian Jews would throw their full weight against the left-wing extremists and so help to keep Russia in the war, or at least to restrain her from drifting into a separate peace or, should even that become unavoidable, to obstruct the exploitation of Russian resources by the Central Powers. When, in October 1917, the Balfour Declaration was hanging in the balance, one of the points most strongly emphasized by the Foreign Office in pressing for an immediate British assurance to the Zionists was that the Jews were playing an important role in Russia and that it could safely be assumed that almost every Jew in Russia was a Zionist.
-----
-- Leonard Stein, THE BALFOUR DECLARATION, p. 347.
In the course of the First World War Britain threw out many promises in many directions, including even promises to Arabs. None of it amounted to anything once the war was ended. But Woodrow Wilson himself doesn't even seem to have ever learned of the prospective Balfour Declaration until September 1917:
-----
... when, early in September 1917, Wilson was first sounded by the British War Cabinet as to his views on a pro-Zionist pronouncement, he looked for advice, not to Brandeis, but to his still more intimate confidant, Colonel House. After consultation with House, he sent a discouraging reply to which Brandeis cannot possibly have been a party. On the other hand, there is reason to believe Brandeis had something to do with Wilson's second thoughts when a further enquiry on the same subject reached Washington from London a few weeks later.
-----
-- Leonard Stein, THE BALFOUR DECLARATION, p. 196.
The USA had entered the war in April 1917, five months before Wilson was first approached about the issue of the Balfour Declaration and seven months before the Declaration itself was actually issued.
lots to chew on there...
And I recommend people consider what this anonymous poster has to say but also to listen to the speech by Ben Freedman to see for oneself how the issues stack up. One question, anon, what do you make of Freedman? Is he wrong because he's stupid? Does he have an agenda that would make him delibertaely misrepresent history as you claim? Just curious as to what you think of WHY Freedman is so wrong...
The only thing that is
The only thing that is unclear about Freedman is whether he was more a Christian racist or a Zionist provocateur. I've heard both charges made against him. They both might be true. Freedman has been caught in other lies before. Morris Kominsky, THE HOAXERS, describes such instances as Freedman's assertions that he had served in a close capacity with Henry Morgenthau and his inquiries with the Morgenthau family. Now perhaps in this case you could reasonably argue that since it's Freedman's word against that of the Morgenthau family then some general skepticism on all sides might be maintained. Fine. But Freedman's speech drips with false innuendo which checkably false. He comments about the uprisings which broke out across Germany at the end of the war:
"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 goverment for three days."
Coming after the previous comments about the Balfour Declaration the reader is misled into thinking that what occurred in this uprising was part of events triggered by the Balfour Declaration with Jews acting together. This is false on multiple accounts.
First of all it has to be noted that the uprising was suppressed under the leadership of the German Social Democratic Party, the main labor party which also had a high percentage of Jews in leading positions. In fact, the common usage by the Nazis of the term "Jewish Marxists" referred to the the Social Democrats, not the Communists who were characterized as "Jewish Bolsheviks." The Social Democrats had voted for war in the first days of August 1914 and had played a principal role in binding the organized labor force to the war up until the early days of November when spontaneous mutinies and desertions began breaking across Germany.
That's another point to be noted. Rosa Luxemburg went along with the wave of uprisings that were spreading because she felt obligated to stay close to the workers. But it's been well-known by every biographer with access to her private notes that Luxemburg was personally opposed to the events in Bavaria and similar incidents elsewhere because she didn't feel that the labor force was ready for anything so drastic. She was easily caught and assassinated simply because she stayed out in the open, didn't go underground the way that Lenin had in the summer of 1917, because she felt she had to be with the rebellious workers and soldiers even when their efforts were misguided for the time being.
It should be noted that the wave of mutinies and desertions which spread through the German army at this time show no sign of centralized control. If they had had such a coherent direction then the old government would have been overthrown since disaffection was widespread among the populace, but not organized. Luxemburg believed in the theory of spontaneity, rather than Lenin's concept of well-disciplined party, and therefore she felt it her duty to be with the workers where they were rebelling. But the wave of mutinies and desertions which broke out early November 1918 had nothing particularly Jewish about it. The most you can say is that those rebelling tended to look for political leadership back towards parties whose intellectual leadership had traditionally been heavily Jewish, which meant first of all the Social Democrats and secondly the small Left-wing splinter group which Luxemburg and others had started to form in the early beginning of the war (not after the Balfour Declaration, which had absolutely nothing to do with Luxemburg's motives). Sebastian Haffner puts it well:
-----
... the second great legend about the German Revolution: that it was not the revolution which the Social Democrats had been proclaiming for fifty years, but a Bolshevist revolution, something imported from Russia...
This legend, invented by the Social Democrats, is supported by the Communists, intentionally or not, for they claim the entire merit of the Revolution for the KPD or for its predecessor, the Spartacist Union...
But even if Social Democrats and Communists for once say the same thing, that does not make it true. The Revolution of 1918 was not imported from Russia. It was home-grown German produce. And it was not a Communist, but a Social Democrat revolution -- the very revolution which the SPD had prophesied and demanded for fifty years, and for which it had prepared its millions of supporters...
The methods of the Revolution, too -- perhaps to its disadvantage -- were anything but Bolshevik or Leninist. At a closer look, they were not even Marxist, but rather in the style of Lasalle: the decisive lever of power, for which the revolutionary workers, sailors and soldiers reached out, was not ownership of the means of production, as Marxist teaching would have indicated, but the power of government... It was not factories they occupied, but public offices and barracks. As 'People's Commissars' they elected the Social Democrat leaders.
And these leaders, once they had accepted the power of government from the Revolution, used it for the bloody repression of that Revolution -- their own long-promised, at last realized, Revolution...
These are the facts: the Revolution which was bloodily crushed by the SPD and from which, if you like, it 'preserved' or 'saved' Germany, was no Communist revolution, but a Social Democrat one...
The claim that the Social Democrat Revolution was to blame for Germany's defeat and had 'stabbed the victorious front in the back' was publicly made by Hindenburg and Ludendorff as soon as Ebert and Noske had completed the subdual of the Revolution...
The claim was itself a stab in the back -- into the back of the Social Democrat leaders whom, in October and November 1918, Imperial Germany had summoned to shoulder her defeat and undertake her rescue. (Ludendorff: 'Let them now cope with the mess...')
After they had loyally shouldered the burden of defeat (Ebert to the returning troops: 'No enemy has vanquished you') and had brought the corpse of the revolution to drop it, retriever-fashion, at the feet of the German bourgeoisie, they got their reward in the shape of the legend of the stab in the back. Ebert himself was literally hounded to death in the ensuing years with the completely unfounded, but incessantly repeated and judicially approved reproach of 'High Treason.'
-----
-- Haffner, FAILURE OF A REVOLUTION: GERMANY 1918/19, pp. 196-9.
I guess I'm forced to
I guess I'm forced to attempt replying one site to comments made on another site which has censored me. Let's give it a shot.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2686&start=15
Real Truther: "The simple fact is that Benjamin Freedman is not the only person making similar claims."
Me: The simple fact is that all of my attempts from 2003 onwards to find any authentic historical sources which can confirm Freedman's tale have instead made it clear that Woodrow Wilson knew nothing about the Balfour Declaration at the time he asked Congress to declare war on Germany. Wilson requested war in April 1917 and learned of the idea for the Balfour Declaration in September. I cited Leaonard Stein, THE BALFOUR DECLARATION, on this point, but no other sources have yet turned up that would seriously revise Stein's timeline.
This is a good reason to be wary of the rumor mill which passes falsified stories around and gives them credibility. I've seen it happen not only with Benjamin Freedman but also Eustace Mullins and a number of others like them that a story which originates from them is then passed around without citational reference. The story circulates and pretty soon everyone is hearing the story from everyone else. At this point it may look like the original person "is not the only person making similar claims." But when you try tracking the story down to historical sources you realize that the starting individual who initially spread the rumor really is the only source.
Alek Hidell: "The grab for Palestine brought Zionist financiers on board."
Me: It's not at all clear who is meant by "Zionist financiers" here, but J.P. Morgan and Wall Street were pro-British from the very start of the war and never needed the Balfour Declaration to bring them on board. The real target of the Balfour Declaration was the Russian Jews in the Provisional Government prior to its overthrow by the Bolsheviks. In addition to citing Stein on the latter point I'd also cited Walter Millis, THE ROAD TO WAR, on the background to America's entry into WWI. But again, it's not just that these specific books happen to say it. I've not been able to find any serious historical sources which would say differently so as to support Freedman's view.
The relevant issues here have very little to do with "racism" by the way, a term which the "Truth Action" people evidently like to throw out. There is often a tendency for unsupported rumors to pick up and even be deliberately floated in ways which distorts things. When that occurs people have to make it a point to track back to sources and provide citations, such as to the investigations of the Nye committee which exposed that J.P. Morgan was angling for war on the side of Britain very early on. If that isn't followed as a practice then truth movements turn into rumor mills very quickly.
Gimme a break here,
Woodrow Wilson didn’t have to know about the Balfour Declaration (which was more of a general letter of intent, not a contract) to be conned into a European war that the Brits were losing. In fact, the less he knew, the better it was for those who sought U.S. involvement as part of a compartmentalized arrangement with select elements of the British government who made the arrangements with Chaim Weizmann and the WZC. Compartmentalization, as you know, is the essence of all military and intelligence operations. Everything is structured on a need-to-know basis, and anyone who asks too many questions is kicked out of the loop. This is pretty basic stuff.
Well as far as Britain
Well as far as Britain working to drag the USA into the war, that is certainly true. The point is that the facts there have nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration. From the very first day of the war, the media in the USA was pro-British. Britain used all of its sympathizers, well organized and placed throughout the media and academia, to make sure that people were being told about the barbaric "Huns." People on Wall Street like J.P. Morgan loaned extensively to England and depended upon a British victory for the repayment of their loan. Anglo-American societies had been developed for several decades before the war and were readily used by Britain for making its case to the US public. All of that is true independent of the Balfour Declaration. What is false is the claim popularized by Benjamin Freedman that the Balfour Declaration played some substantive role in bringing about the US entry into the war. It was heavy British lobbying, much closer in form to the modern Israel lobby today than anything which Zionists in 1917 possessed, that brought the US into the war. Those are the facts which one can repeatedly research and verify.
Believe me, I am not an apologist for British Imperialism,
I grew up in India and am well aware of the historical evils of “The Empire†(see also the British concentration camps in Kenya during the 1950s), but it is also not historically improbable to infer that the British would use the Jewish financial and political influence, ala Brandeis, Warburg et al., already extant in the U.S., to make moves to win a war they were losing. The British used the Zionists as much as the Zionists attempted to play the British. This is basic real politik, as the Germans say. In fact, this manipulation of Zionism by the British is one of the major factors in the split between the pro-British, liberal factors of the Revisionist Zionist movement headed by Vladimir Jabotinsky and his militant followers who formed the anti-British guerilla groups Irgun Zvai Le’umi (IZL or Irgun) and the Lohamei Herut Yisrael (LeHI), who used Jabotinsky’s name to justify or give legitimacy to their militancy and terrorism.
The point remains that J.P.
The point remains that J.P. Morgan & Co., as well as purely cultural ties between the US and UK intelligentsia and media, gave the US a pro-British direction from the very start of the war before anyone ever the thought of the Balfour Declaration. There's no real documentation to suggest that anything else was involved in bringing the US into war in 1917. There's nothing to suggest that Warburg or Brandeis played any special role in causing Wilson to declare war. Those claims are really based on rumor, not citable historical facts the way that Morgan's partiality towards Britain from the very start of the war was exposed by the Nye committee's investigation. The purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration at the time it was written was aimed at Russian Jews, not the US. It was prepared towards the end of 1917 when the US had already committed itself to war but there was talk that Russia might withdraw, although the Provisional Government stated that it wished to remain with the Allies. Around the same time that the Bolsheviks prepared to overthrow the Provisional Government, the Balfour Declaration was made up with the hope of keeping the Provisional Government in the war. That was the real politik right there. But the US entry occurred well before then for other reasons independent of the Balfour Declaration. Questions about the Zionist Revisionists are another bucket of worms altogether. The above is only about the US entry into WWI and the aims behind the Balfour Declaration, no more, no less.
have seen
have saved. i thought i picked it up on one of Bollyn's links.
thanks for reposting.
Hello all I'm new here !
Just wanted to say Hello to everyone.
Much to read and learn here, I'm sure I will enjoy !
welcome, mouse!
just beware, this site is full of jewmoonhoaxers, and if you don't know what that is, even better... :) seriously though, we have no sacred cows, but insist on kindness and good will whenever possible, towards everyone (except liars or haters)