Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel

Review of Alison Weir’s Book

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Introduction

As the crisis involving the Israelis and Palestinians deepens after the October 7 Hamas attack, we might pause to examine how the state of Israel was created in the first place. At the current juncture, as World War III looms on the horizon, as massacres are currently being perpetrated by Israel against the civilian population of Gaza, with a death toll exceeding 9,000, of which over 4,000 are children, and as a Western armada is gathering in the eastern Mediterranean, it is befitting to review journalist Alison Weir’s book Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel. Click Here The book was published in 2014, is packed with often hard-to-access details, and is masterfully documented. Alison Weir is also head of a group she has founded: If Americans Knew. Click Here

Alison Weir’s book is crucially important in considering ways to gain a broader perspective in order to defuse the situation. It is also of keen interest with respect to the larger potential conflict, where U.S. political leaders are again trotting out the phrase, “Axis of Evil,” this time to describe the nations of Russia, China, and Iran. (Sometimes North Korea is tossed in for good measure.) It’s Iran, of course, that U.S. leaders are identifying as an alleged sponsor of the resistance groups in and around Palestine, including Hamas.

Following are what I view as the main points from Alison Weir’s book.

My own interspersed editorial comments are in italics. Page numbers are given in parentheses only for quotations from the book.

Origin of Zionism in the U.S.

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israelbegins by explaining that support for Zionism, defined as the desire for creation of a Jewish national state somewhere in the world, goes back in U.S. history to the late 1880s, around the time that the Zionist Movement was becoming prominent in Europe.

By the 1910s, there were thousands of U.S. adherents, though many Jews opposed Zionism as not in the interests of the Jewish people and certain to result in antagonism toward them. Probably a majority of Jews in the U.S. had never even heard of Zionism and/or were happy to have assimilated into American society. In fact, there was nothing that could even be viewed remotely as an “anti-Semitism problem” in the U.S. at this time.

Role of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Brandeis and Creation of the Parushim.

Still, some very powerful people became Zionists, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whose main disciple was future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. Brandeis formed a secret organization called the Parushim, whose sole purpose was to bring about the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. This Zionist organization required an oath that appeared to give life and death power over its sworn members.

“Parushim,” also spelled “Purushim,” is the Hebrew word from which the name “Pharisees” is derived, meaning “separatists.” From the Pharisees came Rabbinical Judaism and the idea that, “We should not assimilate or acculturate at all.” (prezi.com) I would note that Alison Weir’s book did not aim at giving an account of the deeper motivations of the Zionist movement, other than its claim to be a reaction to European “anti-Semitism.” For more depth, I would recommend a careful reading of the classic The Controversy of Zion by British journalist Douglas Reed (1895-1976). Click Here

Justice Louis Brandeis was close to Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff. Brandeis was also closely involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve System, as was Schiff, though Brandeis’s involvement in political issues was largely behind the scenes.

The Federal Reserve, I would add, was largely a project of the U.S. Money Trust and the British/European Rothschilds. The Rothschilds were also heavily involved in Zionism and in the creation and support of the Zionist state. The fact that Zionism was sponsored by some incredibly rich people might cause us to ask to what extent financial rewards played a role in the rapid conversion of many Jews and non-Jews to Zionism during this period. For information on creation of the Federal Reserve, see my own book, Our Country, Then and Now (Clarity Press, 2023). Click Here

Collaboration Between the Parushim and Great Britain. Justice Louis Brandeis’s Parushim worked closely with Zionists in Great Britain, including travel back and forth, to persuade the British government to designate Palestine as a future Jewish homeland.

This was after Zionist leaders had rejected such locations as Kenya. Thus was created a “contract” between Britain and the Parushim that if the British would generate what became the Balfour Declaration, the U.S. Zionists would endeavor to assure U.S. entrance into World War I against Germany on the side of Britain. This contract was fulfilled by both parties, though, as in the U.S., many British Jews opposed Zionism for similar reasons—as a threat to Jewish assimilation.

The Balfour Declaration specified that it should be “clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” (p.97) At the time, non-Jewish communities made up 92 percent of the population of Palestine.

Zionism and the Failure to Make Peace with the Ottoman Empire. World War I begin in 1914. By 1915-1916, the Ottoman Empire, which was allied with Germany but not at war against the U.S., offered to make a separate peace with the U.S.

The Ottomans had also offered to allow the Jews of Europe to live at peace anywhere in their empire. The U.S. sent a delegation to negotiate this separate peace, but Brandeis informed the British Zionists that the delegation was on its way.

The British Zionists then send their leader, Chaim Weizmann, to intercept the U.S. delegation at Gibraltar, where he prevailed on it to call off the negotiations.

The reason was that the British were going to lay claim to Palestine after the war as a homeland for the Jews, so they wanted to assure that Palestine was going to be available for British control. The British design was to break up the Ottoman Empire, not leave it intact through a separate U.S.-instigated peace.

Warnings Against the Zionist Project

Diplomats within the U.S. State Department both in Washington, D.C., and in the Middle East were aware of and warned against the Zionist project, arguing that a million Palestinians would be displaced or made virtual servants/slaves of the invaders.

World War I. In 1917 the U.S. entered the war on the side of Britain, per the Zionist agreement, and Germany was defeated, along with the Ottomans. Britain also signed a secret agreement with France by which it would get control of Palestine after the war. Control was implemented through the vehicle of a British Mandate approved by the League of Nations.

During this period, antagonism against Jews had begun to grow within U.S. society, partly in reaction to perceptions that Jews controlled the banks and other financial institutions. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” had also appeared. While claimed to be a forgery from Czarist Russia, the Protocols received credence and publicity from Henry Ford and others.

Germany was aware that the Zionists had contributed to the defeat of Germany in WWI. This contributed to the anti-Jewish attitudes of Germans after the war and was a factor in the later Nazi anti-Jewish policies.

During WWI, the Parushim gave the FBI a list of Americans who were opponents to Zionism or the war.

Many of these people were arrested and sent to prison. Through all of this, Brandeis was directing matters from behind the scenes. He was arguably the most powerful person in the U.S., but his political activities were secret or carried out through proxies.

At the end of WWI, President Woodrow Wilson sent a commission to Palestine to investigate the situation. Known as the King-Crane Commission, its report “recommended against the Zionist position of unlimited immigration of Jews to make Palestine a distinctly Jewish state.”

The report stated that “the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine,” that “armed force would be required to accomplish this,” and that “the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.” The report of the King-Crane Commission “was suppressed.” (p.25)

Zionism After World War I

Between the two world wars, a growing number of U.S. Zionists worked to further the project for the creation of Israel. In Germany, the Zionists supported the rise of the Nazis, as this would lead to German Jews wanting to emigrate to Palestine. In Iraq, where the Jewish leaders did not support Zionism, Iraqi Jews were attacked, even murdered, to force them to emigrate to Palestine. Without arousing the anxiety of Jews around the world that they were unsafe in their homelands, Zionist planners believed there would not be enough Jewish settlers to create a Zionist state and force the Palestinians out.

Opponents of Zionism in the U.S. diplomatic service were threatened with having their careers destroyed if they did not support the claims that Jews in foreign countries were suffering discrimination so should want to move to Palestine.

The Zionists worked to limit immigration opportunities for Jews elsewhere than Palestine, including the U.S. The Zionists opposed measures by the British government to limit the number of Jews who could enter Palestine.

Collaboration Between the Zionists and Nazis? Building on work by author Hannah Arendt, Edwin Black wrote The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine. Click HereAccording to author Tom Segev,

“Arendt stated that many Jews would have survived ‘had their leaders not helped the Nazis organize the concentration of Jews in the ghettos, their deportation to the east, and their transport to the death camps.’” (p.146) This was called the “Haavara Agreement.”

The famous 1930s Jewish boycott of German products may have been instigated by Zionists to promote anti-Jewish sentiment leading to more desire among Jews to emigrate to Palestine. Other Zionists made claims that persecuted Jews were prone to becoming revolutionary communists for the same purpose.

Zionist Activities Between the World Wars

In the U.S. during the 1920s and 1930s, Zionist leaders muffled talk of a Jewish state in Palestine and focused on creating new institutions there as altruistic enterprises.

An example was Hebrew University, opening in Jerusalem in 1925. Zionist leaders complained that most U.S. Jews saw themselves first and foremost as American citizens. Organizations like the American Zionist Emergency Council and the United Jewish Appeal were founded to generate funding and support.

Donations to the United Jewish Appeal in 1948 was four times that of the American Red Cross. Pro-Zionist publicity and lobbying efforts were unleashed across the U.S. Some Jews, like the American Council for Judaism, still opposed Zionism as inimical to real Jewish interests. The ACJ opposed the Zionists’ “anti-Semitic racialist lie that Jews the world over were a separate, national body.” (p.152)

Zionist advocacy in the U.S. had powerful political adherents. New York Congressman Emanuel Celler told President Harry Truman, “We’ll run you out of town,” if he did not support the program. Senator Jacob Javits said, “We’ll fight to the death and make a Jewish state in Palestine if it’s the last thing that we do.” (p.38) Zionist propaganda included funding of best-selling pro-Zionist books by non-Jews.

Zionists such as wealthy Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermyer began to interject “dispensationalist” ideas of “Christian Zionism” into the discourse through sponsorship of the “Scofield Reference Bible.” (Untermyer was also a leading backer of the Federal Reserve and advocate of the worldwide Jewish boycott of Germany.)

Today, as we all know, “Christian Zionism” among “evangelicals” is part of the bedrock support of the Israel Lobby. Leading evangelical ministers like Jerry Falwell received large donations from Zionist supporters. An entire “dispensationalist” mythology involving the “Rapture,” etc., has been constructed and promoted to justify the political union between this group of American religionists and the most extreme factions of Israeli politics led today by such figures as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Though Netanyahu has surfaced this mad mythology to cover Israeli genocide in Gaza, the topic is not covered in detail in Alison Weir’s book, so will not be dealt with further here.

Protestant Support of Zionism

By the 1930s, U.S. Zionists were trying to organize American Protestants in their support. By the end of WWII the Christian Council on Palestine had grown to 3,000 members and the American Palestine Committee to 6,500. The appeal to Protestants was based on generating sympathy for refugees, though no mention was made of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians becoming refugees due to the Zionist takeover. During the Israeli war of independence in 1947-1949, Christian churches and institutions in Palestine were assaulted by the Zionists along with the Palestinians.

Beginnings of Terrorism and U.N. Partition of Palestine

In Palestine in the 1930s and 1940s, the Zionists tried to buy Palestinian land but few inhabitants wished to sell. The Zionists then began to organize terrorist forces to drive them out.

These terrorist groups also targeted British government officials, as Palestine was still a British Mandate. Author Alison Weir cites a statement by David ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, that suggests this was at least part of what started today’s worldwide phenomenon of terrorism.

By the start of the 1947-1949 war, Jews made up 30 percent of the Palestinian population but owned only 6-7 percent of the land.

In 1947, Britain turned its Palestine Mandate over to the U.N.

A General Assembly resolution to partition gave the Zionists 55 percent of the land of Palestine.

The U.S. State Department opposed the partition plan as against the wishes of local people and in violation of U.S. interests and of democratic principles.

Officials warned that partition “would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future.” (p.45)

Officials said the proposal was for “a theocratic racial state” that discriminated “on grounds of religion and race.” (p.45) The leading anti-Zionist Department of State official, Loy Henderson, was exiled by his superiors to a post as ambassador to Nepal.

U.S. Government Opposition to Zionism

Nevertheless, virtually the entire U.S. executive branch was opposed to a Jewish state in Palestine. Statements and reports were made by a 1946 commission headed by Ambassador Henry F. Grady, the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson. A 1948 report of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that, “The Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” (p.47)

Jewish leaders were well aware that U.N. partitioning of Palestine was temporary and that over time, the Jewish state would expand to absorb the entire region.

The concept of “Eretz Israel” was formulated, whereby the Zionist state would encompass Transjordan, as well as parts of Lebanon and Syria. Zionists also had begun using U.S. antagonism toward the Soviet Union as an argument for creation of a pro-Western Jewish state. This hearkened back to the early days of Zionism, when Zionist leaders characterized their proposed state as a bulwark of British influence in the Middle East; i.e., as an extension of British colonialism and geopolitics.

Today, pro-Zionists make the argument that Israel is an outpost of benign “Judeo-Christian” influence in the Middle East, as they try to arouse antagonism toward the one billion Muslims in the world in a purported “clash of civilizations.” Such attitudes became prominent in U.S. politics during the “War on Terror” of the Bush/Cheney administration that continues today through U.S. labeling of anti-Zionist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as “terrorist” organizations. This is despite the historical fact cited above that it was the Zionists who introduced terrorism into the Middle East.

U.S. Recognition of Israel and the Role of President Truman. The U.S. was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state when on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a statement of recognition following Israel’s proclamation of independence on the same date.

Truman’s main motivation was believed at the time, and still is today, the winning of Jewish support in the presidential election that year.

His decision was strongly opposed by Secretary of State George Marshall, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, the CIA and National Security Council, and top State Department official George Kennan. Intelligence agent Kermit Roosevelt wrote:

“The present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict.” (p.51)

Contrary to the belief that U.S. oil interests promoted the Zionist project, officials argued that U.S. ability to access Middle Eastern resources would be adversely affected. Truman also had pro-Zionist insiders at high levels of his administration.

Author Alison Weir points out that bribery also played a part. “Gore Vidal wrote:

‘Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. ‘That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.’” (p.167)

Jewish businessman Abraham Feinberg explained his raising of cash for Truman in an oral history interview published by the Truman Library in 1973. The CIA also discovered Feinberg’s illegal gun-running to Zionist groups.

I may be the first writer to point out that Truman’s action in accepting bribes, if discovered, could have been seen and treated as an impeachable offense.

Zionist Takeover of Palestine

At the time of Israel’s proclamation of independence and immediate U.S. recognition, the U.N. resolution of partition had been passed, with war ensuing between Zionist and Arab forces.

The U.N. General Assembly adopted the partition plan by 33 votes to 13 with 10 abstentions, with many nations subjected to intense Zionist lobbying and threats. For instance,

“Financier and longtime presidential adviser Bernard Baruch told France it would lose U.S. aid if it voted against partition.” (p.55)

A Swedish U.N. mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, was killed by Zionist assassins. To this day, no accepted legal authority for the U.N. in its partitioning of Palestine has ever been demonstrated. In other words, it was likely an extra-legal action in response to Zionist lobbying.

Though sporadic violence between Jews and Palestinian Arabs had taken place over the previous two decades, the Zionists committed wholesale massacres of Palestinians after the U.N. resolution for partition.

By the end of Israel’s war of independence in 1948, over 750,000 Palestinians had been expelled from Zionist-controlled territory. Israeli historian Tom Segev wrote:

“Israel was born of terror, war, and revolution, and its creation required a measure of fanaticism and cruelty.” (p.58) Today this is called in Arabic the “Nakba”—“catastrophe.”

The most well-known massacre took place at the village of Deir Yessin in April 1948, before any Arab armies had joined the fight.

There, 254 villagers were murdered in cold blood. The heads of two militias present at Deir Yessin, Irgun and the Stern Gang, were Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both of whom later became prime ministers of Israel. The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1947, killing 86.

The Stern Gang also solicited aid from the Axis powers during WWII.

Zionist Front Organizations in the U.S.

During the 1930s and 1940s, the Zionists created a number of front organizations to raise money used to finance militant activities in Palestine.

After WWII, the U.S. maintained an arms embargo against Israel and the Middle East. Foremost among the sponsors of the front organizations intended to skirt the embargo was Irgun.

One group, the Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinians Jews, claimed it was formed to fight the Nazis in Europe, but was intended instead to fight the British and Arabs in Palestine. These groups espoused such radical ideologies as the idea that “non-Jews are the embodiment of Satan, and that the world was created solely for Jews.” (p.67)

Another group, headed by Orthodox Rabbi Baruch Korff, hatched a plot to blow up the British foreign office in London that was exposed in the New York Herald Tribune. Through political influence, U.S. charges against Korff were dropped. Later he “became a close friend and fervent supporter of President Richard Nixon, who called him ‘my rabbi.’” (p.71)

Nixon’s support for Israel manifested in the gigantic airlift of military supplies that helped save Israel from defeat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Another major organization raising money for sending arms to the Zionists in Palestine was the Sonneborn Institute. Between 1939 and May 1948, the Jewish Agency for Israel was also active, raising the equivalent today of $3.5 billion.

Financial Backers of Israeli Independence

In an April 19, 2018 article in Tablet (tabletmag.com) entitled “Gangsters for Zion:Yom Ha’atzmaut: How Jewish mobsters helped Israel gain its independence, Click Here Robert Rockaway wrote:

“In 1945, the Jewish Agency, the pre-state Israeli government headed by David Ben-Gurion, created a vast clandestine arms-purchasing-and-smuggling network throughout the United States. The operation was placed under the aegis of the Haganah, the underground forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces, and involved hundreds of Americans from every walk of life. They included millionaires, rabbinical students, scrap-metal merchants, ex-GIs, college students, longshoremen, industrialists, chemists, engineers, Protestants and Catholics, as well as Jews. One group, who remained anonymous and rarely talked about, were men who were tough, streetwise, unafraid, and had access to ready cash: Jewish gangsters.”

Rockaway, a professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University, also wrote that through their control of U.S. ports, the Jewish mob arranged for arms deliveries to Israel aboard vessels flying the flag of Panama.

Recruiting Jews to Relocate to Palestine

“Zionist cadres infiltrated displaced persons’ camps that had been set up to house refugees displaced during WWII. These infiltrators tried secretly to funnel people to Palestine. When it turned out that most didn’t want to go to Palestine, they worked to convince them—sometimes by force.” (p.74)

Another recruiting source was Jewish foster children in Christian homes. The Zionists claimed to be the sole representative of all the world’s Jews in order to legitimize efforts to divert war survivors to Israel, not to countries like the U.S. to which many preferred to go.

“After a voluntary recruitment drive netted less than 0.3 percent of the DP [displaced persons] population, a compulsory draft was implemented.” (p.79)

Some draftees were required to fight in Palestine in the Zionist war of independence. Meanwhile, the secretive Sieff group was formed in Washington, D.C., to carry out back channel lobbying for the Zionist project. The group was protected by such powerful individuals as Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and the aforementioned financier and presidential adviser Bernard Baruch.

Fate of the Palestinian Refugees

Three-quarters of a million Palestinian refugees fled to neighboring regions in a gigantic humanitarian disaster. A 1948 State Department report stated

“The total direct relief offered…by the Israeli government to date consists of 500 cases of oranges.” (p.83)

The value of land confiscated by the Zionists amounted to $5.2 trillion in today’s dollars. Christians also suffered as “numerous convents, hospices, seminaries, and churches were either destroyed or cleared of their Christian owners and custodians.” (p.83) Efforts by U.S. government officials to withhold aid to the Israeli government due to the refugee crisis were overruled by President Truman.

Zionism and the Media

Even as early as WWI, the Zionists exerted almost complete control over the U.S. press. This included placing pro-Zionist articles in prestigious newspapers like The New York Times. In 1953, author Alfred Lilienthal wrote:

“The capture of the American press by Jewish nationalism was, in fact, incredibly complete. Magazines as well as newspapers, in news stories as well as editorial columns, gave primarily the Zionist views of events before, during, and after partition.” (p.86)

Zionist coercion extended to withdrawal of advertising, cancellation of subscriptions, and blacklisting of journalists and authors, even those offering a mere trace of sympathy toward the displaced Palestinians.

Particularly emotional in their support of Zionism were the journals the Nation and the New Republic. An example of how the Zionists could destroy an author’s career was the attack on then-famous journalist Dorothy Thompson after

“she began to speak about Palestinian refugees, narrated a documentary about their plight, and condemned Jewish terrorism. (p.92)

We all know that the complete slanting of U.S. media coverage toward Zionism and Israel dominates news reporting at all levels and across the ideological spectrum, from the top newspapers and networks to what is left of small town journalism.

This includes so-called “independent” outlets like Breitbart. The start of this bias began, perhaps not coincidentally, during the time before WWI when the newsrooms of U.S. newspapers were taken over by propagandists sympathetic to the Federal Reserve System and the Money Trust.

Today, of course, we have the internet, which has begun to make inroads into the control of the news by pro-establishment media corporations and Deep State censors. Internet outlets also must be cautious, however, so are often reduced to the role of “limited hangouts,” reporting only selected stories that protest particularly egregious Israeli offenses, but never the “big picture.”

In conclusion we can say that, as Alison Weir’s book makes clear, it was largely American Zionists who financed and enabled the violent takeover of Palestine and who thereby share responsibility over the past three-quarters of a century for the atrocities committed against a diverse population whose forebears had been living in peace and rooted in the region for millenniums.

This population also inhabited the holy city of Jerusalem, sacred to the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions.

The book also makes it clear that people can oppose Zionism—the forceful establishment of a Jewish national state in Palestine—without being anti-Jewish or “anti-Semitic.”

Of course, most of the indigenous people of Palestine are “Semites” in ethnicity and language. Also, the most forceful opponents of the original Zionist movement in Great Britain, the U.S., and possibly other nations, have been, and still are, Jews themselves who had successfully assimilated into their host cultures. Examples are the Hassidic Jews of Brooklyn, N.Y., and Jews in Iran who refuse to support Israel.

Many more volumes could or should be written about U.S. enabling of Israel and Zionism and about Israel’s and Zionism’s interference in internal U.S. affairs. I would include an examination of Israel’s possible participation in the JFK/RFK assassinations and the 9/11 attacks, U.S. acquiescence in Israel’s nuclear weapons program, Israel’s links with the Neocons who control today’s U.S. foreign policy, and today’s courting of World War III against more than half the world’s countries, starting with Israel’s nemesis, Iran. Will the U.S. stumble into WWIII because of its pro-Zionist captivity?

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Richard C. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst who served with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he broke the story of the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Shuttle.

After serving at Treasury, he exposed the disastrous flaws of a monetary system controlled by private finance in his book We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform. As an adviser to the American Monetary Institute and while working with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, he advocated the replacement of the Federal Reserve System with a genuine national currency. His latest book is Our Country, Then and Now (Clarity Press, 2023). Click Here

The original source of this article is Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/against-better-judgment-hidden-history-how-us-used-create-israel/5838623

Die nützlichen Idioten der Hamas in Europa und den USA

Bei den „pro-Palästinenser“-Demonstrationen, die in den letzten Tagen in den USA und einigen europäischen Ländern stattgefunden haben, geht es nur um den Hass auf Israel und Juden, nicht aber darum, den Palästinensern zu helfen – insbesondere denen, die seit 2007 unter der Herrschaft der vom Iran unterstützten Hamas-Terrorgruppe im Gazastreifen leben.

Menschen, die wirklich für die Palästinenser sind, würden dafür demonstrieren, dass sie Führer haben, die nicht Milliarden an internationaler Hilfe abzweigen oder auf sie schießen, wenn sie versuchen, in Sicherheit zu fliehen, oder die keine Waffen und Munition in und in der Nähe ihrer Häuser und Schulen lagern.

weiter

Die nützlichen Idioten der Hamas in Europa und den USA

Burying the Mangled Bodies of Unidentifiable Victims of Israel’s Genocide on Gaza

from thefreeonline on 22nd Nov 2023 by By Atia Darwish and Maram Humaid at Al Jazeera/ Gallery |Gaza

“These bodies were human beings, had dignity. To see them reduced to burned remains or chopped pieces is unbearable.”

Torn remains, burned beyond recognition: Burying Gaza's unknown bodies — Yasser Abu Ammar, in the blue apron, said he has never had to bury unknown bodies in mass graves. [Atia Darwish/Al Jazeera]

Deir el-Balah – Dozens of bodies, wrapped in improvised white cloths that double as shrouds, lie together in a newly dug mass grave.

Team at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital do what they can to provide last rites to those killed in Israeli attacks.

They are the unidentified Palestinians who were killed in Israeli attacks, their bodies are either charred beyond recognition or torn apart, to the point where the burial supervisors are sometimes not completely sure if they got the whole person.

But the team at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital does its best to offer the proper Islamic burial rituals to the remains, hoping that their efforts will allow the deceased victims to rest.

Yasser Abu Ammar, who supervises the ritual washing of the dead at the hospital, told Al Jazeera: “About 80 percent of the bodies we receive are torn apart. We’re burying torn-apart limbs, and some bodies have their organs lacerated and exposed.

Israel has killed more than 14,000 Palestinians since October 7, the vast majority of them women and children. [Atia Darwish/Al Jazeera]

“We’ve never seen anything like this, like these puzzling wounds inflicted on these mangled body parts.”

Abu Ammar added that he had supervised the burial of body parts belonging to a six-member family in one shroud.

“All of them barely made up one complete body,” he said.

Mohammed al-Hajj, hospital spokesperson, said about 150 unknown bodies have been buried so far, documented by a committee of police and health officials.

The bodies are numbered and photographed for the record.

“We also include information about the Israeli bombing that hit them, the date and place of the attack and the timing,” al-Hajj said. “We also record the names of the wounded and identified deceased people who arrived at the hospital at the same time.”

“It’s very hard to identify these bodies,” Abu Ammar said. “Family members resort to scrutinising body parts to catch a scar or a mole or even the burned remains of clothes that will help them identify their loved ones, but most of them can’t.”

In all his years of washing and burying bodies, he said, the first time he encountered unknown bodies was during this, the current Israeli offensive on Gaza.

“When I’m at home, my brain plays the tape of everything I saw that day … in detail. I can’t stop it. I’ve had the most terrible nightmares about these bodies.”

“This is the most harrowing thing I’ve ever been through.”

Photographs are helpful if relatives come to the hospital inquiring about their loved ones, but Abu Ammar says that in most cases, the victims’ skulls are shattered and their faces burned beyond recognition.

“These bodies were human beings … had dignity,” he said. “To see their bodies reduced to burned remains or chopped pieces is unbearable.”

Burying the Mangled Bodies of Unidentifiable Victims of Israel’s Genocide on Gaza

Deutschland: Vom Primat der Innenpolitik zum Primat der Außenpolitik zum Primat des Militärischen?

22. November 2023 um 9:00Ein Artikel von Alexander Neu

In der Politikwissenschaft existiert eine Methode, die Politik in das Primat (Vorrang) der Außen- oder Innenpolitik zu kategorisieren. Innenpolitik ist in diesem Kontext nicht auf innere Sicherheit begrenzt, sondern umfasst im weitesten Sinne des Begriffs auch Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik etc. Natürlich bilden Kategorien die Wirklichkeit immer nur unzureichend ab. Aber Kategorisierungen sind unerlässlich zum Verständnis der Wirklichkeit. Und so ist es mit der politischen Wirklichkeit eben auch: Staaten, die der Außenpolitik das Primat einräumen, sind eher Großmächte respektive Möchtegern-Großmächte. Kleinere, international weniger machtvolle Staaten konzentrieren sich eher auf die innenpolitische Ebene, sofern sie keiner direkten äußeren Gefahr ausgesetzt sind. Von Alexander Neu.

Das Primat in die eine oder andere Richtung hat in der Logik immer auch unmittelbare Auswirkungen auf die andere, die sekundäre Sphäre, da politische Aufmerksamkeitssetzung immer auch nur über begrenzte Ressourcen (geistige, personelle, materielle, finanzielle etc.) verfügt. Jeder Euro, der für das Militär oder für diplomatische Initiativen ausgegeben wird, fehlt woanders, beispielsweise in der Gesundheitspolitik. Und selbst wenn eine Regierung bei einer sich exponierenden Außenpolitik durch sozialpolitische Investitionen Ruhe im Innern sichern möchte, so bedeutet dies kreditfinanzierte Maßnahmen, sei es für die außenpolitischen oder innenpolitischen „Investitionen“. Die Schulden müssen irgendwann plus Zinsen beglichen werden. So ist es mit dem vermeintlichen 100 Milliarden Euro „Sondervermögen“ – ein Etikettenschwindel, da es sich tatsächlich um Sonderschulden handelt –, die an der Schuldenbremse vorbei für die militärische Aufrüstung kreditiert wurden. Und so ist es auch mit den kreditierten Coronahilfen um die 400 Milliarden Euro. So liegt der geplante Schuldendienst (Tilgung) im Bundeshaushaltsplan 2024, der Anfang Dezember im Bundestag verabschiedet werden soll, bei rund 37 Milliarden Euro (Einzelplan 32). Bei einem Gesamthaushalt von 445,6 Milliarden Euro sind das rund acht Prozent des Bundeshaushaltes, die nur zur Bedienung der Schulden und Zinsen benötigt werden.

Wandel des Primats

Die alte Bundesrepublik verfolgte zwangsläufig angesichts der deutschen Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert und der damit einhergehenden limitierten Souveränität eine Politik des Primats der Innenpolitik. Die Bundesrepublik fuhr mit diesem Ansatz nicht schlecht: Wirtschaftswunder, sich aufbauender Wohlstand durch den Rheinischen Kapitalismus (Soziale Marktwirtschaft) etc. Damit hatte sich die Bundesrepublik auch international Respekt, ein Standing erarbeitet.

Seit der Wende 1989/90 gewannen in der politischen Elite und den sie wohlwollend begleitenden Leitmedien Ideen die Oberhand, wonach Deutschland international nun mehr Gewicht erhalten müsse – mithin die Fähigkeit zu einer gestaltenden Machtpolitik in den internationalen Beziehungen anzustreben sei. Und dieses „mehr Gewicht Erhalten“ stützt(e) sich sehr auf den Ausbau militärischer Fähigkeiten und deren Anwendung (materielle Fähigkeiten und politische Absichten). Die Debatten über Auslandseinsätze („out of area“) der Bundeswehr, angefangen bei Kambodscha und Somalia Anfang der 1990er-Jahre und endend mit der Flucht aus Afghanistan im August 2021, sind sicherlich noch vielen in Erinnerung. Stets wurde mit wachsender internationaler Verantwortung – mal mehr, mal weniger offen – im militärischen Sinne argumentiert. Neben der schleichenden Verlagerung des politischen Primats gab es auch beschleunigte Schubphasen.

Schübe der Primatwandels

Dazu gehören sicherlich die Beteiligung an dem völkerrechtswidrigen NATO-Angriffskrieg auf Jugoslawien 1999, mit der sich Deutschland endgültig von der Kohl’schen Prämisse, wonach keine deutschen Soldaten in Regionen eingesetzt werden sollten, die vom faschistischen Deutschland angegriffen worden waren. Mit der Beteiligung am NATO-Angriffskrieg 1999 gehörte man schließlich in der Selbstwahrnehmung und -darstellung zu den Guten – Deutschland war damit zumindest mit Blick auf Osteuropa von seiner dunklen Vergangenheit rehabilitiert, so die nichtöffentliche Auffassung nicht weniger Protagonisten im damaligen politischen Bonn. Einen weiteren Schub stellte 9/11 dar, das die Möglichkeit bot, in Afghanistan militärisch mitzumischen – mit dem bereits erwähnten manifesten Misserfolg 2021.

Ein weiterer, wohl heute nur wenigen in Erinnerung gebliebener Schub dürfte im Februar 2014 auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz erfolgt sein. Seit dieser Konferenz ist die Öffentlichkeit einer Dauerbeschallung angesichts einer angeblich unterfinanzierten und nicht einsatztauglichen Bundeswehr ausgesetzt. Auf besagter Sicherheitskonferenz, an der ich selbst teilnahm, wurde ein orchestrierter Auftritt zwischen dem damaligen Bundespräsidenten J. Gauck, dem damaligen Außenminister F.-W. Steinmeier und der damaligen Verteidigungsministerin U. von der Leyen inszeniert: Deutschland müsse endlich internationale Verantwortung übernehmen und seine Bündnisverpflichtungen erfüllen. Worin denn genau das angebliche Verantwortungs- und Bündnisverpflichtungsdefizit bestand, war sie nicht willens zu erläutern.

Und der damalige Außenminister und heutige Bundespräsident F.-W. Steinmeier forderte, Deutschland sei zu groß, um „Weltpolitik nur von der Außenlinie zu kommentieren“. Nicht dahinter zurückbleiben wollte der damalige Bundespräsident J. Gauck: Deutschland dürfe sich nicht mehr hinter „seiner historischen Schuld verstecken“ und müsse „auch militärisch“ mehr tun. (Quelle) Hier dringt er durch, der Anspruch auf einen militärisch gestützten Großmachtstatus. Denn wirklich Weltpolitik gestalten kann nur eine Großmacht, können nur miteinander konzertierende Mittelmächte oder aber eine Mittelmacht als Anhang einer Großmacht.

Zu Letzterem passt wie die Faust aufs Auge die Anbiederung des deutschen Wirtschaftsministers R. Habeck bei seinem Antrittsbesuch im Februar 2022 in Washington:

„Je stärker Deutschland dient, umso grösser ist seine Rolle.“

Die „Bereitschaft, eine dienende Führungsrolle auszuüben“ werde in der US-Hauptstadt erfreut zur Kenntnis genommen. Die Hoffnung und Erwartung sei, dass mit der Bereitschaft zu höheren Militärausgaben und zu Waffenlieferungen in die Ukraine auch die Bereitschaft zu mehr Verantwortung innerhalb der NATO verbunden sei. „Und das ist ja auch der Plan.“ (Quelle)

Und natürlich wird so wenig deutsche Selbstachtung vom Washingtoner Establishment erfreut zur Kenntnis genommen. Man kann den US-Amerikanern diese Freude über den von R. Habeck ausgedrückten deutschen Willen, den USA zu dienen, gar nicht verübeln. Und wie weit der deutsche Wille, den USA zu dienen, fortgeschritten ist, zeigt sich am passiven Verhalten des deutschen Kanzlers O. Scholz auf der gemeinsamen Pressekonferenz mit dem US-Präsidenten J. Biden Anfang Februar 2022. Dieser erklärte: „Wenn Russland einmarschiert, wird es kein Nord Stream 2 mehr geben.“ Auf die Nachfrage anwesender Journalisten, wie die USA das verhindern wollten, antwortete der US-Präsident trocken: „Ich verspreche Ihnen, dass wir das schaffen werden.“ Der Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland O. Scholz steht regungslos daneben und akzeptiert scheinbar damit die US-Dominanz über die deutsche Energiepolitik – mithin das Ende der Energiesouveränität.

Der letzte und wohl massivste Schub, auch für das Portemonnaie des deutschen Steuermichels, war die Verkündung der „Zeitenwende“ am 27. Februar 2022 als Reaktion des russischen völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffs auf die Ukraine. Diese Zeitenwende beinhaltet eben zu tilgende Sonderschulden in Höhe von 100 Milliarden Euro plus Zinsen – Gelder, die in der innenpolitischen Sphäre fehlen. 100 Milliarden Euro öffentliche Investitionen beispielsweise in die deutsche Verkehrsinfrastruktur (Deutsche Bahn), in die Bildungsinfrastruktur, in die Gesundheit und Umwelt wären Investitionen in die Zukunft unseres Landes. Es wären Investitionen von den Menschen (Steuergelder sind unsere Gelder) für die Menschen in unserem Land, die das internationale Standing Deutschlands gewiss erhöhen würden.

Aufrüstung schafft nicht notwendigerweise Stabilität

Ja, der Krieg Russlands scheint denen recht zu geben, die eine starke und kriegstaugliche Bundeswehr einfordern, so wie unser Verteidigungsminister B. Pistorius. Aber es scheint eben nur so – auf dem niedrigen Reflexionsniveau.

Denn unter sicherheitspolitischem Gesichtspunkt schluckt eine Rüstungsspirale sehr viel Steuergelder, die in anderen Bereichen (innenpolitische Sphäre) eben eingespart werden müssen. Die Rüstungsausgaben schaffen aber im umgekehrten Verhältnis nicht mehr, sondern mitunter weniger Stabilität und Sicherheit. Denn die Russische Föderation sitzt als größte Nuklearmacht im Zweifel immer am längeren Hebel, da jegliche konventionelle Überlegenheit der NATO, die objektiv gegeben ist, durch das russische Nuklearpotenzial mehr als kompensiert wird. Ein unmittelbarer Krieg gegen die Russische Föderation ließe sich wohl wenig wahrscheinlich auf die konventionelle Ebene begrenzen. Diese Erkenntnis gilt übrigens für beide Seiten, für die Russische Föderation wie für die NATO. Denn auch in Moskau weiß man, dass die USA im Zweifel ihre Nuklearwaffen in einem militärischen Schlagabtausch einsetzen würden. Diese Situation nennt man gegenseitige nukleare Abschreckung auf der Grundlage des Wissens um die „gegenseitig gesicherte Zerstörung“ („mutual assured destruction“, kurz „MAD“), die – so pervers, wie sie ist – doch bis heute einen dritten Weltkrieg verhindert hat.

Und genau diese Tatsache zeigt, wie unsinnig, ja geradezu verantwortungslos mit unseren wertvollen Steuergeldern in Form immer weiterer Aufrüstung umgegangen wird – finanziell und sicherheitspolitisch verantwortungslos. Das heißt nicht, dass wir keine Bundeswehr benötigen. Es heißt aber, eine Bundeswehr mit rein defensiver Ausrichtung zur Landesverteidigung begleitet durch eine konstruktive, auf Abrüstung und gemeinsamer Sicherheit für Europa unter Einschluss der Ukraine und Russland orientierte Sicherheitspolitik. Dass wissen auch die etwas aufgeklärteren außen- und sicherheitspolitischen Experten, die sich nicht in gesinnungsethischem Denken verrennen, sondern verantwortungsethisch verhalten.

Mittelstand? Egal.

Wie weit unsere Ampelregierung von dem Primat der Innenpolitik über das Primat der Außenpolitik zumindest tendenziell hin zum Primat des Militärischen gegangen ist, zeigt nicht zuletzt die absolut skurrile Situation um die Mehrwertsteuer in der Gastronomie: Die Bundesregierung hatte im Kontext der Coronapandemie die Mehrwertsteuer von 19 Prozent auf sieben Prozent gesenkt, um die Belastungen für die Gastronomie während der Pandemie zu mindern. Und O. Scholz versprach in der ARD-Wahlarena (Bundestagswahlkampf 2021), die Absenkung der Mehrwertsteuer für die Gastronomie werde „nie wieder“ abgeschafft. (Quelle).

Es ist eine sehr sinnvolle Maßnahme – nicht nur, um die Belastungen während der Pandemie für die Gastronomie zu senken, sondern generell. Als nun gewählter Bundeskanzler sieht Olaf Scholz das plötzlich anders: Nun sei die Pandemie vorbei, und man müsse diese Ausnahmeregelung auslaufen lassen. Ob er sich nicht mehr an seine Zusage, es sei keine Ausnahmeregelung, erinnern kann oder nicht mehr erinnern will, sei dahingestellt. Festzuhalten bleibt, dass er ganz dem Adenauer’schen Motto „Was stört mich mein Geschwätz von gestern“ folgt.

Und außerdem führte eine Fortsetzung der Sieben-Prozent-Regelung zu einem Mehrwertsteuerausfall von rund 3,4 Milliarden Euro, so die ergänzende Begründung für den Wortbruch. Warum diese Größenordnung von 3,4 Milliarden Euro interessant ist, beleuchte ich weiter unten. Jedenfalls solle daher die Mehrwertsteuer ab Januar 2024 wieder auf 19 Prozent erhöht werden. Ganz so, als ob erstens die Gastronomie sich wieder gänzlich von den Belastungen der Coronaphase erholt hätte und ganz so, als ob es keine neuen Belastungen für die Gastronomien gäbe – wachsende Energie- und Lebensmittelkosten.

Die Ampel vertröstet die Kleinunternehmer und den Mittelstand damit, sie habe ja die Energiepreisbremse bis Ende März 2024 verlängert. Darüber hinaus ginge es indessen nicht aufgrund von Bedenken aus der EU. Also, im Klartext drei Monate mehr Galgenfrist – diese ändert in der Logik der Galgenfrist liegend aber nichts an der Problematik als solches: zu hohe Belastungen für die Gastronomien. Und zu Recht protestieren die Gastronomen und der deutsche Hotel- und Gaststättenverband gegen die Erhöhung der Mehrwertsteuer. Denn diese Erhöhung führt mutmaßlich zu einer Reihe von Pleiten im Gastronomiegewerbe. Gäste bleiben aus, da der ohnehin inflations- und kostensteigerungsgeplagte Michel noch genauer in seine Geldbörse schauen muss. Eine mögliche Pleitewelle bedeutet Jobverluste und ggf. Arbeitslosigkeit, was wiederum die sozialen Sicherungssysteme, wie die Arbeitslosenversicherung, stärker belasten dürfte. Dieser anzunehmende geringere gastronomische Konsum bis hin zu gastronomischen Insolvenzen dürfte erheblich dazu beitragen, dass die Mehrwertsteuereinnahmen durch die Erhöhung auf 19 Prozent eben nicht ein Plus von 3,4 Milliarden Euro, sondern deutlich weniger oder sogar ein Nullsummenspiel generieren. Obendrauf kommen die Zusatzkosten für die sozialen Sicherungssysteme. Kurzum: ein erstaunlich geniales Vorhaben der Ampel, um es mit etwas Zynismus zu bewerten.

Und nun zurück zu den 3,4 Milliarden Euro und der Frage des Primats der Innen- oder Außenpolitik: Verteidigungsminister B. Pistorius erklärte kürzlich, ohne mit der Wimper zu zucken, die Militärhilfe (wohlgemerkt nicht humanitäre Hilfe) für die Ukraine um vier Milliarden Euro auf acht Milliarden Euro für 2024 zu verdoppeln. (Quelle) Wie locker doch die Steuermilliarden sitzen, wenn es um militärische Fragen geht. Und wie sehr die Ampel auf dem Steuersäckel sitzt, wenn es darum geht, die Wirtschaft unseres Landes vor der wachsenden Rezession zu bewahren.

Diese finanzielle Verdoppelung für militärische Maßnahmen einerseits und die Gefährdung der Gastronomie andererseits stellen keine Ausnahmen dar. Sie stehen vielmehr paradigmatisch für ein prinzipielles Politikverständnis, das sich in den letzten 30 Jahren durch einen schleichenden Prozess sowie offensichtliche Schübe breitgemacht hat:

Vom Primat der Innenpolitik weg, hin zum Primat einer militärisch abgestützten Außenpolitik.

Titelbild: Shutterstock / shirmanov aleksey

Mehr zum Thema:

Das Aufkommen der neuen Weltordnung – von Kriegen begleitet

Die Welt wandelt sich – und der Westen schlafwandelt

Krieg und Völkerrecht

Deutschland: Vom Primat der Innenpolitik zum Primat der Außenpolitik zum Primat des Militärischen?

Kommt am Samstag nach Berlin

Wir machen aufmerksam auf die Friedenskundgebung mit Sahra Wagenknecht, Gabriele Krone-Schmalz und Michael von der Schulenburg:

Kommt am Samstag nach Berlin

US to Provide Over $4 Million in Aid for Those Affected by Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis

FILE PHOTO: A view shows Stepanakert city, known as Khankendi by Azerbaijan, following a military operation conducted by Azeri armed forces and a further mass exodus of ethnic Armenians from the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, October 2, 2023. REUTERS/Aziz Karimov/File PhotoREUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The United States will provide over $4.1 million in aid for people affected by the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, the United States Agency for International Development said in a statement, after Azerbaijan’s recapture of the region prompted a mass exodus of Armenians.

Azerbaijan and Armenia have been at odds for decades, most notably over the breakaway Azerbaijani region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which Baku’s forces recaptured in September, prompting a mass exodus of most of the region’s 120,000 ethnic Armenians to neighboring Armenia.

USAID said the additional aid, which has not been previously reported, will support efforts to provide assistance for almost 74,000 refugees and displaced people from the region who are sheltering in Armenia.

The aid will increase food assistance and provide humanitarian protection and emergency shelter, according to the statement.

The additional aid will bring the total U.S. humanitarian assistance for the Nagorno-Karabakh response to nearly $28 million since 2020, according to the statement.

«The U.S. stands with civilians affected by Azerbaijan’s military operation and supports the Armenian government’s efforts to help those in need,» the statement read.

The two Caucasian countries have been in conflict most notably over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan but largely populated and controlled by ethnic Armenians with Yerevan’s support until Baku recaptured it in September.

USAID chief Samantha Power traveled to Armenia and Azerbaijan in September following Azerbaijan’s defeat of the breakaway region’s fighters in the conflict dating from the Soviet era.

«We are incredibly grateful to the Armenian government and the Armenian people for opening their homes and their hearts to the displaced. We will continue to stand with them throughout this crisis,» Power said.

The Armenians of Karabakh — part of Azerbaijan that had been beyond Baku’s control since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union — began fleeing after their forces were routed in the operation by Azerbaijan’s military.

(Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-11-21/us-to-provide-over-4-million-in-aid-for-those-affected-by-nagorno-karabakh-crisis

The United States is reaching out all over the world to wreak havoc and war.

Mit welchen Sprach- und Rhetorik-Tricks man uns in die Irre führen will – und wie man sie entzaubern kann

Mit welchen Sprach- und Rhetorik-Tricks man uns in die Irre führen will – und wie man sie entzaubern kann

History: Adolph Hitler was Financed by Wall Street, the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

By Yuri Rubtsov and Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

feature image: Hitler, Schacht and Prescott Bush

First published by Global Research in May 2016, this carefully researched article by Yuri Rubtsov sheds light on the role of Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve in financing the Nazi government of Adolph Hitler.

Global Research Introduction

From World War I to the Present: Dollar denominated debt has been the driving force behind all US led wars.

Wall Street creditors are the main actors.

They were firmly behind Nazi Germany. They financed Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party

“On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler and Franz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.

This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.

A year later, on January 14th, 1933, another meeting was held between Adolph Hitler, Germany’s Financier Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Chancellor Franz von Papen and Hitler’s Economic Advisor Wilhelm Keppler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved.” (Y. Rubtsov, text below)

Wall Street also “appointed” the head of Germany’s Central Bank (Reichsbank).

Upon the accession of Adolph Hitler as Chancellor in March 1933, a massive privatization program was initiated which bears the finger-prints of Wall Street.

Dr. Hjalmar Schacht –re-appointed in March 1933 by Adolph Hitler to the position of President of The Reichsbank— was invited to the White House (May 1933) by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

“After his meeting with the U.S. President and the big bankers on Wall Street, America allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion” [equivalent to $23.7 billion in 2023, PPP estimate] (Y. Rubtsov, op cit)

The Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), was privatized. The Nazi government sold off State owned shipbuilding companies, State infrastructure and public utilities.

With a “Nazi- Liberal” slant, –no doubt with “conditionalities”- the privatization program was negotiated with Germany’s Wall Street creditors. Several major banking institutions including Deutsche Bank and Dresden Bank were also privatized.

“[T]he government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc.

In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.” (Germa Bel, University of Barcelona)

The proceeds of the privatization program were used to repay outstanding debts as well as fund Nazi Germany’s buoyant military industrial complex.

Numerous U.S. conglomerates had invested in Nazi Germany’s arms industry including Ford and General Motors:

Both General Motors and Ford insist that they bear little or no responsibility for the operations of their German subsidiaries, which controlled 70 percent of the German car market at the outbreak of war in 1939 and rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war materiel to the German army.

… In certain instances, American managers of both GM and Ford went along with the conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home. (Washington Post, November 30, 1998)

“A Famous American Family” Sleeping with the Enemy. The Role of Prescott Bush

Of significance: “A famous American family” made its fortune from the Nazis, according to John Loftus’ documented historical analysis.

Prescott Bush (grandfather of George W. Bush) was a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. , and director of the Union Banking Corporation , closely linked to the interests of German corporations, including Thyssen Stahl, an important company involved in the arms industry of the Third Reich.

The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.

Image: Senator Prescott Bush with his son George H. Walker Bush. (1950s)

Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush:

“From 1945 until 1949 in Nuremberg, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.

Multibillionaire steel magnate Fritz Thyssen –-the man whose steel combine was the cold heart of the Nazi war machine– talked and talked and talked to a joint US-UK interrogation team.

… What the Allied investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks.

He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents – stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts–from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker [father in law of Prescott Bush]. Thyssen’s partners in crime were the father and [grandfather] of a future President of the United States [George Herbert Walker Bush]. (John Loftus, How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis: The Dutch Connection)

The American public was not aware of the links of the Bush family to Nazi Germany because the historical record had been carefully withheld by the mainstream media. In September 2004, however, The Guardian revealed that:

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. …

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.”

( Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, How the Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitlers Rise to Power, Guardian, September 25, 2004)

Screenshot, The Guardian

Evidence of the Bush family’s links to Nazism was available well before George Herbert Walker Bush (Senior) and George W. Bush entered politics.

The U.S. media remained totally mum. According to John Buchanan (New Hampshire Gazette, 10 October 2003):

After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law. Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.

While Prescott Bush’s company’s assets, namely Union Banking Corporation were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (See below), George W. Bush’s grandfather was never prosecuted for his business dealings with Nazi Germany.

“In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past.

There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001.” (John Buchanan, op. cit)

Up until Pearl Harbor (December 1941), Wall Street was trading with Germany.

In the wake of Pearl Harbor (1941-1945), Standard Oil “was trading with the enemy” selling oil to Nazi Germany through the intermediation of so-called “neutral countries” including Venezuela and Argentina.

Without the U.S. supply of oil to Nazi Germany instrumented by Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Third Reich would not have been able to invade the Soviet Union.

Michel Chossudovsky, November 21, 2023

***

History: Hitler was Financed

by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

By Yuri Rubtsov

May 2016

World War II: More than 80 years ago was the start of the greatest slaughter in history.

If we are to approach the problem of “responsibility for the war”, then we first need to answer the following key questions:

Who helped the Nazis come to power?
Who sent them on their way to world catastrophe?

The entire pre-war history of Germany shows that the provision of the “necessary” policies were managed by the financial turmoil, in which the world was plunged into in the wake of World War I.

The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out as a means to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany and its ability to control political processes in Central Europe.

To implement this strategy, the following stages were envisaged:

From 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;
From 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for Nazism (“national socialism”);
From 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;
From 1933 to 1939 — financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing a new World War.

WWI “War Reparations”

In the first stage, the main levers to ensure the penetration of American capital into Europe began with WWI war debts and the closely related problem of German reparations.

After the US’ formal entry into the first World War, they gave the allies (primarily England and France) loans to the amount of $8.8 billion. The total sum of war debts, including loans granted to the United States in 1919-1921, was more than $11 billion.

To solve this problem, creditor nations tried to impose extremely difficult conditions for the payment of war reparations at the expense of Germany. This was caused by the flight of German capital abroad, and the refusal to pay taxes which led to a state budget deficit that could be covered only through mass production of unsecured German Marks.

The result was the collapse of the German currency — the “great inflation” of 1923, when the dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Marks. German Industrialists began to openly sabotage all activities in the payment of reparation obligations, which eventually caused the famous “Ruhr crisis” — Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.

The Anglo-American ruling elites, in order to take the initiative in their own hands, waited for France to get caught up in a venturing adventure and to prove its inability to solve the problem. US Secretary of State Hughes pointed out:

“It is necessary to wait for Europe to mature in order to accept the American proposal.”

The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference.

Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”,which then recommended H. Schacht in consultation with Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England.

In December, 1923, H. Schacht became Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial elites.

In the summer of 1924, the project known as the “Dawes plan” (named after the Chairman of the Committee of experts who created it – American banker and Director of one of the banks of the Morgan group), was adopted at the London conference. He called for halving the reparations and solved the question about the sources of their coverage. However, the main task was to ensure favorable conditions for US investment, which was only possible with the stabilization of the German Mark.

To this end, the plan gave Germany a large loan of $200 million, half of which was accounted for by JP Morgan.

While the Anglo-American banks gained control not only over the transfer of German payments, but also for the budget, the system of monetary circulation and to a large extent the credit system of the country.

The Weimar Republic

By August 1924, the old German Mark was replaced by a new, stabilized financial situation in Germany, and, as researcher G.D Preparta wrote, the Weimar Republic was prepared for:

“the most picturesque economic aid in history, followed by the most bitter harvest in world history” — “an unstoppable flood of American blood poured into the financial veins of Germany.”

The consequences of this were not slow to appear.

This was primarily due to the fact that the annual reparations were to cover the amount of debt paid by the allies, formed by the so-called “absurd Weimar circle”.

The gold that Germany paid in the form of war reparations, was sold, pawned, and disappeared in the US, where it was returned to Germany in the form of an “aid” plan, who gave it to England and France, and they in turn were to pay the war debt of the United States. It was then overlayed with interest, and again sent to Germany. In the end, all in Germany lived in debt [were indebted] , and it was clear that should Wall Street withdraw their loans, the country would suffer complete bankruptcy.

Secondly, although formal credit was issued to secure payment, it was actually the restoration of the military-industrial potential of the country.

The fact is that the Germans were paid in shares of companies for the loans so that American capital began to actively integrate into the German economy.

The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America’s leading financial-industrial groups.

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

“Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie”, the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller’s “Standard oil”.

Morgan, through “General Electric”, controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned “General Electric”) through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.

In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company “Focke-Wulf”.

“General Motors”, belonging to the DuPont family, established control over “Opel”.

Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of “Volkswagen”.

In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank “Dillon, Reed & Co.” the second largest industrial monopoly in Germany after “I.G Farben” emerged — metallurgical concern “Vereinigte Stahlwerke” (Steel Trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.

American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Danat-Bank (Darmstädter und Nationalbank), etc. were under the control of American financial capital.

The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler personally.

As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in his memoirs, since 1923, Hitler received large sums from abroad. Where they went is unknown, but they were received through Swiss and Swedish banks.

It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attaché of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.

It was through Smith’s circle of acquaintances that Hitler was first introduced to German-American businessman Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl, a graduate of Harvard University who played an important role in the formation of A. Hitler as a politician, endorsed by significant financial support, while securing him ties and communication with prominent personalities of the British establishment.

Hitler was prepared in politics, however, whereas Germany under the Weimar Republic reigned, his party remained on the periphery of public life. The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the 1929 financial crisis.

Since the autumn of 1929 after the collapse of the America’s stock exchange was triggered by the Federal Reserve, the third stage of the strategy of the Anglo-American financial establishment commenced.

The Federal Reserve and JP Morgan decided to stop lending to Germany, inspired by the banking crisis and economic depression in Central Europe. In September 1931, England abandoned the gold standard, deliberately destroying the international system of payments and completely cutting off the flow of “financial oxygen” to the Weimar Republic.

But a financial miracle occurred with the Nazi party: in September 1930, as a result of large donations from Thyssen, “I.G. Farben” and Industrialist Emil Kirdorf (who was a firm supporter of Adolf Hitler), the Nazi party got 6.4 million votes, and took second place in the Reichstag, after which generous investments from abroad were activated.

The main link between the major German industrialists and foreign financiers became H. Schacht.

1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party

On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler and Franz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.

This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.

It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on the 30th of January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.

The attitude of the Anglo-American ruling elites in relation to the new Nazi government was very sympathetic.

When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which, naturally, called into question the payment of war debts, neither Britain nor France showed him the claims of the payments.

Moreover, after his visit to the United States in May 1933, H. Schacht became once more head of Reichsbank, and after his meeting with the U.S. President and the big bankers on Wall Street, America allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion.

In June, during a trip to London and a meeting with Montagu Norman, Schacht also sought a British loan of $2 billion, and a reduction and cessation of payments on old loans.

Thus, the Nazis got what they could not achieve with the previous government.

In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and at the end of the 1930’s, Germany became the main trading partner of England.

Schroeder Bank became the main agent of Germany in the UK, and in 1936 his office in New York teamed up with the Rockefellers to create the “Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.” investment Bank, which Times Magazine called the “economic propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome”.

As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his four-year plan on the basis of foreign financial loans, so it never inspired him with the slightest alarm.

In August 1934, America’s Standard Oil [owned by the Rockefellers] in Germany acquired 730,000 acres of land and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, Germany secretly took delivery of the most modern equipment for aircraft factories from the United States, which would begin the production of German planes.

Germany received a large number of military patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney”, “Douglas”, “Curtis Wright”, and American technology was building the “Junkers-87”. In 1941, when the Second world war was raging, American investments in the economy of Germany amounted to $475 million. “Standard oil” invested – 120 million, General Motors- $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.

The close financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American and Nazi business circles was the background against which, in the 1930’s, a policy of appeasement led to World War II.

Today, the world’s financial elites have implemented the Great Depression 2.o [2008], with a followup transition towards a “New World Order“.

Yuri Rubtsov is a doctor of historical sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of military sciences, and member of the International Association of historians of World War II

Translated from Russian by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ. (references not available in this version of the article)

ru-polit.livejournal (originally from 2009)

The original source of this article is Fort Russ

https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-nazi-germany-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318

History: Adolph Hitler was Financed by Wall Street, the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

Beliefs in Every Group Are Shaped by Liars. Americans as an Example of this. America Started The War in Ukraine in 2014

By Eric Zuesse

***

In U.S.-and-allied countries, the belief is overwhelmingly widespread that the war in Ukraine was started “by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine”. However, this widely-circulated belief in The West is clearly and unequivocally false, because the war in Ukraine started in 2014, as both NATO’s Stoltenberg and Ukraine’s Zelensky have said; but Russia responded militarily on 24 February 2022, to this then-8-year-long war on Russia’s doorstep, in order to prevent Ukraine from becoming a NATO member and allowing the U.S. to place a missile there a mere 317 miles or five minutes of missile-flying-time away from The Kremlin and thus too brief a flight for Russia to respond before Russia’s central command would already be beheaded by America’s nuclear blitz-strike.

The war in Ukraine actually began in the very violent coup that the U.S. Obama Administration had actually started planning by no later than June 2011 and started executing inside America’s Embassy in Ukraine on 1 March 2013. Such coup illegally overthrew the democratically elected and neutralist President of Ukraine on 20 February 2014 and installed to take over the new government on 27 February 2014 the man who had been selected by Victoria Nuland — Obama’s agent controlling the coup operation — when she instructed on 27 January 2014 the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine to have “Yatsenyuk” or “Yats”, a rabid hater of ethnic Russians, placed in charge when the coup would be over, which was then done on 27 February 2014.

That coup precipitated or provoked resistance to the coup on the day of the coup, 20 February 2014, when occurred the Korsun Massacre of Crimeans who, on the day of the coup, were fleeing the coup-site at Kiev’s Maidan Square, after holding signs there against the overthrow of that democratically elected President for whom over 70% of Crimeans had voted, and now they were running back into their 8 awaiting buses to return to Crimea, but became blocked en-route and dozens of them were killed by the Right Sector paramilitaries who beat them to death and piled up their corpses, though many Crimeans on those buses survived to record their accounts of the massacre.

So: the war began actually on the very day of the coup, and it was perpetrated by Obama’s hired forces, specifically the Right Sector paramilitaries, who were under the command of Dmitriy Yarosh, who had been in charge of the team of snipers that the U.S. Government hired to carry out the coup. Some of the foreign snipers that were hired from Georgia and elsewhere were under the command of an American Brian Boyenger, but most of the snipers were Ukrainian racist-fascist anti-Russians, who were under Yarosh’s command.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8-RyOaFwcEw%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26fs%3D1%26hl%3Den%26autohide%3D2%26wmode%3Dtransparent

The unrest against the U.S. coup that started Ukraine’s civil war centered in two main regions: Crimea in the far south, in which that overthrown President had gotten 70+% of the votes; and Donbass in the far southeast, where he had gotten 90+% of the votes. The Donbass towns of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk on 15 April 2014 rejected the Obama-junta-installed-by-Yatsenyuk officials, and Yatsenyuk announced the next day that his government was starting an Anti-Terrorist Operation or “ATO” and sending in tanks to eliminate any such ’terrorists’. It was now officially an anti-‘terrorist’ war, in keeping with America’s ongoing war against terrorists, but in this case Russia was being blamed for it, because Donbass is Russian-speaking and had voted over 90% for the overthrown, neutralist, President and therefore needed (from Obama’s perspective) to be depopulated so that in any future elections, only anti-Russian candidates would win Ukraine’s elections.

U.S. Government on “Wrong Side” of Ukraine War. Who Started the War?

Then, on 2 May 2014, Yarosh’s people trapped, inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, dozens of people who had circulated flyers against the Obama-coup-installed government, and burned them alive, to demonstrate to Ukraine’s Russian-speakers that this new Ukraine hated their guts and wanted them gone from Ukraine. The Obama-installed government appointed, to be the new Governor of a region near Odessa, an oligarch, Kolomoyskyi, who had also funded Yarosh’s operation and helped to plan that burning-alive action.

The ATO became the war against Donbass that the Minsk Agreements (which Obama opposed but tolerated) were supposed to stop but failed to stop, because Ukraine’s U.S.-installed government refused to stop its shelling of the breakaway region Donbass. The war was an ethnic-cleansing operation to reduce the population there (by killing some, and by terrorizing the others to flee into Russia, which around a million of them did), which ethnic cleansing to get rid of residents in Donbass continued until Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, and which still has been continuing there, though perhaps somewhat reduced now as Russia has joined the residents there to fight against the U.S.-stooge regime in Kiev and against its ethnic-cleansing (or ‘ATO’) operation to reduce if not eliminate the residents in Donbass.

The intent of Obama’s coup was mainly to get Ukraine into NATO so that U.S. missiles could become placed on its border only 300 miles away from blitz-nuking The Kremlin, but was also intended to grab Russia’s main naval base, which since 1783 has been in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval base (something Obama wasn’t able to do).

Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine was intended to prevent Ukraine from hosting U.S. missiles only a five-minute-missile-flight-time away from blitz-nuking The Kremlin. Putin made a mess of his explanations of why he invaded Ukraine.

The fact that it was done in order to block any possibility of U.S. missiles becoming ultimately posted in Ukraine only 300 miles from the Kremlin was almost ignored in his public statements. Therefore, he unintentionally helped to make easy The West’s convincing people that the aggressor here was Russia instead of America. On the surface, it looked that way, if the relevant prior history was ignored — and Putin’s explanations unfortunately distracted from that history, instead of drew attention to it, and thus allowed the relevant prior history behind this war to be, and to remain, ignored by the peoples in U.S.-and-allied countries.

When Putin spoke about the prior history, he talked mainly about Ukrainians being really Russians, and other such irrelevancies, which irrelevancies precipitated in The West distractionary debates as to whether or not Ukrainians actually are Russians, or even why he said that they are: pro-U.S. media were, basically, psychoanalyzing Putin, instead of dealing with America’s coup that had illegally and bloodily grabbed Ukraine, and maybe then psychoanalyzing Obama himself— who had actually started the war in Ukraine. It was started for his purposes, NOT for Putin’s (but very much against his).

The undeniable physical fact is that America’s obsession to get its missiles that close to The Kremlin was intolerable to Russia and to Russians; so, Putin absolutely needed to prevent that from happening.

And the 24 February 2022 invasion had become the only way to prevent it now, because on December 15th of 2021 Putin had given to the U.S. Government Russia’s existential national-security demands never to place its missiles so close to Moscow, and two days later he gave to America’s NATO anti-Russian military alliance Russia’s national-security demands including that Ukraine will never be in NATO. And, then, on 7 January 2022, both America and its NATO alliance formally said no to all of them; and, only then, on 24 February 2022, did Russia invade Ukraine to achieve by military means what the U.S. regime had refused even to consider by diplomatic means and negotiations — America and its NATO refused to negotiate with Russia, regarding what were and still are, for Russia, national-security necessities. They were forcing Russia to invade Ukraine. That’s what they wanted, and they got it.

America started this war. Russia did not.

Another example of Americans’ beliefs being shaped by liars is the current war in Gaza. Israel started this war in 1948 (with a massive ethnic-cleansing of Palestinians in order to bring millions of Jews onto this land); the Gazans did not start it on 7 October 2023 by breaking out of Gaza the world’s largest open-air prison in order to kill Jews in Israel. Israel responded to that Hamas killing of around 1,200, wounding of around 3,400, and taking hostage of 247 Israelis, by a bombing campaign, and siege to destroy hospitals and cut off electricity and food and water to Gazans, in an ethnic cleansing operation by Israel with American weapons, to get rid of the 2.3 million Palestinians who live in that open-air prison, Gaza.

Then, the November 2023 Harvard-Harris-CAPS poll (field dates November 15-16) of 2,851 registered American voters found the following beliefs by Americans, around 40 days afterwards:

pp.58-59

“Do you think the Hamas killing of 1200 Israeli civilians and the kidnapping of another 250 civilians can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians [28%] or is it not justified in any way [72%]?”

“Do you think that the attacks on Jews were genocidal in nature [72%] or not genocidal [28%]?”

p.60

“Do you favor [65%] or oppose [35%] the 14 billion [dollar] aid package to help Israel defeat Hamas?”

So: 72% of the respondents said that the October 7th Hamas attack was “not justified in any way” — not by Israel’s prior ethnic cleansing against Palestinians in 1948 and afterwards, nor by the decades-long imprisonment-without-trial of all Palestinians in Gaza, nor in any other way. And also 72% of the respondents said that the Hamas attack against Israelis was “genocidal” (and the poll didn’t include any question regarding whether Israel’s 75-year-long history of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, nor the current genocidal campaign against the 2.3 million Gazans, is “genocidal”). So, with these beliefs by Americans (72% of them favoring Israel’s current genocide against Gazans), 65% of Americans are in favor of the U.S. Government’s sending $14 billion to Israel so that Israel’s Jews will be able to complete their genocide against Gazans.

In a ‘democracy’ such as America, it is important to shape the public’s beliefs, so that the ‘democracy’ will continue to exist. This is done by means of lies.

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics

The original source of this article is Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/beliefs-every-group-shaped-liars-americans-example/5840810

Beliefs in Every Group Are Shaped by Liars. Americans as an Example of this. America Started The War in Ukraine in 2014

Karine Jean-Pierre Claims Biden Is Youngest President Of All Time

From The Babylon Bee:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As President Joe Biden celebrated his 81st birthday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre made the bold pronouncement that Biden is officially the youngest president in the nation’s history.

“It’s a truly remarkable achievement,” said the black, gay female Jean-Pierre. “He was the youngest, sharpest president of all time when he was lawfully elected in November 2020, and he has somehow grown even younger as time has passed. It’s something no one has ever done in American history. Truly amazing.”

Jean-Pierre’s announcement comes as people across the country — even some in President Biden’s own party — have begun to raise questions about his age and capability to lead the nation moving forward. “I had started to wonder if having a guy that old in charge is the best idea,” said plumber Jason McClain. “But since the White House said he’s now the youngest president ever, it must be true and reliable information. Good enough for me!”Advertisement

When asked about the veracity of her statement, Jean-Pierre was defiantly adamant. “If I say he’s the youngest president of all time, you can trust my information,” she said. “While we’re on the subject, it’s also very normal for the leader of the free world to take several naps a day, go outside for recess after lunch, and have members of his Secret Service detail read him bedtime stories. These are all tremendous accomplishments that no other president in history can claim.”

At publishing time, Jean-Pierre had also made strong claims that Biden was also the greatest, smartest, most accomplished, and mentally sharpest president who has ever overseen the complete and total collapse of the United States.

https://babylonbee.com/news/karine-jean-pierre-claims-biden-is-youngest-president-of-all-time

Karine Jean-Pierre Claims Biden Is Youngest President Of All Time

Review of Alison Weir’s Book

Introduction

Origin of Zionism in the U.S.

Warnings Against the Zionist Project

Zionism After World War I

Zionist Activities Between the World Wars

Protestant Support of Zionism

Beginnings of Terrorism and U.N. Partition of Palestine

In 1947, Britain turned its Palestine Mandate over to the U.N.

U.S. Government Opposition to Zionism

Zionist Takeover of Palestine

Zionist Front Organizations in the U.S.

Financial Backers of Israeli Independence

Recruiting Jews to Relocate to Palestine

Fate of the Palestinian Refugees

Zionism and the Media

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Team at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital do what they can to provide last rites to those killed in Israeli attacks.

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

Global Research Introduction

1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party

“A Famous American Family” Sleeping with the Enemy. The Role of Prescott Bush

History: Hitler was Financed

by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

By Yuri Rubtsov

WWI “War Reparations”

The Weimar Republic

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой:

Поделиться ссылкой: