Terra Firm no.26: Essays on Zionism, Zionization, the Second Zionist Proxy War against Iraq, and the Global Zionist Conspiracy for World Domination.

The zionist state was created through violence at a time when the zionists were able to manipulate the pending american presidential elections, "The State of Israel unilaterally declared its independence in May 1948, when Harry Truman's reelection campaign was in a critical condition. David Ben Gurion made the decision against the advice of some of his wisest colleagues, who warned him that the United States would oppose the move with all its might. He bet on the inability of the American system to do that during an election campaign. At the time, Truman was desperately in need of money. Some Jewish millionaires provided it. To show his gratitude, and against the express advice of his Secretary of State (George Marshall) and especially his Secretary of Defense (James Forrestal), Truman immediately accorded the new state de facto recognition. (Stalin trumped him and recognized Israel de jure.). (Uri Avnery ‘Drought in Texas: Israel and the American Elections’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08182004.html August 18, 2004).

The zionist state was expanded through violence with the aid of zionist manipulation of american presidential elections, "The Israeli government ordered the army to attack in 1967 (starting the Six Day War) after receiving an OK from President Lyndon Johnson, who at the time was still hoping to be reelected in 1968. The critical first year after that war, when America failed to induce Israel to withdraw from the territories its army had conquered, was, of course, an election year." (Uri Avnery ‘Drought in Texas: Israel and the American Elections’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08182004.html August 18, 2004).

There were a number of major political consequences for american jews of the zionists' success in the 1967 war. For the first time in their history, american jews became politically aware of themselves as israelis and of their need to publicly support the zionist state in palestine. Secondly, american jews saw the need to promote the interests and security of the zionist state by lobbying the american government to adopt zionist friendly foreign policies. Thirdly, american zionists saw the political benefits of persuading the american public to support the zionist state in palestine. Zionist success in the 1967 war also led the american government to realize that it could regard the zionist state as its ally in the region.

The 1967 war also brought about a profound change in american jewish attitudes towards the disaster that jews had suffered during the second world war. They became aware that they could hype up this disaster to promote a wide range of jewish political interests in america. (The fact that far more russians were killed during the war than jews was of no interest to them: the fact that around the world more people die of starvation each year than the number of jews killed during the second world war is also of no interest to them). The jewish disaster was politicized into a holocaust ideology because firstly, it could be used to encourage american jews to become more aware of themselves as jews. Secondly, it could be used to encourage american jews to become more aware of themselves as israelis who should support the zionist state in palestine. Thirdly, it could be used to protect the interests of the zionist elite in america, "Moving aggressively to defend their corporate and class interests, jewish elites branded all opposition to their new conservative policies anti-semitic. In this ideological offensive, the Holocaust came to play a critical role. Most obviously, evoking historic persecution deflected present day criticism." (Norman G Finkelstein ‘The Holocaust industry. Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’ Verso London 2000 p.37). Fourthly, the holocaust ideology could even be used to cover up the criminal activities of the zionist state against palestinians. It .. "has been used to justify criminal policies of the israeli state and u.s. support for these policies." (Norman G Finkelstein ‘The Holocaust industry. Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’ Verso London 2000 p.7-8). Fifthly, the holocaust ideology could be used to make it increasingly impossible for anyone to criticize jewish influence in society or the zionist state without being condemned as an anti-semite who wants to put all jews into concentration camps. The zionists have marketed the so-called holocaust to deter any discussion of the influence of the zionist lobby over the american media, american politics, and american foreign policies. This was so successful that it has almost become a taboo in issue in america, and the western world. And, finally, the holocaust ideology was used to increase sympathies amongst non jewish americans for the zionist state in palestine no matter what racist policies it pursued.

Finkelstein has concluded, "It was not israel’s alleged weakness and isolation, not the fear of a ‘second holocaust’ but rather its proven strength and strategic alliance with the united states that led jewish elites to gear up the Holocaust industry after june 1967." (Norman G Finkelstein ‘The Holocaust industry. Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’ Verso London 2000 p.31); "By virtually all accounts, it was only after this conflict (june 1967) that the Holocaust became a fixture in american jewish life." (Norman G Finkelstein ‘The Holocaust industry. Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’ Verso London 2000 p.16). The jewish disaster of the second world war turned out to be a highly marketable product that spawned a holocaust industry which has amassed billions of pounds worth of profits every year. Finckelstein has described it, "an extortionate racket." But in many ways it resembles just another hollywood scripted, public relations, zionist con job just like the transformation of the zionist state from an illegal, colonialist, apartheid state to the only secular, western democracy in the middle east.

Zionist influence over the american media has grown almost exponentially since the end of the second world war until zionists now own, control, and manage, virtually all the country’s major newspapers, radio, and television companies the same is also true of britain. In america, the key which enabled zionists to buy up magazines, newspapers, commercial radio, and television companies, was advertising revenue from zionist owned industries. Many newspapers/radio stations were driven into bankruptcy because zionist advertisers would advertise only in newspapers/radio stations which promoted zionist policies. "Jewish advertising power not only has increased the Jewish monopolization and consolidation of American newspapers, it also greatly affects publications with Gentile management or ownership. All major publications are dependent on Jewish advertising revenue, so their features, reporting, and editorial policies must be carefully attuned to Jewish attitudes and interests. Ultimately, the free press is not free. It runs on money. The old axiom certainly holds true in the media: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." (David Duke ‘Who Runs the Media?’ http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_05.html). A recent example of this phenomenon happened in britain when zionists punished the spectator magazine for publishing what they claimed was an anti-semitic article. "Following Mr. Weinraub's article, the Anti-Defamation League swung into action from its New York office as a result of this one of our valued advertisers canceled its contract with us and the Los Angeles Times ran a leader page article to denounce young William Cash." (Dominic Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ The Spectator, Nov. 19, 1994 Quoted in Jews to Islam ‘Hollywood Jews’ http://www.jewstoislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1042&sid=d1fd6aa9
baddc0437aae4b9282e8bf4c c.2004). Zionist dominance of the american (and brutish) political systems followed in the wake of zionists’ control of the media. It is not uncommon in britain for the leaders of political parties to fly off for a personal interview with rupert murdoch in the hope of winning his support for their election campaign since it is commonly recognized that his newspapers/television stations can have a critical influence on floating voters. The fact that murdoch can influence the 5-10% of the electorate that determines the outcome of a general election gives him far more political power than might be accorded to him for his influence over society as a whole. The same also applies to zionist funding of congressional members. It is sometimes argued the amount of money they provide is nothing like as great as other lobby groups but they don’t have to give vast amounts to have an effect at the margins. Zionist influence at the political margins gives them far more power than might be suspected.

The greater zionists’ control over the american media, the greater became their control over the views of the american public and american politicians - this generality also applies to britain. The israeli owned media was able to transform the repugnance of the american (and british) public for the zionist state’s racist policies into public/political approval for a plucky country fighting for its survival against a sea of arab enemies. Over the decades, despite the increasing belligerence and expansionism of the zionist state in palestine, the zionist owned media in america was able to increase the zionist state’s popularity amongst america’s politicians and the public. It is revealing that during the 1970s and the 1980s whilst enormous efforts were made to expose, boycott, and eventually dismantle, the apartheid system in south africa, virtually nothing similar was done about the apartheid zionist state in palestine - even though the zionist state has always been far more racist and barbaric than its south african counterpart. This was not an accident but a deliberate zionist ploy. The zionists in the media used the horrors of the south african apartheid system to soak up anti-racist sentiments whilst hiding and protecting the apartheid system of the zionist state in palestine.

After the zionist state’s victory in the 1967 war, an increasing number of jewish intellectuals in america began to regard the survival of the zionist state as their over-riding political priority and sought to promote american support for the zionist state in palestine. They knew the american government’s support for the zionist state was critical to the survival of the zionist state, "But the United States is not France or Argentina, it plays a critical role in the Middle East. Israel's national security, as established by all Israeli governments since Ben-Gurion, is based on the total support of the United States - military, political and economic." (Uri Avnery ‘Manufacturing Anti-Semites’ October 2, 2002).

Adam curtis has highlighted the origins of the neocon movement, "In the early seventies, irving kristol became the focus of a group of disaffected intellectuals in washington. As the movement grew, many young students who had studied strauss’s ideas came to washington to join this group. This group became known as the neo-conservatives." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005). Most of the first generation of jewish neocons, which included paul wolfowitz, norman podhoretz, william kristol, etc were israelis - all of whom were absolutely committed to the survival and expansionism of the zionist state. Although most started out as academics they moved to washington to join or set up israeli think tanks where they could develop policies favourable to the zionist state in palestine. They then lobbied for such policies amongst american politicians often with the backing of the zionist owned american media and gradually learnt enough about the american political system to enable them to become a part of the political process. In case it might be thought that this might not be a very viable route into american politics it should be pointed out that there is a .. "vast community of 52 American Jewish organizations totally devoted to control American Middle East policies for the benefit of Israel." (Youssef M. Ibrahim ‘Outside View: Israeli hubris vs. the U.S’ http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041221-074429-8040r.htm December 21st 2004).

Most of the first generation of neocons were jews who were absolutely committed to the survival of the zionist state in palestine and worked for israeli think tanks. It is hardly surprising then that they sought to make america’s foreign policies compatible with those of the zionist state. This is crystal clear from their attitude to the soviet union. The neocons were totally preoccupied by soviet union’s threat to the zionist state in palestine. The soviet union posed by far and away the biggest risk to the existence of the zionist state not merely because its nuclear weapons could totally wipe out the zionist state, but because of its allegedly anti-semitic attitudes and support for palestinian rights. For a people whose absolute priority was survival, and for a country in which the absolute priority was survival, the soviet union was a nightmare. It could obliterate the zionist state in a matter of minutes if it so desired. Whilst the zionist state was developing a close alliance with america, the soviet union’s annihilatory threat and support for palestinian rights was little less than a nightmare.

The conundrum faced by the zionist neocons was that whilst the soviet union military posed an annihilatory threat to the zionist state, it posed no threat to the united states. The soviet union was no threat to america firstly, because its nuclear weapons were neutralized by america’s nuclear weapons. The soviet union did not pose any nuclear threat to america except under those circumstances where it was prepared to accept its own total annihilation and whatever the soviets were they weren’t genocidal. Secondly, because the deteriorating condition of the soviet union’s economy was undermining the effectiveness of the soviet military. By the 1970s russia’s economy and military were in an advanced stage of decrepitude. Jonathon steele described the soviet union as basically a third world country with superpower nuclear weapons. Thus, whilst americans had nothing to fear from the soviet union, the zionists had everything to fear about what it could do. The zionist neocons knew all too well that the zionist state would never be safe militarily until the soviet union, and even russia itself, had been dismantled along with its nuclear and military threat.

The tactic the zionist neocons adopted to solve this conundrum was to pretend that the soviet military was far more powerful than it actually was and that it was developing a range of devastating new weapons that posed an increasing military threat to america. Given the previous couple of decades of cold war animosities between america and the soviet union it was not difficult for the neocons to breathe new life into this propaganda war. The only way the israeli neocons could counter the annihilatory threat that russia posed to the zionist state in palestine was by frightening americans into believing the soviet union was a dangerous threat to america and then getting the american government to take action against the soviets in the hope of bringing about the disintegration of the soviet union. The israeli neocons in both the ford and reagan administrations therefore concocted a series of lies about russia’s terrible new weapons to frighten the american people into supporting america’s punitive policies against the soviet union. In effect, then, the israeli neocons were pursuing american foreign policies against russia which were detrimental to america but were of critical importance to the zionist state. The reason that today, the israeli neocons continue to whip up animosities toward russia, a decade after the collapse of the soviet union, is because russia continues to possess a nuclear threat to the existence of the zionist state in palestine. Their incessant anti-russian propaganda, which they have spewed out for over three decades, will not stop until russia is no longer a nuclear threat to the zionist state in palestine i.e. until the country has been dismantled and de-militarized like iraq.

In the early 1970s many jewish american intellectuals not only advocated american foreign policies which would benefit the zionist state, they also began to assess the domestic and foreign policies of america’s political parties in terms of whether those policies would benefit the zionist state in palestine. Even those jewish intellectuals who had started out on the extreme left of american politics began shifting to the right for the sake of winning support in america for the zionist state in palestine. Those in the democratic party began to drift in the direction of the right wing democratic senator henry jackson. "The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist." (No author ‘Neocon 101’ Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html no date c.2003); "Among former members of Jackson's staff to find positions in the Reagan administration's foreign policy team were such neoconservative operatives as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, Charles Horner, and Ben Wattenberg. Other Jackson Democrats who secured appointments in the Reagan administration included Jeane Kirkpatrick, as UN ambassador, and neoconservatives on her staff, such as Joshua Muravchik, Steven Munson (like Abrams a Podhoretz-Decter son-in-law), Carl Gershman, and Kenneth Adelman." (Tom Barry ‘The Ambassador of Lies Elliott Abrams: the Neocon's Neocon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barry02092005.html February 9, 2005).

It is true, as finckelstein has suggested, that there was a perennial factor contributing to this rightward shift in the political allegiances of american jews. Like all other ethnic groups before them, as jews rose through the ranks of american society they became increasingly right wing and reactionary, "As american jews enjoyed greater secular success, they moved steadily to the right politically." (Norman G Finkelstein ‘The Holocaust Industry. Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’ Verso London 2000 p.35). However, the extreme degree of their shift to the right cannot be put down solely to such a commonplace social factor.

A pivotal event which exposed zionists’ power was america’s intervention in the 1973 arab-zionist war. During this war the arab armies were gaining the upper hand. Nixon had to decide whether he would intervene and on which side. After all, america relied on arab oil. According to the oil theory of politics this decision should have been a no brainer. The arabs had vast quantities of oil whilst the zionist state had none. And politically there was nothing that the zionist state could do for america that one or other of the arab countries could not do. America needed to win over arab countries to lure them away from the clutches of the soviet empire. And yet, america choose to support the zionist state and thereby critically alienate the arab world. "When Israel faced defeat before the united armies of Egypt and Syria, Sec. Of State Henry Kissinger ordered America armaments flown into the Israel-occupied Sinai Peninsula, giving Israel a pivotal advantage against her Arab foes. The ensuing Arab outrage produced the great oil embargo of 1973, sending the U.S. into a debilitating recession for the better part of a decade." (Mark Green with Wendy Campbell ‘Exit Neo-Conservatives, Enter Neo-Liberals’ http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/July
/10%20o/Exit%20Neo-Conservatives,%20Enter%20Neo-Liberals%20By%20Mark%20
Green%20with%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm August 7th 2004). The neocons were already gaining political influence through henry jackson in the democratic party but quite how much influence they had over nixon’s decision to support the zionist state is not known. It is much more likely that it was america’s jewish financiers who were able to exert pressure over the nixon regime. But, by far the likeliest reason for america’s intervention in the war was the threat by the zionist state in palestine to use its nuclear weapons against the arab world.

Despite the zionist state’s victories in the 1967 and 1973 wars against the arab world and, in america, the emergence of the neocon group intent on protecting and promoting the interests of the zionist state, the political tide was turning against the zionist state.

America was seeking peace agreements with the soviet union in order to create a safer and more stable world. In june 1972, president nixon, with the aid of henry kissinger, concluded a peace treaty with soviet union over nuclear weapons that ushered in a period of détente between the two countries that should have brought about a permanent end to the cold war. Nixon proclaimed he had helped to create a world with less fear. This détente with the soviet union was good for america, the soviet union, and the rest of the world. It was good for the soviet economy, the american economy, and the global economy. People around the world would be able to live without the fear of armageddon between the superpowers. Americans had nothing to fear from the soviet union and the soviets had nothing to fear from america. There was only one country in the world which was horrified by this outbreak of peace between the superpowers and that was the zionist state in palestine which was in a state of paranoia about the annihilatory threat posed by the soviet’s nuclear weapons. There was only one political group in the world which was horrified by this outbreak of global peace because of the threat it posed to the zionist state and this was america’s zionist neocons. It was utterly intolerable for survivalist minded zionists to accept global peace when the soviet union could eradicate the zionist state within a matter of minutes. The zionists and zionist neocons were willing to do anything to destroy this outbreak of global peace. The zionist neocons proved they were israeli traitors every time they hyped up americans’ fear of the soviet’s non-existent threat to america.

The two arab oil embargoes which followed the 1973 war forced america and the rest of the world to recognize the political power of the arab world. Arab countries seemed likely to use their vast oil revenues to industrialize and modernize their economies which would give them even more political clout in the global arena. For the zionist state, the possibility of america reconciling itself with an increasingly prosperous and militarily powerful, arab world seemed to be looming political disasters. The palestinian liberation organization was carrying out global publicity stunts to highlight their appalling oppression by the zionist state. The soviet union was encouraging international support for the palestinian cause. The racism of the zionist state was becoming as deeply unpopular around the world as the apartheid state in south africa. Global repugnance with the zionist state became institutionalized when, "In 1975 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, condemning Zionism as "racist" by 72-35 and it became transparent that Israel’s time as a race-based settler state was marked." (Lila Rajiva ‘An Ideological Tower of Babel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva01152005.html January 15 / 16, 2005).

Nixon and kissinger believed their 1972 treaty with the russians had reduced fear around the world. "But a world without fear was not what the neoconservatives needed to pursue their project. They now set out to destroy henry kissinger’s vision. What gave them their opportunity was the growing collapse of american political power both abroad and at home. The defeat in vietnam and the resignation of nixon over watergate led to a crisis of confidence in america’s political class. The neoconservatives seized their moment. They allied themselves with two right wingers in the new administration of gerald ford. One was donald rumsveld, the new secretary of defence. The other was dick cheney, the president’s chief of staff. Rumsveld began to make speeches alleging that the soviets were ignoring kissinger’s treaties and secretly building up their weapons with the intention of attacking america." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005).

Nixon’s detente with russia and the short lived end of the cold war were looked upon as a political disaster of the first order by the zionist state and their fellow travellers in america, the neocons. But the zionist neocons were rapidly acquiring power and influence within american politics and made their first mark by promoting an amendment to a bill concerning economic co-operation between america and russia. "Richard Perle was the prime organizer of Congressional support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which angered the Soviet Union by linking bilateral trade issues to freedom of emigration, primarily of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel and the United States." (Kevin MacDonald ‘Thinking About Neoconservatism’ http://VDare.com/ September 18, 2003); "Legislation such as the Jackson-Vanik amendment linked trade with Russia to freedom of emigration for Soviet Jews." (Lila Rajiva ‘An Ideological Tower of Babel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva01152005.html January 15 / 16, 2005); "Neoconservatives scored their first important triumph challenging Nixon and Kissinger's realism. The Nixon-Kissinger strategy was aimed at drawing the Soviet Union into a new "structure of peace" through the balance of power with China and exchanging trade for diplomatic and military cooperation. In 1973 Jackson and the neoconservatives who worked with him, including Wohlstetter protégé Richard Perle, began a campaign to link trade concessions to the Soviet Union to explicit Soviet concessions on Jewish emigration. Jackson, Perle, and other neoconservatives were concerned about Jewish emigration, but they were equally, if not more, determined to derail détente, which they thought was based on a false picture of the world and the Soviet Union. They rejected Kissinger's realism in the same spirit that Trotskyists had earlier rejected Stalin's nationalism. In response, the Soviets offered private concessions, but Jackson and the neoconservatives insisted on passing Jackson-Vanik. The Soviets then balked at complying with its terms, and détente, from that moment, was dead. The United States could seek agreements with the Soviet Union based on mutual interest, but it could not pursue a general strategy aimed at ending the Cold War." (John B. Judis ‘Trotskyism to Anachronism: The Neoconservative Revolution’ http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950701fareviewessay5058/john-b-judis/trotskyism-to-anachronism-the-neoconservative-revolution.html July/August 1995). This amendment was their first exercise of collective power and showed their pre-occupation with the interests of the zionist state in palestine rather than america. Their amendment prevented americans and russians from trading with each other unless russian jews were first given their freedom.

In the mid 1970s, rumsveld’s speeches consisted of a string of lies about russia’s non-existent build up of non-existent super weapons which is remarkably similar to his speeches nearly three decades later about saddam’s non-existent threat to america with its non-existent inter-continental ballistic nuclear missiles. In both cases rumsveld and the neocons were blatantly lying. "The CIA and other agencies who watched the soviet union continuously for any sign of threat said that this was a complete fiction. There was no truth in rumsveld’s allegations." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005). The soviet union’s economy in the 1970s was almost as bankrupt as iraq’s during the 1990s and neither country was capable of embarking upon a highly expensive military build up.

It was at this juncture that the cia found itself in what would be the first of many battles with the zionist neocons over the necons’ lies and fantasies. These battles would continue for the next thirty years. It is no wonder that in 2005, bush junior, at the onset of his second term in office, having decided to pursue the neocons’ foreign policies, decided it was necessary to neuter any further cia opposition to the neocons by shifting many of its functions to the neocon dominated pentagon. Bush didn’t want the cia exposing the neocons’ lies during his second term in office as it had done for the previous thirty years. Bush’s decision to emasculate what has been one of the country’s main security institutions since the end of the second world war, shows the dominance that the neocons have currently acquired over the bush administration.

Despite the cia’s dismissal of rumsveld’s and the neocons’ fantasies, these perpetual political liars persisted in promoting their fantasies, "But rumsveld used his position to persuade president ford to set up an independent enquiry. He said it would prove that there was a hidden threat to america and the enquiry would be run by a group of neoconservatives one of whom was paul wolfowitz. The aim was to change the way that america saw the soviet union. The neoconservatives chose as the enquiry chairman a well known critic and historian of the soviet union called richard pipes. Pipes was convinced that whatever the soviets said publicly, secretly they still intended to attack and conquer america. This was their hidden mindset. The enquiry was called Team B and the other leading member was paul wolfowitz." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005). In other words, rumsveld persuaded gerald ford to set up an independent enquiry to look into the soviet union’s threat to america and then choose two israelis, richard pipes and paul wolfowitz, both of whom were suffering from political paranoias about russia’s annihilatory threat to the zionist state in palestine, to examine the evidence!

The conclusions reached by the neoconservative Team B were none too surprising, "Team B began examining all the cia data on the soviet union but however closely they looked there was little evidence of the dangerous weapons or defence systems they claimed the soviets were developing. Rather than accept that this meant that the systems did not exist Team B made an assumption that the soviets had developed systems that were so sophisticated they were undetectable. For example, they could find no evidence that the soviet submarine fleet had an acoustic defence system. But what this meant, Team B said, was that the soviets had actually invented a new non-acoustic system which was impossible to detect. This meant that the whole of the american submarine fleet was at risk from an invisible threat that was there even though there was no evidence for it. What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the soviet union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn’t found but they were wrong about many of those they could observe such as the soviet air defences. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse reflecting the growing economic chaos in the soviet union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the soviet regime. The air defence system worked perfectly but the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official soviet training manual which proudly asserted that their air defence system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005).

These tactics were, of course, exactly the same as those used by the neocons nearly three decades later to fabricate america’s lies for the invasion of iraq. To an outsider, it might seem a little odd that richard pipes and paul wolfowitz always suspected the existence of the soviet union’s non-existent weapons but never seemed to notice the real weapons of mass destruction owned by the zionist state in palestine. In reality, however, neither of these israeli traitors would have been able to motivate america to fight the zionist state’s battles against the soviet union without such lies. The zionist neocons had no other option than churning out such blatant lies if they wanted america to curb the soviet’s threat to the zionist state in palestine. This was the only way they could deceive the american president and the american people into taking action against the soviets. The so-called noble lie promoted by leo strauss was not the platonic lie necessary to keep peace and stability within a particular society. It was the means for duping the host country into sacrificing itself for the sake of a parsitic country on the other side of the world.

The zionist neocons in Team B then relied on zionist financiers to fund a range of zionist propaganda in the zionist owned media all of which they did gleefully because this was their contribution to the long term survival of the zionist state. And to zionists, the long term survival of the zionist state was their primary objective. "The neoconservatives set up a lobby group to publicize the findings of Team B. It was called ‘the committee on the present danger’ and a growing number of politicians joined including a presidential hopeful called ronald reagan. Through films and television the committee portrayed a world in which america was under threat from hidden forces that could strike at any time. Forces that america must conquer to survive." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005).

To zionists around the world, the soviet union was the centre of all evil because it could obliterate the zionist state in one fell swoop. But, non-jewish americans had nothing to fear from the soviet union because it was no threat to america. However, the greater the zionization of the american people i.e. the more that zionists were able to indoctrinate americans into adopting a zionist perspective, the more likely it was that they too would see the soviet union as the centre of evil. "The neoconservatives were succeeding in creating a simplistic fiction. A vision of the soviet union as the centre of all evil in the world and america as the only country that could rescue them. And this nightmarish vision was beginning to give the neoconservatives great power and influence." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005). But, on this occasion, the neoconservatives didn’t win enough influence since ford lost the 1976 presidential election to a peanut farmer turned first class humanitarian.

Despite the fact that the zionist state had forced nixon to intervene on behalf of the zionists in the 1973 war, and that president ford allowed the burgeoning neocon loonies to shape american foreign policies, ford was still hopeful of bringing peace to the middle east. "In that year, Ford, like Richard Nixon before him, tried his hand at achieving a Middle East peace settlement and was confronted with an intransigent Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, then in his first tour of office. In March of that year, exasperated with Israel's behavior, Ford had made a speech calling for a "reassessment" of U.S. policy towards Israel On the advice of his secretary of state, none other than Henry Kissinger, Ford "conspicuously delayed delivery of weapons to Israel, including the F-15 fighter plane [and] suspended negotiations for pending financial and military aid to Israel" Within White House circles, a consensus for a peace plan was emerging which "looked very much like UN Resolution 242 and the Rogers Plan" that would have required Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, with provisions that its security would be guaranteed. The idea was for President Ford to make a major speech, spelling out America's basic interests in the Middle East, and those interests required Israel's withdrawal."

As jeffrey blankfort argued, "It was not to be. As J.J. Goldberg noted in his book, Jewish Power, "Rabin and his aides entered the Kissinger negotiations as hard bargainers with a clear sense of the bottom line... And one of the most potent weapons at their disposal was the American Jewish community... " Two years before, after the end of what the Israelis describe as the Yom Kippur War, with an Arab oil embargo causing gasoline shortages and widespread resentment around the country, the General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations voted to launch an emergency public-relations campaign in behalf of Israel. It would be endowed with a $3 million emergency public-relations fund and administered by a special task force on Israel. The campaign would combine the "national clout and know-how of the major [Jewish] agencies with the local resources of the federations and community-relations councils." As Goldberg describes it, "President Ford was the first to taste its power, when he spoke about his ‘reassessment' of U.S.-Israel relations. Within six weeks, Ford gave up the idea after 76 senators signed a letter, drafted by AIPAC, demanding that he "back off." The letter's key paragraph put the president on notice that: ... "within the next several weeks, the Congress expects to receive your foreign aid requests for fiscal year 1976. We trust that your recommendations will be responsive to Israel's urgent military and economic needs. We urge you to make it clear, as we do, that the United States acting in its own national interests stands firmly with Israel in searching for peace in future negotiations, and that this premise is the basis of the current reassessment of U.S. policy in the Middle East." Senator Charles Mathias, (R-MD) acknowledged that, due to lobbying pressure, "Seventy-six of us promptly affixed our signatures although no hearings had been held, no debate conducted, nor had the administration been invited to present its views. Mathias added that "as a result of the activities of the [Israel[ lobby, congressional conviction has been measurably reinforced by the knowledge that political sanctions will be applied by any who fail to deliver." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

During the carter administration in the 1970s, increasing numbers of zionist neocons in the democratic party began to suspect the party’s policies were of less benefit to the zionist state in palestine than the republicans. The rise of ronald reagan as the republicans’ prospective presidential candidate tempted many of them to switch parties, "(Eliot) Abrams joined the neocon exodus from the Democratic Party in the late 1970s led by members of the Committee on the Present Danger and the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. His first position in the Reagan administration was director of the State Department's Office for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. But he was appointed only after Reagan's first choice came under fire in the Senate." (Tom Barry ‘The Ambassador of Lies Elliott Abrams: the Neocon's Neocon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barry02092005.html February 9, 2005); "By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending." (No author ‘Neocon 101’ Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html no date c.2003); "The neo-con movement arose during the early 1970s among a small group of disgruntled liberals and former Trotskyists, some of whom had studied under Professor Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. The group was almost exclusively Jewish, and was defined by "their attachment to Israel [and to] the Reaganite right's hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic [sic] values (and American interests)," all of which "would guarantee Israel's security." They were opposed as well to the Nixon administration's policy of dÈtente and the easing of tensions with the Soviet Union which meant U.S. acquiescence to its influence over the East Bloc states. The neo-cons wanted to challenge the Soviets through a massive build-up of this country's military strength and a willingness to use American power to further America's hegemonic interests, not dissimilar, as we shall see, to the agenda of the Project for a New American Century." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

The israeli neocons in reagan’s presidential campaign realized they needed to help the republican party to win mass support if a republican president was to be elected who could then be duped into implementing foreign policies to protect the zionist state in palestine. They also realized that the more they could drum up support for the zionist state amongst americans, the more support there would be for american foreign policies which helped the zionist state. However, at this point in time, the republican party had little grassroots support. If it was to win elections it needed a substantial constituency. But where was it going to find one?

The neocons realized the answer was religion. "Created in 1976, EPPC (the Ethics and Public Policy Center) was the first neocon institute to break ground in the frontal attack on the secular humanists. For nearly three decades, EPPC has functioned as the cutting edge of the neoconservative-driven culture war against progressive theology and secularism, and the associated effort to ensure right-wing control of the Republican Party. It explicitly sought to unify the Christian right with the neoconservative religious right, which was mostly made up of agnostics back then. A central part of its political project was to "clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy." (Tom Barry ‘The Ambassador of Lies Elliott Abrams: the Neocon's Neocon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barry02092005.html February 9, 2005); "And at this very same moment religion was being mobilized politically in america but for a very different purpose and those encouraging this were the neoconservatives. Many neoconservatives had become advisors to the presidential campaign of ronald reagan and as they became more involved with the republican party they had forged an alliance with the religious wing of the party because it shared their aim of the moral regeneration of america. By the late seventies there were millions of fundamentalist christians in america but their preachers had always told them not to vote. It would mean compromising with a doomed and immoral society. But the neoconservatives and their new republican allies made an alliance with a number of powerful preachers who told their followers to become involved in politics for the first time." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005).

The alliance between the necons/the zionist state and what were formerly their enemies, the christian evangelists, was not without its difficulties, "Israel has viewed the American Evangelical community as a significant source of support for more than two decades. What began as a marginal dalliance between groups in the Israeli right and leaders of the Evangelical Church has become one of the primary channels of contact between the official State of Israel and American Christians. Along the way, this alliance has succeeded in overcoming more than a few hurdles - the established Jewish community in the U.S. at first responded coolly to the closer relations while expressing reservations about the rightist approach of the Evangelicals in American politics - an approach that is alien to most of the Jewish community; nor did the previous (Democratic) administration have much fondness for this church. (Nathan Guttman ‘Getting tight with the Bible Belt’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/540774.html February 17th 2005).

Allan c. brownfeld was the first to highlight the way that zionists bribed christian evangelical leaders into adopting a more conciliatory tone towards the zionist state, "In 1978, Jerry Falwell traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored and paid for by the Israeli government. In 1979, the Israelis extended another free trip, during a period when Prime Minister Menachem Begin was in a rush to build Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank. The Rev. Falwell traveled the road toward the Palestinian town of Nablus and turned off the highway and stood at a cluster of prefabricated houses built by Jewish settlers. At that time, Falwell declared that God was kind to America only because "America has been kind to the Jews." At a gala dinner in New York in 1980, Prime Minister Begin bestowed upon Falwell a medal named for Vladimir Jobotinsky, the right-wing Zionist leader. In 1981, when Israel bombed the nuclear reactor in Iraq, Begin immediately called Jerry Falwell for support." (By Allan C. Brownfeld ‘Some Fundamentalists Ache for Armageddon’ The Orange County Register http://iraqwar.org/fundamentalists.htm May 19, 1987). Uri avnery has stated, "The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. The founding fathers were Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, who once got a jet plane as a present from Menachem Begin, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network, which help to finance the Christian Embassy in Jerusalem of J.W. van der Hoeven, an outfit that supports the settlers and their right-wing allies." (Uri Avnery ‘The Night After: The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html April 10, 2003). Zionists have been very kind to falwell but, it can be suggested, falwell’s been very willing to stimulate their kindness.

Stephen zunes has implicated the neocons’ role in winning christian support for republicanism and zionism ... "it is important to recognize that the rise of the religious right as a political force in the United States is a relatively recent phenomenon that emerged as part of a calculated strategy by leading right-wingers in the Republican Party who - while not fundamentalist Christians themselves - recognized the need to enlist the support of this key segment of the American population in order to achieve political power." (Stephen Zunes ‘The Influence of the Christian Right on U.S. Middle East Policy’ Foreign Policy In Focus June 2004). Reagan won the 1980 presidential election because of the religious vote that was garnered for him by the neocons, "The religious vote was crucial in his election because many millions of fundamentalists voted for the first time." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005).

In 1980, the zionist state in palestine allowed american christian fundamentalists to set up a christian embassy in jerusalem to co-ordinate zionist efforts to consolidate zionists’ alliance with america’s christians. "In 1980, the wooing of the right received the official sanction of the Israeli government and an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem was established whose function was and remains to coordinate worldwide Christian support for Israel and its policies and which raises funds to help finance Russian Jewish immigration to Israel and settlement in the West Bank. Enter Christian Zionism to the center stage of American politics." (Lila Rajiva ‘An Ideological Tower of Babel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva01152005.html January 15 / 16, 2005).

The neocons were rewarded for their contribution to reagan’s victory by being given a number of important positions within reagan’s administration, "And as they had hoped, many neoconservatives were given power in the new administration. Paul wolfowitz became head of the state department policy staff. While his close friend, richard perle, became the assistant secretary of defence. The head of Team B, richard pipes, became one of reagan’s chief advisers. The neoconservatives believed that they now had the chance to implement their vision of america’s revolutionary destiny. To use the country’s power aggressively as a force for good in the world in an epic battle to defeat the soviet union. It was a vision that they shared with millions of their new religious allies." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005).

The neoconservatives’ alliance with what at the time was known as the moral majority was undoubtedly one of their most astute political tactics and one of their greatest political successes. It has been one of the main pillars of their later political successes. Without such support, it might still have been possible for the neocons to transform america’s foreign policies but it would have been much more difficult electing republican presidents to implement such policies. The zionists’ conversion of christian fundamentalists who believed in the god of love, into dechristianized zionists who believed in the zionist god of wrath and revenge is surely one of the most bizarre mass religious conversions in history. It is almost on a par with what happened in russia a decade and a half later, when the zionist oligarchs used their media power to persuade the russian people to vote for a highly unpopular vodka soaked corpse. The day after his against-the-odds election victory, boris yeltsin suffered a heart attack and never took any further part in politics.

During the 1970s the israeli neocons, in conjunction with the zionist state and the zionist lobby in america, embarked upon a huge political effort to reverse the political tide against the zionist state. They increased their efforts to organize american jews to support the zionist state. And they assiduously lobbied all sectors of american society: the military industrial complex, politicians, business leaders, religious leaders. Zionist lobby groups provided the funds to send influential americans on all expenses paid trips to the zionist state. "It was at this time that US support for Israel, until then equivocal, moved to the center of American foreign policy. The rise of this Israel-centered foreign policy was therefore neither logically necessary nor spontaneous but the result of a sustained campaign born from fear that the U.S. too might ultimately follow its own interests and cultivate good relations with the Arab world at the expense of Israel. With Arab countries beginning to exhibit political clout, Israel began systematically organizing the influential and wealthy diaspora in the west, labeling any perception of similarity between Nazi and Zionist policies as "communist" and fostering a general intellectual reaction against the emergence of the post-colonial world." (Lila Rajiva ‘An Ideological Tower of Babel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva01152005.html January 15 / 16, 2005).

Jews did not start World War II but Zionists have started World War III
		First published may 23rd 2004. Updated February 13th 2005. Overwhelming Evidence of Zionist World Domination. Zionists’ influence over the media in america and britain (hereinafter referred to as brutland) and their influence over the american and brutish political systems were highlighted in the june 2002 edition of tf24. It was concluded that there was sufficient evidence to suggest the emergence of zionist world domination. Since then there have been a number of significant events relating to this issue: firstly, zionists pushed the american and brutish governments into an invasion of iraq in order to eradicate one of the zionist state’s main irritants. Secondly, they initiated the so-called third world war, the war against terrorism, in order to further extend zionist dominance of the middle east. Thirdly, bush and blair not merely accepted sharon as part of the war against terrorism they even came to regard him as their leader. (The fact that sharon has become the leader in the war against terrorism is surely one of the greatest hoaxes of the 21st century given that ariel sharon was a terrorist who went on to become a mass murderer and war criminal and is now a state terrorist). Fourthly, and perhaps most critically of all, in april 2004, ariel sharon took his plan for zionist expansionism in palestine to george bush and obtained his instant support. It was amazing that the president of the united states could give his wholehearted approval for a plan which involved profound consequences for american foreign policies in the middle east, with virtually no political or international discussion of the issues involved. If bush’s approval of the plan teetered on the edge of ignominious surrender to zionist power, what made it even more embarrassing for the so-called leader of the world’s sole hyperpower was that sharon hadn’t obtained the support of his own likud party for the plan. So, when sharon’s party rejected the plan, bush was left as its only supporter. In other words, sharon believed he was in such a powerful position in his relationship with george bush that he felt free to use the prestige and power of the president of the united states of america to win support for his plan from members of his own party. Sharon was not in awe of the power of the american president; nor did he respect it to any degree that he feared dragging it through the mud of the likuds’ internal politics. He used it simply as a means to his own political ends. The fact that the failure of this tactic to win over the likud party further debased the american presidency, was of no concern to him. Even more shockingly, nor did it seem of much concern to the president, the american congress, and the zionist owned american media because all of them operate on the unspoken assumption that sharon tells bush what to do and not vice versa. Bush later retracted his support for elements of the plan but by then the damage had been done to his political reputation, the stature of the presidency, and the respect of america in the international community. Juan cole’s opinion of this amazing sequence of events is that, "Bush has just lain down on the ground and pleaded with Sharon to walk all over him with hobnail boots, and then smiled for the privilege. Arab satellite television shows Israelis repressing Palestinians every day. The Bush administration has actually endorsed the forcible Israeli annexation of Palestinian land, which violates the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Accords!" (Juan Cole ‘Arguing with Bush yet Again’ http://www.juancole.com/ July 14, 2004). Sharon also got the tacit support of the blair government for his april 2004 plan - which was not surprising considering that blair is little more than a zionist quisling. In june 2004, the zionist occupied american congress ratified bush’s agreement with sharon. Stephen zunes highlighted the profound consequences implied by this agreement, "On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, endorsed right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s efforts to colonize and annex large sections of the Palestinian West Bank, seized by Israel in the June 1967 war. This was not just another "pro-Israel" (or, more accurately, "pro-Israeli right") resolution, but an effective renunciation of the post-World War II international system based upon the premise of the illegitimacy of the expansion of a country’s territory by military force. House Concurrent Resolution 460, sponsored by right-wing Republican leader Tom DeLay, "strongly endorses" the letter sent by President George W. Bush to the Israeli prime minister in April supporting his so-called "disengagement" plan. This unilateral initiative calls for withdrawing the illegal Israeli settlements from the occupied Gaza Strip, but - far more significantly - would incorporate virtually all of the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank into Israel, leaving the Palestinians with a series of non-contiguous and economically unviable cantons, each surrounded by Israeli territory, collectively constituting barely 10% of historic Palestine. (Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, Sharon’s plan would allow Israel to control the borders, the ports, and the airspace, as well as having the right to conduct military operations inside Palestinian areas at will.) The Bush letter endorsed by Congress effectively destroys the once highly-touted "road map" and marks the first time in the history of the peace process that a U.S. president has pre-empted negotiations by announcing support of such a unilateral initiative by one party. More fundamentally, Congress’ effective endorsement of an Israeli annexation of land it conquered in the 1967 war is a direct challenge to the United Nations Charter, which forbids any country from expanding its territory through military conquest. The vote, therefore, constitutes nothing less than an overwhelming bipartisan renunciation of the post-World War II international system, effectively recognizing the right of conquest." (Stephen Zunes ‘Congress Overwhelmingly Endorses Ariel Sharon's Annexation Plans’ Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org June 25, 2004). The likud party seem unwilling to endorse the zionist side of the so called plan. So here we have a situation where the american president and the american congress have ratified an agreement which is wholly favourable to the zionist state and yet the likud party refuses to support it because it contains compromises. The plan for the legitimization of zionist expansionism was then ratified by the main players in the middle east, "The international community goes along, as evidenced by the recent decision by the Quartet, representing the UN, the EU, and Russia along with the U.S., to endorse Sharon's unilateral "disengagement" plan for Gaza - something Israeli activist Uri Avnery has dubbed a "scandalous" step, constituting a confirmation by the international community that the Palestinians have no right to take part in determining their own fate. The Quartet endorsement came with indecent haste just after Israel wound down a weeks-long rampage through the city of Rafah, Gaza, during which it demolished entire residential neighborhoods, left thousands of Palestinians homeless, and fired missiles into crowds of peaceful demonstrators." (Kathleen Christison ‘The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 10-12, 2004). In conclusion: given these four recent developments, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is now overwhelming evidence of zionists’ global domination.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/

Jews did not start World War II but Zionists have started World War III