Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,344
» Latest member: Kerry_Watson
» Forum threads: 16,252
» Forum posts: 47,843

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 20 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 17 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Yandex

Latest Threads
JFK Assassination: Seque...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: ThomasPickering
07-05-2022, 06:53 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 194
Britain's new Jihadi Oper...
Forum: Black Operations
Last Post: Michael Barwell
29-04-2022, 03:08 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 13,215
Dr. Judy Wood's Book 'Whe...
Forum: 911
Last Post: O. Austrud
05-04-2022, 10:57 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 18,994
Witnesses who were never ...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Milo Reech
02-04-2022, 01:37 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 462
Jews and Nazis
Forum: Political, Governmental, and Economic Systems and Strategies
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
25-03-2022, 09:35 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 120
Backgroud on the War in U...
Forum: War is a Racket
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
21-03-2022, 08:01 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 357
Forum: Geopolitical Hotspots
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
03-03-2022, 04:30 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 386
Guido Preparata's website
Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
02-03-2022, 08:23 PM
» Replies: 151
» Views: 116,088
Mae Brussell Compilation ...
Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
22-02-2022, 03:48 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 299
Podcast for JFK INSIDE JO...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Richard Gilbride
01-01-2022, 09:48 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 610

  JFK Assassination: Sequence of Events
Posted by: ThomasPickering - 18-04-2022, 09:53 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - Replies (3)

I am a long time JFK Assassination researcher who has spent a great deal of time and effort examining the Zapruder film to understand what is shown on it.  The following link is my own observations about the assassination. If you have comments or questions regarding this, please make them on that Blog post, not in this thread. Thank you.

JFK Assassination:  Sequence of Events

Print this item

  Witnesses who were never called before the Warren Commission
Posted by: Gil Jesus - 28-03-2022, 09:11 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - Replies (2)


Print this item

  Jews and Nazis
Posted by: Lauren Johnson - 25-03-2022, 09:35 PM - Forum: Political, Governmental, and Economic Systems and Strategies - No Replies

American Pravda: Jews and Nazis

Around 35 years ago, I was sitting in my college dorm-room closely reading the New
York Times as I did each and every morning when I noticed an astonishing article
about the controversial new Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir.
Back in those long-gone days, the Gray Lady was strictly a black-and-white print publication,
lacking the large color photographs of rap stars and long stories about dieting techniques that
fill so much of today’s news coverage, and it also seemed to have a far harder edge in its Middle
East reporting. A year or so earlier, Shamir’s predecessor Menacham Begin had allowed his
Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to talk him into invading Lebanon and besieging Beirut, and the
subsequent massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee
camps had outraged the world and angered America’s government. This eventually led to
Begin’s resignation, with Shamir, his Foreign Minister, taking his place.
Prior to his surprising 1977 election victory, Begin had spent decades in the political wilderness
as an unacceptable right-winger, and Shamir had an even more extreme background, with the
American mainstream media freely reporting his long involvement in all sorts of high-profile
assassinations and terrorist attacks during the 1940s, painting him as a very bad man indeed.
Given Shamir’s notorious activities, few revelations would have shocked me, but this one did.
Apparently, during the late 1930s, Shamir and his small Zionist faction had become great
admirers of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis, and after World War II broke out, they had
made repeated attempts to contact Mussolini and the German leadership in 1940 and 1941,
hoping to enlist in the Axis Powers as their Palestine affiliate, and undertake a campaign of
attacks and espionage against the local British forces, then share in the political booty after
Hitler’s inevitable triumph.
Now the Times clearly viewed Shamir in a very negative light, but it seemed extremely unlikely
to me that they would have published such a remarkable story without being absolutely sure of
their facts. Among other things, there were long excerpts from the official letters sent to
Mussolini ferociously denouncing the “decadent” democratic systems of Britain and France that5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 2/16
he was opposing, and assuring Il Duce that such ridiculous political notions would have no
future place in the totalitarian Jewish client state they hoped to establish under his auspices in
As it happens, both Germany and Italy were preoccupied with larger geopolitical issues at the
time, and given the small size of Shamir’s Zionist faction, not much seems to have ever come of
those efforts. But the idea of the sitting Prime Minister of the Jewish State having spent his
early wartime years as an unrequited Nazi ally was certainly something that sticks in one’s
mind, not quite conforming to the traditional narrative of that era which I had always accepted.
Most remarkably, the revelation of Shamir’s pro-Axis past seems to have had only a relatively
minor impact upon his political standing within Israeli society. I would think that any
American political figure found to have supported a military alliance with Nazi Germany during
the Second World War would have had a very difficult time surviving the resulting political
scandal, and the same would surely be true for politicians in Britain, France, or most other
western nations. But although there was certainly some embarrassment in the Israeli press,
especially after the shocking story reached the international headlines, apparently most Israelis
took the whole matter in stride, and Shamir stayed in office for another year, then later served
a second, much longer term as Prime Minister during 1986-1992. The Jews of Israel apparently
regarded Nazi Germany quite differently than did most Americans, let alone most American

Around that same time, a second intriguing example of this quite
different Israeli perspective towards the Nazis also came to my
attention. In 1983, Amoz Oz, often described as Israel’s greatest
novelist, had published In the Land of Israel to glowing reviews. This
book was a collection of lengthy interviews with various
representative figures in Israeli society, both moderate and extreme,
as well as some coverage of the Palestinians who also lived among
Of these ideological profiles, one of the shortest but most widely
discussed was that of an especially hard-line political figure,
unnamed but almost universally believed to be Ariel Sharon, a
conclusion certainly supported by the personal details and physical
description provided. Near the very beginning, that figure mentioned that people of his
ideological ilk had recently been denounced as “Judeo-Nazis” by a prominent liberal Israeli
academic, but rather than reject that label, he fully welcomed it. So the subject generally
became known in public discussions as the “Judeo-Nazi.”
That he described himself in such terms was hardly an exaggeration, since he rather gleefully
advocated the slaughter of millions of Israel’s enemies, and the vast expansion of Israeli
territory by conquest of neighboring lands and expulsion of their populations, along with the
free use of nuclear weapons if they or anyone else too strongly resisted such efforts. In his bold
opinion, the Israelis and Jews in general were just too soft and meek, and needed to regain5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 3/16
their place in the world by once again becoming a conquering people, probably hated but
definitely feared. To him, the large recent massacre of Palestinian women and children at Sabra
and Shatila was of no consequence whatsoever, and the most unfortunate aspect of the incident
was that the killers had been Israel’s Christian Phalangist allies rather than Israeli soldiers
Now rhetorical excess is quite common among politicians and a shroud of pledged anonymity
will obviously loosen many tongues. But can anyone imagine an American or other Western
public figure talking in such terms, let alone someone who moves in higher political circles?
These days, Donald Trump sometimes Tweets out a crude misspelled insult at 2am, and the
American media is aghast in horror. But given that his administration leaks like a sieve, if he
routinely boasted to his confidants about possibly slaughtering millions, we surely would have
heard about it. For that matter, there seems not the slightest evidence that the original German
Nazis ever spoke in such ways privately, let alone while a journalist was carefully taking notes.
But the “Judeo-Nazis” of Israel are another story.
As near as I can recall, the last even slightly prominent figure in American public life who
declared himself a “Nazi” was George Lincoln Rockwell during the 1960s, and he was much
more of a political performance artist than an actual political leader. Even as marginalized a
figure as David Duke has always hotly denied such an accusation. But apparently politics in
Israel is played by different rules.
In any event, Sharon’s purported utterances seem to have had little negative impact upon his
subsequent political career, and after spending some time in the political wilderness after the
Lebanon disaster, he eventually served five years as Prime Minister during 2001-2006,
although by that later date his views were regularly denounced as too soft and compromising
due to the steady rightward drift of the Israeli political spectrum.

Over the years I’ve occasionally made half-hearted attempts to locate
the Times article about Shamir that had long stuck in my memory,
but have had no success, either because it was removed from the
Times archives or more likely because my mediocre search skills
proved inadequate. But I’m almost certain that the piece had been
prompted by the 1983 publication of Zionism in the Age of the
Dictators[1] by Lenni Brenner, an anti-Zionist of the Trotskyite
persuasion and Jewish origins. I only very recently discovered that
book, which really tells an extremely interesting story.
Brenner, born in 1937, has spent his entire life as an unreconstructed
hard-core leftist, with his enthusiasms ranging from Marxist
revolution to the Black Panthers, and he is obviously a captive of his
views and his ideology. At times, this background impairs the flow of his text, and the periodic
allusions to “proletarian,” “bourgeoisie,” and “capitalist classes” sometimes grow a little
wearisome, as does his unthinking acceptance of all the shared beliefs common to his political
circle. But surely only someone with that sort of fervent ideological commitment would have5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 4/16
been willing to devote so much time and effort to investigating that controversial subject and
ignoring the endless denunciations that resulted, which even included physical assaults by
Zionist partisans.
In any event, his documentation seems completely airtight, and some
years after the original appearance of his book, he published a
companion volume entitled 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration
with the Nazis, which simply provides English translations of all the
raw evidence behind his analytical framework, allowing interested
parties to read the material and draw their own conclusions.
Among other things, Brenner provides considerable evidence that the
larger and somewhat more mainstream right-wing Zionist faction
later led by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was almost
invariably regarded as a Fascist movement during the 1930s, even
apart from its warm admiration for Mussolini’s Italian regime. This
was hardly such a dark secret in that period given that its main
Palestine newspaper carried a regular column by a top ideological leader entitled “Diary of a
Fascist.” During one of the major international Zionist conferences, factional leader Vladimir
Zabotinsky entered the hall with his brown-shirted followers in full military formation, leading
the chair to ban the wearing of uniforms in order to avoid a riot, and his faction was soon
defeated politically and eventually expelled from the Zionist umbrella organization. This major
setback was largely due to the widespread hostility the group had aroused after two of its
members were arrested by British police for the recent assassination of Chaim Arlosoroff, one
of the highest-ranking Zionist officials based in Palestine.
Indeed, the inclination of the more right-wing Zionist factions toward assassination, terrorism,
and other forms of essentially criminal behavior was really quite remarkable. For example, in
1943 Shamir had arranged the assassination of his factional rival[2], a year after the two men
had escaped together from imprisonment for a bank robbery in which bystanders had been
killed, and he claimed he had acted to avert the planned assassination of David Ben-Gurion,
the top Zionist leader and Israel’s future founding-premier. Shamir and his faction certainly
continued this sort of behavior into the 1940s, successfully assassinating Lord Moyne, the
British Minister for the Middle East, and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator,
though they failed in their other attempts to kill American President Harry Truman[3] and
British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin[4], and their plans to assassinate Winston Churchill[5]
apparently never moved past the discussion stage. His group also pioneered the use of terrorist
car-bombs and other explosive attacks against innocent civilian targets,[6] all long before any
Arabs or Muslims had ever thought of using similar tactics[7]; and Begin’s larger and more
“moderate” Zionist faction did much the same. Given that background, it was hardly surprising
that Shamir later served as director of assassinations at the Israeli Mossad during 1955-1965,
so if the Mossad did indeed play a major role in the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy[8], he was very likely involved.
5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 5/16
The cover of the 2014 paperback edition of Brenner’s
book displays the commemorative medal struck by
Nazi Germany to mark its Zionist alliance, with a Star-
of-David on the front face and a Swastika on the
obverse. But oddly enough, this symbolic medallion
actually had absolutely no connection with the
unsuccessful attempts by Shamir’s small faction to
arrange a Nazi military alliance during World War II.
Although the Germans paid little attention to the entreaties of that minor organization, the far
larger and more influential mainstream Zionist movement of Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-
Gurion was something else entirely. And during most of the 1930s, these other Zionists had
formed an important economic partnership with Nazi Germany, based upon an obvious
commonality of interests. After all, Hitler regarded Germany’s one percent Jewish population
as a disruptive and potentially dangerous element which he wanted gone, and the Middle East
seemed as good a destination for them as any other. Meanwhile, the Zionists had very similar
objectives, and the creation of their new national homeland in Palestine obviously required
both Jewish immigrants and Jewish financial investment.
After Hitler had been named Chancellor in 1933,
outraged Jews worldwide had quickly launched an
economic boycott, hoping to bring Germany to its
knees, with London’s Daily Express famously running
the banner headline “Judea Declares War on
Germany.” Jewish political and economic influence,
then just like now, was very considerable, and in the depths of the Great Depression,
impoverished Germany needed to export or die, so a large scale boycott in major German
markets posed a potentially serious threat. But this exact situation provided Zionist groups
with an excellent opportunity to offer the Germans a means of breaking that trade embargo,
and they demanded favorable terms for the export of high-quality German manufactured goods
to Palestine, together with accompanying German Jews. Once word of this major Ha’avara or
“Transfer Agreement” with the Nazis came out at a 1933 Zionist Convention, many Jews and
Zionists were outraged, and it led to various splits and controversies. But the economic deal
was too good to resist, and it went forward and quickly grew.
The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel’s establishment is difficult to overstate.
According to a 1974 analysis in Jewish Frontier cited by Brenner, between 1933 and 1939 over
60% of all the investment in Jewish Palestine came from Nazi Germany. The worldwide
impoverishment of the Great Depression had drastically reduced ongoing Jewish financial
support from all other sources, and Brenner reasonably suggests that without Hitler’s financial
backing, the nascent Jewish colony, so tiny and fragile, might easily have shriveled up and died
during that difficult period.
Such a conclusion leads to fascinating hypotheticals. When I first stumbled across references to
the Ha’avara Agreement on websites here and there, one of the commenters mentioning the
issue half-jokingly suggested that if Hitler had won the war, statues would surely have been
built to him throughout Israel and he would today be recognized by Jews everywhere as the5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 6/16
heroic Gentile leader who had played the central role in reestablishing a national homeland for
the Jewish people in Palestine after almost 2000 years of bitter exile.
This sort of astonishing counter-factual possibility is not nearly as totally absurd as it might
sound to our present-day ears. We must recognize that our historical understanding of reality is
shaped by the media, and media organs are controlled by the winners of major wars and their
allies, with inconvenient details often excluded to avoid confusing the public. It is undeniably
true that in his 1924 book Mein Kampf, Hitler had written all sorts of hostile and nasty things
about Jews, especially those who were recent immigrants from Eastern Europe, but when I
read the book back in high school, I was a little surprised to discover that these anti-Jewish
sentiments hardly seemed central to his text. Furthermore, just a couple of years earlier, a
vastly more prominent public figure such as British Minister Winston Churchill had published
sentiments nearly as hostile and nasty[9], focusing on the monstrous crimes being committed
by Bolshevik Jews. In Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears, I was surprised to discover that the
author of the famous Balfour Declaration, the foundation of the Zionist project, was apparently
also quite hostile to Jews, with an element of his motivation probably being his desire to
exclude them from Britain.
Once Hitler consolidated power in Germany, he quickly outlawed all other political
organizations for the German people, with only the Nazi Party and Nazi political symbols being
legally permitted. But a special exception was made for German Jews, and Germany’s local
Zionist Party was accorded complete legal status, with Zionist marches, Zionist uniforms, and
Zionist flags all fully permitted. Under Hitler, there was strict censorship of all German
publications, but the weekly Zionist newspaper was freely sold at all newsstands and street
corners. The clear notion seemed to be that a German National Socialist Party was the proper
political home for the country’s 99% German majority, while Zionist National Socialism would
fill the same role for the tiny Jewish minority.
In 1934, Zionist leaders invited an important SS official to spend six months visiting the Jewish
settlement in Palestine, and upon his return, his very favorable impressions of the growing
Zionist enterprise were published as a massive 12-part-series in Joseph Goebbel’s Der Angriff,
the flagship media organ of the Nazi Party, bearing the descriptive title “A Nazi Goes to
Palestine.” In his very angry 1920 critique of Jewish Bolshevik activity, Churchill had argued
that Zionism was locked in a fierce battle with Bolshevism for the soul of European Jewry, and
only its victory might ensure amicable future relations between Jew and Gentile. Based on
available evidence, Hitler and many of the other Nazi leaders seemed to have reached a
somewhat similar conclusion by the mid-1930s.
During that era extremely harsh sentiments regarding Diaspora Jewry were sometimes found
in rather surprising quarters. After the controversy surrounding Shamir’s Nazi ties erupted into
the headlines, Brenner’s material became the grist for an important article by Edward
Mortimer, the longtime Middle East expert at the august Times of London, and the 2014
edition of the book includes some choice extracts from Mortimer’s February 11, 1984 Times
piece:5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 7/16
Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that “each country can absorb only a
limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany
already has too many Jews”?
No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist
Organization and later still the first president of the state of Israel.
And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but
republished as late as 1936: “The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human
being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and
throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline”?
Not in Der Sturmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer
As the above quoted statement reveals, Zionism itself encouraged and exploited
self-hatred in the Diaspora. It started from the assumption that anti-Semitism was
inevitable and even in a sense justified so long as Jews were outside the land of
It is true that only an extreme lunatic fringe of Zionism went so far as to offer to
join the war on Germany’s side in 1941, in the hope of establishing “the historical
Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the
German Reich.” Unfortunately this was the group which the present Prime Minister
of Israel chose to join.
The very uncomfortable truth is that the harsh characterizations of Diaspora Jewry found in
the pages of Mein Kampf were not all that different from what was voiced by Zionism’s
founding fathers and its subsequent leaders, so the cooperation of those two ideological
movements was not really so totally surprising.
However, uncomfortable truths do remain uncomfortable. Mortimer had spent nineteen years
at the Times, the last dozen of them as the foreign specialist and leader-writer on Middle
Eastern affairs. But the year after he wrote that article including those controversial quotations,
his career at that newspaper ended[10], leading to an unusual gap in his employment history,
and that development may or may not be purely coincidental.
Also quite ironic was the role of Adolf Eichmann, whose name today probably ranks as one of
the most famous half-dozen Nazis in history, due to his postwar 1960 kidnapping by Israeli
agents, followed by his public show-trial and execution as a war-criminal. As it happens,
Eichmann had been a central Nazi figure in the Zionist alliance, even studying Hebrew and
apparently becoming something of a philo-Semite during the years of his close collaboration
with top Zionist leaders.5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 8/16
Brenner is a captive of his ideology and his beliefs, accepting without question the historical
narrative with which he was raised. He seems to find nothing so strange about Eichmann being
a philo-Semitic partner of the Jewish Zionists during the late 1930s and then suddenly being
transformed into a mass-murderer of the European Jews in the early 1940s, willingly
committing the monstrous crimes for which the Israelis later justly put him to death.
This is certainly possible, but I really wonder. A more cynical observer might find it a very odd
coincidence that the first prominent Nazi the Israelis made such an effort to track down and
kill had been their closest former political ally and collaborator. After Germany’s defeat,
Eichmann had fled to Argentina and lived there quietly for a number of years until his name
resurfaced in a celebrated mid-1950s controversy surrounding one of his leading Zionist
partners, then living in Israel as a respected government official, who was denounced as a Nazi
collaborator, eventually ruled innocent after a celebrated trial, but later assassinated by former
members of Shamir’s faction.
Following that controversy in Israel, Eichmann supposedly gave a long personal interview to a
Dutch Nazi journalist, and although it wasn’t published at the time, perhaps word of its
existence may have gotten into circulation. The new state of Israel was just a few years old at
that time, and very politically and economically fragile, desperately dependent upon the
goodwill and support of America and Jewish donors worldwide. Their remarkable former Nazi
alliance was a deeply-suppressed secret, whose public release might have had absolutely
disastrous consequences.
According to the version of the interview later published as a two-part story in Life Magazine,
Eichmann’s statements seemingly did not touch on the deadly topic of the 1930s Nazi-Zionist
partnership. But surely Israeli leaders must have been terrified that they might not be so lucky
the next time, so we may speculate that Eichmann’s elimination suddenly became a top
national priority, and he was tracked down and captured in 1960. Presumably, harsh means
were employed to persuade him not to reveal any of these dangerous pre-war secrets at his
Jerusalem trial, and one might wonder if the reason he was famously kept in an enclosed glass
booth was to ensure that the sound could quickly be cut off if he started to stray from the
agreed upon script. All of this analysis is totally speculative, but Eichmann’s role as a central
figure in the 1930s Nazi-Zionist partnership is undeniable historical fact.

Just as we might imagine, America’s overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry was hardly
eager to serve as a public conduit for Brenner’s shocking revelations of a close Nazi-Zionist
economic partnership, and he mentions that his book agent uniformly received rejections from
each firm he approached, based on a wide variety of different excuses. However, he finally
managed to locate an extremely obscure publisher in Britain willing to take on the project, and
his book was released in 1983, initially receiving no reviews other than a couple of harsh and
perfunctory denunciations, though Soviet Izvestia took some interest in his findings until they
discovered that he was a hated Trotskyite.
His big break came when Shamir suddenly became Israel’s Prime Minister, and he brought his
evidence of former Nazi ties to the English-language Palestinian press, which put it into general5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 9/16
circulation. Various British Marxists, including the notorious “Red Ken” Livingstone of London,
organized a speaking tour for him, and when a group of right-wing Zionist militants attacked
one of the events and inflicted injuries, the story of the brawl caught the attention of the
mainstream newspapers. Soon afterward the discussion of Brenner’s astonishing discoveries
appeared in the Times of London and entered the international media. Presumably, the New
York Times article that had originally caught my eye ran sometime during this period.
Public relations professionals are quite skilled at minimizing the impact of damaging
revelations, and pro-Israel organizations have no shortage of such individuals. Just before the
1983 release of his remarkable book, Brenner suddenly discovered that a young pro-Zionist
author named Edwin Black was furiously working on a similar project, apparently backed by
sufficient financial resources that he was employing an army of fifty researchers to allow him to
complete his project in record time.
Since the entire embarrassing subject of a Nazi-Zionist partnership had been kept away from
the public eye for almost five decades, this timing surely seems more than merely coincidental.
Presumably word of Brenner’s numerous unsuccessful efforts at securing a mainstream
publisher during 1982 had gotten around, as had as his eventual success in locating a tiny one
in Britain. Having failed to prevent publication of such explosive material, pro-Israel groups
quietly decided that their next best option was trying to seize control of the topic themselves,
allowing disclosure of those parts of the story that could not be concealed but excluding items
of greatest danger, while portraying the sordid history in the best possible light.
Black’s book, The Transfer Agreement, may have arrived a year later
than Brenner’s but was clearly backed by vastly greater publicity and
resources. It was released by Macmillan, a leading publisher, ran
nearly twice the length of Brenner’s short book, and carried powerful
endorsements by leading figures from the firmament of Jewish
activism, including the Simon Weisenthal Center, the Israel
Holocaust Memorial, and the American Jewish Archives. As a
consequence, it received long if not necessarily favorable reviews in
influential publications such as The New Republic and Commentary.
In all fairness, I should mention that in the Foreword to his book,
Black claims that his research efforts had been totally discouraged by
nearly everyone he approached, and as a consequence, he had been
working on the project with solitary intensity for many years. This implies the near-
simultaneous release of the two books was purely due to chance. But such a picture is hardly
consistent with his glowing testimonials from so many prominent Jewish leaders, and
personally I find Brenner’s claim that Black was assisted by fifty researchers far more
Since both Black and Brenner were describing the same basic reality and relying upon many of
the same documents, in most respects the stories they tell are generally similar. But Black
carefully excludes any mention of offers of Zionist military cooperation with the Nazis, let alone
the repeated attempts by Shamir’s Zionist faction to officially join the Axis Powers after the war
had broken out, as well as numerous other details of a particularly embarrassing nature.5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 10/16
Assuming Black’s book was published for the reasons I suggested, I think that the strategy of
the pro-Israel groups largely succeeded, with his version of the history seeming to have quickly
supplanted Brenner’s except perhaps in strongly leftist or anti-Zionist circles. Googling each
combination of the title and author, Black’s book gets eight times as many hits, and his Amazon
sales ranks and numbers of reviews are also larger by roughly that same factor. Most notably,
neither the Wikipedia articles on “The Transfer Agreement”[11] and “The Ha’avara
Agreement”[12] contain any mention of Brenner’s research whatsoever, even though his book
was published earlier, was far broader, and only he provided the underlying documentary
evidence. As a personal example of the current situation, I was quite unaware of the entire
Ha’avara history until just a few years ago when I encountered some website comments
mentioning Black’s book, leading me to purchase and read it. But even then, Brenner’s far more
wide-ranging and explosive volume remained totally unknown to me until very recently.

Once World War II began, this Nazi-Zionist partnership quickly lapsed for obvious reasons.
Germany was now at war with the British Empire, and financial transfers to British-run
Palestine were no longer possible. Furthermore, the Arab Palestinians had grown quite hostile
to the Jewish immigrants whom they rightfully feared might eventually displace them, and
once the Germans were forced to choose between maintaining their relationship with a
relatively small Zionist movement or winning the political sympathy of a vast sea of Middle
Eastern Arabs and Muslims, their decision was a natural one. The Zionists faced a similar
choice, and especially once wartime propaganda began so heavily blackening the German and
Italian governments, their long previous partnership was not something they wanted widely
However, at exactly this same moment a somewhat different and equally long-forgotten
connection between Jews and Nazi Germany suddenly moved to the fore.
Like most people everywhere, the average German, whether Jewish or Gentile, was probably
not all that political, and although Zionism had for years been accorded a privileged place in
German society, it is not entirely clear how many ordinary German Jews paid much attention
to it. The tens of thousands who emigrated to Palestine during that period were probably
motivated as much by economic pressures as by ideological commitment. But wartime changed
matters in other ways.
This was even more true for the German government. The outbreak
of a world war against a powerful coalition of the British and French
empires, later augmented by both Soviet Russia and the United
States, imposed the sorts of enormous pressures that could often
overcome ideological scruples. A few years ago, I discovered a
fascinating 2002 book by Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers,
a scholarly treatment of exactly what the title implies. The quality of
this controversial historical analysis is indicated by the glowing
jacket-blurbs from numerous academic experts and an extremely
favorable treatment by an eminent scholar in The American
Historical Review.5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 11/16
Obviously, Nazi ideology was overwhelmingly centered upon race and
considered racial purity a crucial factor in national cohesion.
Individuals possessing substantial non-German ancestry were
regarded with considerable suspicion, and this concern was greatly
amplified if that admixture was Jewish. But in a military struggle
against an opposing coalition possessing many times Germany’s
population and industrial resources, such ideological factors might be
overcome by practical considerations, and Rigg persuasively argues
that some 150,000 half-Jews or quarter-Jews served in the armed
forces of the Third Reich, a percentage probably not much different
than their share of the general military-age population.
Germany’s long-integrated and assimilated Jewish population had
always been disproportionately urban, affluent, and well-educated. As a consequence it is not
entirely surprising that a large proportion of these part-Jewish soldiers who served Hitler were
actually combat officers rather than merely rank-and-file conscripts, and they included at least
15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, and another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high
ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering’s
powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the
Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated
claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.
Admittedly, the racially-elite SS itself generally had far stricter ancestry standards, with even a
trace of non-Aryan parentage normally seen as disqualifying an individual from membership.
But even here, the situation was sometimes complicated, since there were widespread rumors
that Reinhard Heydrich, the second-ranking figure in that very powerful organization, actually
had considerable Jewish ancestry. Rigg investigates that claim without coming to any clear
conclusions, though he does seem to think that the circumstantial evidence involved may have
been used by other high-ranking Nazi figures as a point of leverage or blackmail against
Heydrich, who stood as one of the most important figures in the Third Reich.
As a further irony, most of these individuals traced their Jewish ancestry through their father
rather than their mother, so although they were not Jewish according to rabbinical law, their
family names often reflected their partly Semitic origins, though in many cases Nazi authorities
attempted to studiously overlook this glaringly obvious situation. As an extreme example noted
by an academic reviewer of the book, a half-Jew bearing the distinctly non-Aryan name of
Werner Goldberg actually had his photograph prominently featured in a 1939 Nazi propaganda
newspaper, with the caption describing him as the “The Ideal German Soldier.”
The author conducted more than 400 personal interviews of the surviving part-Jews and their
relatives, and these painted a very mixed picture of the difficulties they had encountered under
the Nazi regime, which varied enormously depending upon particular circumstances and the
personalities of those in authority over them. One important source of complaint was that
because of their status, part-Jews were often denied the military honors or promotions they
had rightfully earned. However, under especially favorable conditions, they might also be
legally reclassified as being of “German Blood,” which officially eliminated any taint on their
status.5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 12/16
Even official policy seems to have been quite contradictory and vacillating. For example, when
the civilian humiliations sometimes inflicted upon the fully Jewish parents of serving half-Jews
were brought to Hitler’s attention, he regarded that situation as intolerable, declaring that
either such parents must be fully protected against such indignities or all the half-Jews must be
discharged, and eventually in April 1940 he issued a decree requiring the latter. However, this
order was largely ignored by many commanders, or implemented through a honor-system that
almost amounted to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” so a considerable fraction of half-Jews remained in
the military if they so wished. And then in July 1941, Hitler somewhat reversed himself, issuing
a new decree that allowed “worthy” half-Jews who had been discharged to return to the
military as officers, while also announcing that after the war, all quarter-Jews would be
reclassified as fully “German Blood” Aryan citizens.
It has been said that after questions were raised about the Jewish ancestry of some of his
subordinates, Goring once angrily responded “I will decide who is a Jew!” and that attitude
seems to reasonably capture some of the complexity and subjective nature of the social
Interestingly enough, many of part-Jews interviewed by Rigg recalled that prior to Hitler’s rise
to power, the intermarriage of their parents had often provoked much greater hostility from the
Jewish rather than the Gentile side of their families, suggesting that even in heavily-assimilated
Germany, the traditional Jewish tendency toward ethnic exclusivity had still remained a
powerful factor in that community.
Although the part-Jews in German military service were certainly subject to various forms of
mistreatment and discrimination, perhaps we should compare this against the analogous
situation in our own military in those same years with regard to America’s Japanese or black
minorities. During that era, racial intermarriage was legally prohibited across a large portion of
the US, so the mixed-race population of those groups was either almost non-existent or very
different in origin. But when Japanese-Americans were allowed to leave their wartime
concentration camps and enlist in the military, they were entirely restricted to segregated all-
Japanese units, but with the officers generally being white. Meanwhile, blacks were almost
entirely barred from combat service, though they sometimes served in strictly-segregated
support roles. The notion that an American with any appreciable trace of African, Japanese, or
for that matter Chinese ancestry might serve as a general or even an officer in the U.S. military
and thereby exercise command authority over white American troops would have been almost
unthinkable. The contrast with the practice in Hitler’s own military is quite different than what
Americans might naively assume.

This paradox is not nearly as surprising as one might assume. The non-economic divisions in
European societies had almost always been along lines of religion, language, and culture rather
than racial ancestry, and the social tradition of more than a millennium could not easily be
swept away by merely a half-dozen years of National Socialist ideology. During all those earlier
centuries, a sincerely-baptized Jew, whether in Germany or elsewhere, was usually considered
just as good a Christian as any other. For example, Tomas de Torquemada, the most fearsome
figure of the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, actually came from a family of Jewish converts.5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 13/16
Even wider racial differences were hardly considered of crucial importance. Some of the
greatest heroes of particular national cultures, such as Russia’s Alexander Pushkin and France’s
Alexandre Dumas, had been individuals with significant black African ancestry, and this was
certainly not considered any sort of disqualifying characteristic.
By contrast, American society from its inception had always been sharply divided by race, with
other differences generally constituting far smaller impediments to intermarriage and
amalgamation. I’ve seen widespread claims that when the Third Reich devised its 1935
Nuremberg Laws restricting marriage and other social arrangements between Aryans, non-
Aryans, and part-Aryans, its experts drew upon some of America’s long legal experience in
similar matters, and this seems quite plausible. Under that new Nazi statute, pre-existing
mixed-marriages received some legal protection, but henceforth Jews and half-Jews could only
marry each other, while quarter-Jews could only marry regular Aryans. The obvious intent was
to absorb that latter group into mainstream German society, while isolating the more heavily-
Jewish population.
Ironically enough, Israel today is one of very few countries with a similar sort of strictly
racially-based criteria for citizenship status and other privileges, with the Jewish-only
immigration policy now often determined by DNA testing[13], and marriages between Jews and
non-Jews legally prohibited. A few years ago, the world media also carried the remarkable
story[14] of a Palestinian Arab sentenced to prison for rape because he had consensual sexual
relations with a Jewish woman by passing himself off as a fellow Jew.
Since Orthodox Judaism is strictly matrilineal and controls Israeli law, even Jews of other
branches can experience unexpected difficulties due to conflicts between personal ethnic
identity and official legal status. The vast majority of the wealthier and more influential Jewish
families worldwide do not follow Orthodox religious traditions, and over the generations, they
have often taken Gentile wives. However, even if the latter had converted to Judaism, their
conversions are considered invalid by the Orthodox Rabbinate, and none of their resulting
descendants are considered Jewish. So if some members of these families later develop a deep
commitment to their Jewish heritage and immigrate to Israel, they are sometimes outraged to
discover that they are officially classified as “goyim” under Orthodox law and legally prohibited
from marrying Jews. These major political controversies periodically erupt and sometimes
reach the international medi[15]a.
Now it seems to me that any American official who proposed racial DNA tests to decide upon
the admission or exclusion of prospective immigrants would have a very difficult time
remaining in office, with the Jewish-activists of organizations like the ADL probably leading the
attack. And the same would surely be true for any prosecutor or judge who sent non-whites to
prison for the crime of “passing” as whites and thereby managing to seduce women from that
latter group. A similar fate would befall advocates of such policies in Britain, France, or most
other Western nations, with the local ADL-type organization certainly playing an important
role. Yet in Israel, such existing laws merely occasion a little temporary embarrassment when
they are covered in the international media, and then invariably remain in place after the
commotion has died down and been forgotten. These sorts of issues are considered of little
more importance than were the past wartime Nazi ties of the Israeli prime minister throughout
most of the 1980s.5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 14/16
But perhaps the solution to this puzzling difference in public reaction lies in an old joke. A
leftist wit once claimed that the reason America has never had a military coup is that it is the
only country in the world that lacks an American embassy to organize such activities. And
unlike the U.S., Britain, France, and many other predominately-white countries, Israel has no
domestic Jewish-activist organization filling the powerful role of the ADL.

Over the last few years, many outside observers have noted a seemingly very odd political
situation in Ukraine. That unfortunate country possesses powerful militant groups, whose
public symbols, stated ideology, and political ancestry all unmistakably mark them as Neo-
Nazis. Yet those violent Neo-Nazi elements are all being bankrolled and controlled[16] by a
Jewish Oligarch[17] who holds dual Israeli citizenship. Furthermore, that peculiar alliance had
been mid-wifed and blessed by some of America’s leading Jewish Neocon figures, such as
Victoria Nuland, who have successfully used their media influence to keep such explosive facts
away from the American public.
At first glance, a close relationship between Jewish Israelis and European Neo-Nazis[18] seems
as grotesque and bizarre a misalliance as one could imagine, but after recently reading
Brenner’s fascinating book, my perspective quickly shifted. Indeed, the main difference
between then and now is that during the 1930s, Zionist factions represented a very insignificant
junior partner to a powerful Third Reich, while these days it is the Nazis who occupy the role of
eager suppliants to the formidable power of International Zionism, which now so heavily
dominates the American political system and through it, much of the world.
Related Reading:
Zionism in the Age of the Dictators[19] by Lenni Brenner
Mein Kampf[20] by Adolf Hitler
American Pravda: The Nature of Anti-Semitism[21]
American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion[22]
American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?[23]
Source References
[1] Zionism in the Age of the Dictators =>
[2] had arranged the assassination of his factional rival =>
[3] American President Harry Truman =>
[4] British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin =>
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1430766...-5/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 15/16
[5] their plans to assassinate Winston Churchill =>
[6] pioneered the use of terrorist car-bombs and other explosive attacks against innocent
civilian targets, => https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-hamas-and-the-
[7] ever thought of using similar tactics => https://www.haaretz.com/1.5023536
[8] Mossad did indeed play a major role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy =>
[9] published sentiments nearly as hostile and nasty =>
[10] his career at that newspaper ended =>
[11] “The Transfer Agreement” =>
[12] “The Ha’avara Agreement” => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
[13] the Jewish-only immigration policy now often determined by DNA testing =>
[14] the remarkable story => https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/21/arab-
[15] sometimes reach the international medi =>
[16] violent Neo-Nazi elements are all being bankrolled and controlled =>
[17] a Jewish Oligarch => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi
[18] a close relationship between Jewish Israelis and European Neo-Nazis =>
neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.62487275/26/2019 American Pravda: Jews and Nazis, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/?display=footnoted 16/16
[19] Zionism in the Age of the Dictators =>
[20] Mein Kampf => http://www.unz.com/book/adolf_hitler__mein-kampf/
[21] American Pravda: The Nature of Anti-Semitism =>
[22] American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion =>
[23] American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It? =>

Print this item

  Backgroud on the War in Ukraine from Russian aggression.
Posted by: Peter Lemkin - 20-03-2022, 11:10 AM - Forum: War is a Racket - Replies (3)

I think a video well worth watching. I don't agree 100%, but I agree with most of what is said - a better and more historically accurate history than most you'll hear. Posner is a very interesting person - born in USA, grew up in USSR, he admits to being an intellectual propagandist for USSR, and now is speaking his mind against 'both' sides.

Print this item

Posted by: Lauren Johnson - 02-03-2022, 07:59 PM - Forum: Geopolitical Hotspots - Replies (2)

VV Putin's speech (emphasis added):

Citizens of Russia, friends,

I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?

The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world.

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.

Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead, we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a different turn.

There are many examples of this. First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of international terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian catastrophe, into the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there for years. The tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands and even millions of people not only in Libya but in the whole region, has led to a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.

A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined as aggression and intervention.

But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course, the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white power, publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international community that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq. It later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true. We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law.

This array includes promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an inch. To reiterate: they have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they have played us. Sure, one often hears that politics is a dirty business. It could be, but it shouldn’t be as dirty as it is now, not to such an extent. This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

Incidentally, US politicians, political scientists and journalists write and say that a veritable “empire of lies” has been created inside the United States in recent years. It is hard to disagree with this – it is really so. But one should not be modest about it: the United States is still a great country and a system-forming power. All its satellites not only humbly and obediently say yes to and parrot it at the slightest pretext but also imitate its behaviour and enthusiastically accept the rules it is offering them. Therefore, one can say with good reason and confidence that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember this and will never forget.

Properly speaking, the attempts to use us in their own interests never ceased until quite recently: they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen. No one has ever succeeded in doing this, nor will they succeed now.

Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests.

Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.

As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.

Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy. They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this way. It is true that they have considerable financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities. We are aware of this and have an objective view of the economic threats we have been hearing, just as our ability to counter this brash and never-ending blackmail. Let me reiterate that we have no illusions in this regard and are extremely realistic in our assessments.

As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.

At the same time, technology, including in the defence sector, is changing rapidly. One day there is one leader, and tomorrow another, but a military presence in territories bordering on Russia, if we permit it to go ahead, will stay for decades to come or maybe forever, creating an ever mounting and totally unacceptable threat for Russia.

Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us.

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

I would like to additionally emphasize the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions.

If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen.

I have already said that Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality after the dissolution of the USSR. We have been treating all new post-Soviet states with respect and will continue to act this way. We respect and will respect their sovereignty, as proven by the assistance we provided to Kazakhstan when it faced tragic events and a challenge in terms of its statehood and integrity. However, Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.

Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other choice.

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime. How can we respond to that?

The outcomes of World War II and the sacrifices our people had to make to defeat Nazism are sacred. This does not contradict the high values of human rights and freedoms in the reality that emerged over the post-war decades. This does not mean that nations cannot enjoy the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Let me remind you that the people living in territories which are part of today’s Ukraine were not asked how they want to build their lives when the USSR was created or after World War II. Freedom guides our policy, the freedom to choose independently our future and the future of our children. We believe that all the peoples living in today’s Ukraine, anyone who want to do this, must be able to enjoy this right to make a free choice.

In this context I would like to address the citizens of Ukraine. In 2014, Russia was obliged to protect the people of Crimea and Sevastopol from those who you yourself call “nats.” The people of Crimea and Sevastopol made their choice in favour of being with their historical homeland, Russia, and we supported their choice. As I said, we could not act otherwise.

The current events have nothing to do with a desire to infringe on the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. They are connected with the defending Russia from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are trying to use it against our country and our people.

I reiterate: we are acting to defend ourselves from the threats created for us and from a worse peril than what is happening now. I am asking you, however hard this may be, to understand this and to work together with us so as to turn this tragic page as soon as possible and to move forward together, without allowing anyone to interfere in our affairs and our relations but developing them independently, so as to create favourable conditions for overcoming all these problems and to strengthen us from within as a single whole, despite the existence of state borders. I believe in this, in our common future.

I would also like to address the military personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Comrade officers,

Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people.

I urge you to refuse to carry out their criminal orders. I urge you to immediately lay down arms and go home. I will explain what this means: the military personnel of the Ukrainian army who do this will be able to freely leave the zone of hostilities and return to their families.

I want to emphasise again that all responsibility for the possible bloodshed will lie fully and wholly with the ruling Ukrainian regime.

I would now like to say something very important for those who may be tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard.

Citizens of Russia,

The culture and values, experience and traditions of our ancestors invariably provided a powerful underpinning for the wellbeing and the very existence of entire states and nations, their success and viability. Of course, this directly depends on the ability to quickly adapt to constant change, maintain social cohesion, and readiness to consolidate and summon all the available forces in order to move forward.

We always need to be strong, but this strength can take on different forms. The “empire of lies,” which I mentioned in the beginning of my speech, proceeds in its policy primarily from rough, direct force. This is when our saying on being “all brawn and no brains” applies.

We all know that having justice and truth on our side is what makes us truly strong. If this is the case, it would be hard to disagree with the fact that it is our strength and our readiness to fight that are the bedrock of independence and sovereignty and provide the necessary foundation for building a reliable future for your home, your family, and your Motherland.

Dear compatriots,

I am certain that devoted soldiers and officers of Russia’s Armed Forces will perform their duty with professionalism and courage. I have no doubt that the government institutions at all levels and specialists will work effectively to guarantee the stability of our economy, financial system and social wellbeing, and the same applies to corporate executives and the entire business community. I hope that all parliamentary parties and civil society take a consolidated, patriotic position.

At the end of the day, the future of Russia is in the hands of its multi-ethnic people, as has always been the case in our history. This means that the decisions that I made will be executed, that we will achieve the goals we have set, and reliably guarantee the security of our Motherland.

I believe in your support and the invincible force rooted in the love for our Fatherland.

February 24, 2022

The Kremlin, Moscow

Print this item

  Mae Brussell Compilation on Michael Aquino, etc
Posted by: Lauren Johnson - 14-02-2022, 02:13 AM - Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics - Replies (1)

Print this item

  Podcast for JFK INSIDE JOB
Posted by: Richard Gilbride - 01-01-2022, 09:48 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - No Replies

The 40-minute podcast for my book JFK INSIDE JOB has finally been edited. I'm reasonably happy with the result, and grateful I was able to find a venue to host this slideshow presentation. It may be viewed at my website www.jfkinsidejob.com in the LECTURES section, or at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm836x3gojw

I focused this discussion on Army Intelligence agent James Powell and the Book Depository as a Potemkin Village, given, as it were, one swing at the 1963 Deep State. There is a lot of information jam-packed into this session.

Hope that you enjoy it, and best wishes for a brave new year.

Print this item

  Oliver Stone interview
Posted by: Milo Reech - 27-12-2021, 10:00 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - No Replies

JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass

Good listening at Law and Disorder.

Print this item

  LeMay and Collins on 11/22/63 - two very important but different players
Posted by: Peter Lemkin - 12-12-2021, 07:21 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - Replies (1)

Posted by William Kelly  [I am copying it from his EXCELLENT blog called JFK CounterCoup

Friday, November 19, 2021
Arthur Collins and Curtis LeMay at the Time of the Assassination

 Arthur Collins and Curtis LeMay at the Time of the Assassination 
A presentation prepared for JFK Lancer 2021, but was canceled due to technical problems. 
[Image: download.jpg]
General LeMay and Arthur Collins 
Arthur Collins and Curtis LeMay are two of the most interesting characters in the assassination story, were personal friends and are considered by some to be primary suspects.
When Arthur Collins was a teenager from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he built his own radio receiver in his parent’s garage, the only radio capable of picking up the broadcasts from U.S. Navy Admiral Richard Byrd from his remote arctic expeditions. Information he dutifully passed on to the U. S. Navy.
Admiral Byrd’s polar expeditions were financed in part by his cousin, Texas oilman D. H. Byrd, the owner of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) at the time of the assassination.
Collins founded his Collins Radio in Cedar Rapids and because of his success with the Navy, was given military contracts that were extended during World War II.
Collins also sold radios to the general public, helping to establish the international network of HAM radio enthusiasts, one of whom was Curtis LeMay.
Curtis LeMay grew up in Ohio, the son of general laborer who moved about frequently , so young Curtis helped put food on the table by hunting and fishing.
Majoring in engineering in college in Columbus, Ohio, LeMay enlisted in the Army ROTC – Reserve Officer Training Corps – so wen he graduated he was a lieutenant in the Army, specializing in the Army Air Corps.
As an 8th Air Force officer during World War II, LeMay was stationed in England where he developed strategies for the American B-17 precision daylight bombing of targets in Europe, that avoided civilian casualties, but later advocated complete carpet bombing of entire cities to break the moral of the enemy.
After the surrender of the Nazis in Germany LeMay was transferred to the Pacific Theater where he commanded the new B-29 Superfortress bombing of Japanese cities, including the nuclear bombings. 
When the war was over LeMay was made head of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), whose nuclear jet bombers had the motto “Peace is our Profession.”
Probably because of his personal association with Arthur Collins, LeMay had all of the SAC bombers as well as the Executive Air Fleet – that included Air Force One, equipped with Collins sideband radios.
When it was realized that Soviet nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) had a limited range, and when fired over the north pole could not reach the southern states, the government had the major defense contractors move some of their industrial facilities to Texas – including Bell Helicopter, Collins Radio, General Dynamics, etc.
Just as Bell Aircraft relocated their Bell Helicopter division to Texas, where Michael Paine moved to when his step-father Arthur Young, inventor of the Bell Helicopter, arranged for him to work for them.
While keeping his company headquarters in his hometown of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Art Collins opened a Collins Radio facility in Richardson, Texas, and maintained a hanger at Redbird Airport, the subject of which is Larry Hancock’s talk.
Collins not only manufactured the radios used by the U.S. Air Force and Executive Fleet, but also maintained and serviced them, using their Cedar Rapids based “Liberty” station to relay messages over long distances. The “Liberty” station can be heard dozens of time on the existing Air Force One radio transmission tapes, but Max Holland doesn’t mention it at all in his book on the subject, “The JFK Assassination Tapes.
In Texas Collins and the other major defence contractors discovered they had a hard time recruiting top notch engineers and scientists, and had to recruit them from out of state, so they banded together and established the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest, and Art Collins was named one of the first directors.
When the Dallas university that had invited President Kennedy to give a speech, giving him the excuse to visit Dallas, withdrew their invitation, so a Dallas civic organization that head previously had intended to pay tribute to the Graduate Research Center as part of their annual luncheon at the Trade Mart, decided to invite President Kennedy to address them.
And so, if you read the blood soaked type written undelivered speech JFK kept in his breast pocket, available at the National Archives, you will see that it is addressed to the defense industries and the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest in mentioned in the first paragraph.
Since Arthur Collins was an early director of the Center, he most likely was in the audience at the Trade Mart waiting on the President when they got word that he had been shot.
As Edward Lutwack writes in his book – “Coup d'etat – A Practical Handbook,” control of key communications is a key aspect of a coup, and if the assassination or President Kennedy was not just a murder but a coup, then those responsible had to have control of the communications, and Art Collins had that capability.
While Collins as a person does not come across as someone who would support the murder of a President, he did allow his company to be used as a front for CIA cover operations against Cuba, officially leasing the CIA ship the Rex, as the New York Times reported in their November 1, 1963 edition with an article on how the Rex deposited a team of commandos with high powered rifles in Cuba, who were subsequently arrested and paraded before Cuban TV by Fidel Castro.
The New York Times article reported that the Rex was docked in Palm Beach, Florida, not far from the President’s house, was owned by the Somoza Family of Nicaragua, the godfathers of the Bay of Pigs, and was leased to Collins Radio, of Richardson, Texas for electronic research.
There are literally dozens of Collins Radio associations to the asassination that I document in my article The Collins Radio Connections , [  https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2021...sited.html  ] that together plant Collins Radio in the heart of the covert intelligence operation that lead to the death of the President at Dealey Plaza.
And we can surmise that Arthur Collins himself was at the Trade Mart waiting for the President to arrive when news of the assassination effectively ended the luncheon.
As for Curtis LeMay, we have a fairly good idea of where he was at the time of the assassination as well – hunting and fishing in Northern Michigan and Canada.
Thanks to Larry Haapanen for providing the newspaper clippings that document the key facts – on the Friday and Saturday before the assassination General LeMay hosted a conference of Air Force Generals at an AFB in Alabama.
From there we know that LeMay hooked up with television entertainer Arthur Godfrey, a pilot and Air Force Reserve officer whose private plane was a gift from Eastern Airline President Eddie Rickenbacker.
According to a Detroit newspaper article, Godfrey and LeMay refueled in Detroit, where Godfrey talked to the reporter, saying that they were on their way to a Michigan hunting and fishing resort famous for hosting celebrities, naming streets after them.
From there the story gets a bit muddled, as Godfrey flew back to New York to do his show, while LeMay went on to northern Michigan, where his wife’s family owned a lake cabin that he often used.
Others however, have suggested LeMay visited other resorts, one where Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa owned a cabin that LeMay was known to have visited. And LeMay is listed among those guests who received Christmas cards from the resort proprietors.
Tom Lipscomb however, has located yet another possible location LeMay have been at the time of the assassination. Tom is a former mainstream book publisher who had a number of important titles under his belt, including Che’s Diaries, and he is writing a book about the assassination that includes a chapter on Generals LeMay and Lansdale.
Since we know for a fact that LeMay flew out of Wiarton, Canada on an Air Force jet he had summoned, Tom has identified a hunting and fishing resort in an island not far from Wiarton, one owned by Detroit automobile manufacturers.
Although this resort did not have telephone service in 1963, it did have radios including a short wave HAM radio that LeMay could have used to communicate with Art Collins and Andrews AFB. At first LeMay requested that he be picked up in Toronto, but after the small, twin engine AF Executive plane was enroute he redirected it to Wiarton, a former Canadian Air Force base that had a runway capable of handling the small jet.
LeMay was so impressed with the small, efficient Executive jet when he retired he formed a company that leased such Executive jets to CEOs of major companies.
The Wiarton base LeMay left from was less than an hour boat or small plane ride from the island resort Tom has identified. 
From General Clifton’s version of the Air Force One tapes we learn that General LeMay’s aide, Colonel Dorman, was trying to get an urgent message to LeMay, but was having trouble getting it through since all the radios were busy and Air Force One radio traffic took priority. Either the message was edited out from the highly edited Air Force One tapes in existence, or it never got through.
When I first heard Colonel Dorman on the Clifton tapes I looked him up and found he had been killed in action as a fighter pilot, shot down in Vietnam, but his widow lived in Trenton, New Jersey, not far from where I lived. I found her phone number in the public directory and called her, and she confirmed that her husband was Colonel Dorman, LeMay’s aide, and said that she was working at the White House on the day of the assassination. She was working on the historic renovations of the building as directed by the First Lady, and received a phone call from her husband who instructed her to leave immediately and go home, as the President had been shot.
She didn’t go directly home however, but stopped at a churchl to pray. She also introduced me to her son, who did not know what the urgent message was because his father didn’t talk about his work at home. As they lived on General’s Row, Arlington Cemetery was their backyard, and the son said he watched the funeral procession and burial from a unique vantage point – in a tree.
While we still don’t know what the urgent message Dorman tried to convey to LeMay, we do know that LeMay was ordered by Air Force Secretary Eugene Zuckert to land at Andrews AFB, but LeMay disobeyed that order and landed at the National Airport, which placed him in a position to attend the President’s autopsy in Bethesda.
On a final note, possibly of importance, I think that General LeMay’s association with Chicago mobster and Havana and Las Vegas casino boss Charles “Babe” Barron comes into play in regards to the assassination, as Barron was also a General in the U.S. Army Reserves. LeMay’s daughter, in an oral history, noted that Barron was the godfather of her son, and General LeMay always personally picked up Barron at the airport when he visited them, carrying his luggage.
When Jack Ruby’s pal, entertainment reporter Tony Zoppi told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Barron was a close, personal friend of LeMay, they went looking for Barron and found him visiting LeMay in California.
The close association between Arthur Collins and LeMay is significant in regards to the radio communications, while LeMay’s friendship with Barron may be important as the US Army Reserves were the “boots on the ground” in Dallas, much like the Valkyrie plan to kill Hitler had the Home Army mobilized to do the dirty work.
In closing, I just want to say that I believe that it will not be a mystery forever, but we will eventually learn the details of exactly how President Kennedy was killed, who was responsible and why it happened, as we are very close to the total truth.

Print this item

  The BASTARD Father of Modern Propaganda
Posted by: Peter Lemkin - 11-12-2021, 10:45 AM - Forum: Propaganda - No Replies


[Image: word-image-17.jpeg?resize=619%2C364&ssl=1]The young Bernays [Source: thefamouspeople.com; collage by Steve Brown]
Edward Bernays may be known as the Father of Public Relations, but you would not be mistaken if you thought of him as the Father of Lies. He was a bullshit artist par excellence who pioneered countless methods of deceiving the public.
For Bernays—author of mind-control manuals like Propaganda and The Engineering of Consent—there was no truth, no concept of an objective right or wrong. There were only wants, needs and desires. From advertising cigarettes to overthrowing governments—anything was possible. In his autobiography, Biography of an Idea: Memoirs of a Public Relations Counsel, Bernays borrowed a quote from a friend to describe this post-truth reality: “The cure for propaganda is more propaganda.” [1]
[Image: edward-bernays-father-of-public-relation...C464&ssl=1]Edward Bernays [Source: thoughtco.com]
Big Tobacco
Bernays understood the truth is malleable based on an individual’s needs. People are not purely rational actors. They make choices contrary to their self-interest, ignore facts they find inconvenient, and avoid information that may damage their ego. The nephew of famed psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, Bernays drew on Freud’s work into the unconscious mind to construct elaborate public relations campaigns that preyed on these tendencies. His preferred tactic? The astroturf campaign—which gave off the illusion of having grass-roots support.
Today, Bernays is best remembered for a series of ads and media events dubbed “Torches of Freedom,” an early venture into social marketing that turned smoking into a form of gendered rebellion, but his first position in Big Tobacco was far more prescient of a future spent manipulating the public.
[Image: a-picture-containing-text-person-descrip...C920&ssl=1][Source: intelligentcollector.com] [Image: Torches-of-Freedom-Lucky-Strike.jpg?resi...C949&ssl=1][Source: scoonan.wordpress.com]
Working for Liggett & Myers, Bernays established a fake pressure group called the Tobacco Society for Voice Culture and blitzed letters to the editor to influential newspapers under an assumed identity. [2] The letters attacked claims made in ads for cigarette brand Lucky Strike that stated the cigarette helped singers overcome, as Lucky owners American Tobacco put it, “voice irritation.” Bernays’s campaign resonated to such a degree that The New Yorker ran a profile in which it interviewed the group’s “sole member” Henry Bern, a Bern-ays patsy. [3]
Bernays sought to exploit the gap between what the media report and what the public hears and, though his ideas were not always immediately successful, they would blossom strange fruit for decades to come.
In one of his more ambitious proposals, he called for American Tobacco (now his employers thanks to the success of the Liggett & Myers campaign) to create a front group that could anonymously promote its interests. This fake news group, the Tobacco Information Service Bureau (TISB), would send made-up press releases and articles to newspapers and magazines to create the illusion of a legitimate news bureau. [4]
One of the examples of an intended Bernays pitch highlights the absurdity of the TISB: “DOCTORS SAY CIGARETTES REDUCE NUMBER OF MOUTH BACTERIA.” [5] Although American Tobacco never implemented the suggestion, this would not be the end of Bernays’s infatuation with fake news.
The United Fruit Company
By 1950, the United Fruit Company had a problem. Guatemala, the source of its largest cash crop, was in the midst of a protracted revolution.
For most of the 20th century Guatemalans had lived under the authoritarian rule of American agribusiness. The United States government propped up successive Guatemalan dictators in exchange for the right of American companies to establish plantations in the country. Working conditions on these plantations were harsh—but worse still was the Guatemalan government’s clear favoritism toward American business owners.
[Image: a-country-for-a-company-the-1954-us-back...C364&ssl=1][Source: warhistoryonline.com]
In 1936, for example, then-President Jorge Ubico negotiated a deal with United Fruit exempting it from most export taxes. Resentment built among Guatemalans until 1944, when student protests at the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala spiraled into a general strike.

It was clear to United Fruit’s leadership, in particular company president Sam Zemurray, that the country was moving left. Guatemalan military leaders confirmed these fears in October 1944 when they overthrew the Ubico government, in what came to be known as the October Revolution. In the aftermath, Guatemala elected “spiritual socialist” Juan José Arévalo as its new leader. United Fruit needed something—or someone—to save its business.
[Image: how-to-make-millions-selling-garbage-ban...C350&ssl=1]Sam Zemurray, the “banana man.” [Source: medium.com]
It should come as no surprise that Sam Zemurray sought out the services of Edward Bernays. In the wake of Arévalo’s ascendance, Guatemala continued to experience political turmoil.
Between 1945 and 1951, there were anywhere from 25 to 30 coup attempts against the Arévalo government. [6]
[Image: juan-jose-arevalo-or-historica-wiki-or-f...C282&ssl=1]Juan José Arévalo [Source: historica.fandom.com]
Bernays was not troubled by this violence. In fact, he found a use for it. His strategy in Guatemala would be simple: He would encourage further unrest. His goal, as described in Biography of an Idea, was to help the public “learn more about the countries in which [United Fruit] functioned and what social, economic, or other purposes it fulfilled.” [7]
[Image: biography-of-an-idea-memoirs-of-public-r...C355&ssl=1][Source: amazon.com]
But this would be no innocent public relations campaign. Bernays, the Father of Lies, went back to his time in the tobacco industry to pull from his bag of tricks.
The Middle American Information Bureau
Established in 1943, the Middle America Information Bureau (MAIB) served, by Bernays’s estimate, 25,000 Americans working in the media. [8] The organization spun events in Central America through the filter of United Fruit’s economic and political goals, providing American journalists and opinion leaders with United Fruit-approved context.
In the run-up to the 1945 Guatemalan revolution, for example, the MAIB published a pamphlet titled “Every American has a personal stake in our relations with Middle America.” It collated pull quotes from military leaders, business executives, and government officials explaining the “interdependence of Middle America and the United States.” [9]
[Image: every-american-has-a-personal-stake-in-o...C367&ssl=1][Source: archive.org]
The MAIB was part of a much larger infrastructure Bernays and Zemurray had set up to dupe the public. The phrase “Middle America,” an attempt by the two at rebranding Central America, came from the Middle American Research Institute (MARI), a Zemurray-funded research group at Tulane University. [10]
Zemurray had established MARI with the intention of focusing on the cultural history of Mexico but, over time, its focus shifted to include countries colonized by United Fruit. Bernays found this of particular importance in his goal of deposing the Guatemalan government.
He could use the patina of respectability provided by MARI to lend his new front an air of legitimacy. “Within a year authoritative atlases used the name Middle America to describe the territory in which the company was active,” he wrote in Biography of an Idea. “We were succeeding in equating the company with the area in which it functioned.” [11]
This infrastructure would expand over the course of the 1940s and 1950s. What was once a simple front operating as a news bureau grew into a propaganda machine that oversaw company newsletters in multiple Central American countries. [12]
At least one of the United Fruit-affiliated newsletters, Latin American Report, was later found to have CIA connections through its editor William Gaudet, whom the agency supported by paying for more than 20 subscriptions a year. [13]
[Image: william-gaudet-page-3-jfk-assassination-...C298&ssl=1][Source: educationforum.ipbhost.com]
It is unclear what Bernays’s level of knowledge was regarding Gaudet and his association with the CIA. An FBI memorandum dated June 28, 1968, noted that United Fruit officials viewed Gaudet as suspect due to various threats he had leveled at the company in the past. [14]
By that point, however, Gaudet and United Fruit had a collaborative relationship dating back more than a decade, based on articles and advertisements found in Latin American Report. [15] Does this mean the CIA was backing Bernays and his plan to topple the Guatemalan government?
Bernays Tricks a Nation
Bernays was an innovator in that he did not need to rely on others. By the time he felt he had exhausted all possibilities at diplomacy with the Guatemalan government, in 1950, he already knew how he intended to agitate his coup.
Arévalo’s successor, Jacobo Árbenz, was promising agrarian reforms that would return land from American businesses to the Guatemalan people.
[Image: jacobo-arbenz-wikipedia.jpeg?resize=475%2C657&ssl=1]Jacobo Árbenz [Source: wikipedia.org]
Bernays surmised he could use this land-back promise to convince Americans that Árbenz was a threat not only to United Fruit but to the United States as well.
If Bernays could brand Árbenz a communist, he could inflate the threat posed in Guatemala. This would not be difficult, as he already believed Árbenz sympathetic to the communist cause. Writing in Biography of an Idea, he argued the Guatemalan leader “considered the anti-Communist movement subversive and openly accepted the Reds as allies.” [16]
A coup, however, required the full support of both the government and United Fruit, and United Fruit’s problem was that, to Bernays’s mind, its campaign against Guatemala was not aggressive enough. Sam Zemurray, United Fruit’s president, was well aware of the company’s image among American liberals as an aggressor in Central America and he had gone to great pains to rehab it.
[Image: united-fruit-plantation.jpeg?resize=696%2C592&ssl=1]United Fruit plantation in Guatemala. [Source: allthatsinteresting.com]
An open coup could hurt business. So, in January 1950, when liberal magazine The Nation published “Democracy in Latin America: Chaos on Our Doorstep” attacking United Fruit’s exploitation of countries like Guatemala, it came as a shock to Zemurray. Zemurray was an avid reader of the magazine and took its positions as a bellwether on public opinion. The article threatened the reformed image that Zemurray had spent years cultivating. He endeavored to pen a response. Bernays, ever the opportunist, jumped into action.
Bernays knew that for a coup to take place he would have to appeal not only to United Fruit but also its well-intentioned liberal critics. Thus, on March 18th, a week before Zemurray’s letter was set to appear in The Nation, the magazine published “Communism in the Caribbean?” an article by a pseudonymous American writer identified as Ellis Ogle. The article was an about-face and made the case for a military intervention from a liberal perspective, with Ogle attacking Guatemala’s “free election” and lamenting that “foreigners have no votes in Guatemala.” [17]
Bernays could not have been happier. “I proposed sending the Nation article to 100,000 liberals,” he wrote in Biography of an Idea. “I believed the Caribbean ferment was bound to become increasingly important. Liberals must play a decisive role. Zemurray agreed.” [18]
What role did Bernays play in the writing of The Nation article? He had, in the past, written letters to publications using pseudonyms, as in the case of the Tobacco Society for Voice Culture. On the other hand, someone identifying as either a real or pseudonymous Ellis Ogle had appeared once before in the pages of The Nation—but that Ellis Ogle was no journalist and certainly not one stationed in Central America.
That Ellis Ogle appeared in a 1920 letter-to-the-editor chastising the Boston Evening Transcript for its labor coverage. [19]
One final wrinkle: The CIA first authorized William Gaudet to begin receiving payments for “special reports” in 1950. [20] The same FBI case file that contained the earlier 1968 United Fruit memorandum also observed that he “may do some free-lance writing under a pen name.” [21]
Regardless of who wrote the article, it achieved its intended effect. Zemurray appeared happy with its influence and started providing direct financial support to The Nation the following year. [22]
Bernays, having removed his final obstacle to a coup, began organizing trips to Guatemala for reporters. Beginning with New York Times writers Will Lissner and Crede Calhoun, Bernays instigated a press panic with carefully curated tours highlighting the dangers of the Árbenz government. [23]
[Image: crede-haskins-calhoun.jpeg?resize=171%2C225&ssl=1]Crede Calhoun [Source: findagrave.com]
These Bernays-sponsored trips coincided with violent protests, helping to shape perception of Árbenz as a power-hungry dictator. Ludwell Denny, foreign editor for Scripps Howard Newspapers, summed up this sentiment best in a February 1952 syndicated story comparing an alleged alliance between “Guatemalan National Socialists” and Moscow to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. [24]
[Image: 1939-press-photo-close-up-of-ludwell-den...C208&ssl=1]Ludwell Denny [Source: ebay.com]
Once again, as with his prior stunts, Bernays’s media blitz worked. The incoming Eisenhower administration—which included Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a partner at the law firm which had helped United Fruit negotiate the 1936 tax-dodging contract with Jorge Ubico—was open to the idea of a coup. [25]
Thus, in August 1953, President Eisenhower authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to undertake a covert operation to topple Árbenz.
[Image: john-foster-dulles-dies-at-71-may-24-195...C377&ssl=1]John Foster Dulles, left, with Dwight Eisenhower. [Source: politico.com]
Operation PBSuccess
Code-named Operation PBSuccess, the CIA operation lasted almost a year and consisted of psychological warfare designed to break the will of the Guatemalan people. Although Bernays was not directly involved, the CIA took a cue from the PR guru and flooded Guatemalans with propaganda to counter the Árbenz government’s own messages, the most notorious example being a fake radio station named the Voice of Liberation.
The station, directed by agent and ex-actor David Atlee Philllips, broadcast messages ranging from fake bulletins on troop movements to disinformation intended to stir hysteria and sow confusion among Guatemala’s citizens. One such broadcast: “It is not true that the waters of Lake Atitlan have been poisoned.” [26]
[Image: david-atlee-phillips-jfkfactsorgwpconten...C947&ssl=1]David Atlee Phillips [Source: alchetron.com]
[Image: the-literally-unbelievable-story-of-the-...C271&ssl=1][Source: narratively.com]
If Bernays could not take part in the coup in person, he was there in spirit because, on June 27, 1954, he achieved what no PR professional had before him. In the late hours of the evening a pre-recorded broadcast went out to the Guatemalan people. “Workers, peasants, patriots,” intoned the voice of Jacobo Árbenz. “Guatemala is going through a hard trial. A cruel war against Guatemala has been unleashed. The United Fruit Company and U.S. monopolies, together with U.S. ruling circles, are responsible for…” [27]
Jacobo Árbenz had resigned as president. Árbenz ended the broadcast by declaring, “Long live Guatemala!” but this sentiment would be short lived. After a series of political maneuvers, exiled military leader Carlos Castillo Armas returned to Guatemala and took power with the full support of the United States government. Guatemala backslid into authoritarian rule and the Castillo Armas government established concentration camps for political prisoners, where they executed suspected communists. [28] 
[Image: operation-pbsuccess-supporters.jpeg?resi...C421&ssl=1]Castillo Armas and his supporters at the presidential palace. [Source: allthatsinteresting.com]
Bernays, for his part, was ambivalent about his involvement in the coup. In his war on the truth, he had somehow lost sight of his role in fomenting unrest and convinced himself that he was the real victim. “I, too, became a casualty of this revolution,” he wrote, reflecting on his time lobbying against Guatemala. “[United Fruit’s public relations director] sent me a note telling me I was so well off economically that I didn’t need the United Fruit Company as a client.” [29]
The Father of Lies
Whether selling cigarettes or deposing world leaders, Edward Bernays molded reality like clay. In his hands, words spun like so many hollow jars. However, the one constant, the one truth among his many distortions, is that Bernays had no use for the truth.
In this sense, Bernays is responsible for our current information crisis. His public relations campaigns formed the foundation of modern disinformation and influence operations. You are not really lying if the lies you tell are to counter other lies. The cure for propaganda is more propaganda.
We can see the influence of Bernays today all around us, in politics and beyond. Dark money networks birthing artificial advocacy organizations, shadowy donors funding fake pressure groups. Bernays’s specter illuminates the television, where think tanks assemble pundits on the factory line. But most of all, we see him on social media platforms, spaces reliant on a kind of emotional manipulation Bernays perfected a century before Facebook and Cambridge Analytica existed.
[Image: if-you-dont-fully-understand-the-cambrid...C391&ssl=1][Source: inc.com]
Astroturfing is now the primary tool of political deception online. Militaries and police departments operate under fake identities; politicians maintain burner accounts; and government agencies direct troll armies.
If the 20th century was the century of the self, then the 21st is the century of the second self—of the third, the fourth, and the fifth. We are no longer bound by the constraints of the truth; as with Bernays, we are free to create and assume identities as we desire. Will we use this freedom to topple governments? Who has already?
Edward Bernays: The father of public relations, the father of lies.
[Image: CAM-logo-circular-20210506b-300.png?resi...2C20&ssl=1]

[1] Edward Bernays, Biography of an Idea: Memoirs of a Public Relations Counsel (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1965), 384.
[2] Larry Tye, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays & the Birth of Public Relations (New York: Crown Publishers, 1998), 35-36.
[3] Josef Israels and James Thurber, “The Talk of the Town”, The New Yorker, December 23, 1927, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1927/...-an-oliver.
[4] Allan M. Brandt, The Cigarette Century (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 81-82.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Richard H. Immerman, The CIA in Guatemala: The Foreign Policy of Intervention (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1982), 57; Jim Handy, “The Guatemalan Revolution and Civil Rights: Presidential Elections and the Judicial Process under Juan José Arévalo and Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán,” Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 10, no. 19 (1985): 7.
[7] Edward Bernays, Biography of an Idea, 749.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Middle America Information Bureau, Every American has a personal stake in our relations with Middle America (New York: Middle America Information Bureau, 1945), 4, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=n...&skin=2021.
[10] Edward Bernays, Biography of an Idea, 749.
[11] Ibid., 749-750.
[12] Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 82.
[13] Ibid. See also U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1975, “Memo of Conversation Between George Gaudet and Bernard Festerwald,” Unclassified Memorandum, Washington, D.C.: United States House of Representatives, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/...-10390.pdf.
[14] SAC New Orleans, “Reurlet of 6/14/68” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, New Oleans, LA: June 28, 1968), 2, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/...298962.pdf.
[15] William George Gaudet, “The Bounding Main…”, Latin American Report, 1, no. 8 (1956): 3; United Fruit Company, “Seven to One,” Latin American Report, 3, no. 4 (1959): 1; United Fruit Company, “United Fruit Is Growing With Jamaica and Helping Jamaica to Grow,” Latin American Report, 5, vol. 3 (1963): 8.
[16] Edward Bernays, Biography of an Idea, 762.
[17] Ellis Ogle, “Communism in the Caribbean?” The Nation, March 18, 1950, 246-247.
[18] Edward Bernays, Biography of an Idea, 759.
[19] Ellis Ogle, letter to the editor, The Nation, July 10, 1920, 44.
[20] Raymond Reardon, “Subject: William George Gaudet” (Security Analysis Group, Washington, DC: January 16, 1976), https://documents.theblackvault.com/docu...-10236.pdf. [NOTE: Shouldn’t it state that it is a “CIA Routing and Record Sheet” somewhere?]
[21] SAC New Orleans, “Reurlet of 6/14/68,” 3.
[22] Dan Koeppel, Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed The World (New York: Hudson Street Press, 2008), 119.
[23] Will Lissner, “Soviet Agents Plotting to Ruin Unity, Defenses of Americas,” The New York Times, June 22, 1950, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma...=true&ip=0; C.H. Calhoun, “Guatemalan Reds Trade on Old Ills”, The New York Times, June 5, 1951, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma...=true&ip=0.
[24] Ludwell Denny, “Enemy Below the Border,” Knoxville News-Sentinel (Knoxville, TN), February 11, 1952, https://www.newspapers.com/image/595431436/.
[25] Richard Immerman, The CIA in Guatemala, 71.
[26] Evan Thomas, “You Can Own the World,” The Washington Post, October 22, 1995, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/l...1d63a539d/.
[27] Jacobo Árbenz, “Arbenz Speech Delivered at 0310-0320” (speech, Guatemala, June 27, 1954), CIA Historical Review Program, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000920952.pdf.
[28] Richard Immerman, The CIA in Guatemala, 198-199. 
[29] Edward Bernays, Biography of an Idea, 775.

Print this item