I’ll preface my remarks by stressing I am not “against immigration.” My wife is an immigrant. Most Americans are descended from immigrants. Any sovereign nation has the right to accept immigrants in accordance with its own laws. If a country’s labor force is seriously short of, say, engineers, it would do well to welcome foreign engineers.

For the illuminist/Zionist banker oligarchy, however, “immigration” has a different purpose and meaning. In my 2013 book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, I wrote:

Recent years have seen huge pushes to relax U.S. immigration laws. President George W. Bush was criticized by his own party for being notoriously weak on restricting immigration; in 2007 he even joined forces with liberal Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy to create a bill that would have naturalized all illegal immigrants.

Immigration is integral to the globalist plan. The European Union, for example, encourages free movement within member states. Why? Notice that nations are becoming harder to characterize. Britain had only 10,700 Indians and Pakistanis in 1955; by 2001 that figure had risen to over 1.8 million. France today has over five million Muslims, most of them immigrants from its former North African colonies; they constitute a state within a state – as witnessed by the rash of violence and fires in 2005 that French police couldn’t contain.

The Establishment encourages such situations because if you confuse national identity, you weaken national sovereignty. When Africans Muslims come to France, they usually don’t consider themselves Frenchmen – and ethnically they aren’t. A country not unified by a distinct identity is far easier to strip of sovereignty because the subjects themselves feel little allegiance to country, flag, and each other. “Multiculturalism” is politically correct today, but its purpose is to fragmentize nations.

“Divide and conquer,” of course, is a stock-in-trade tactic of the NWO. But the recent push for Western nations to accept massive numbers of Middle East refugees is raising the agenda bar to a new level, with unprecedented implications.

First, some underlying facts:

• The current immigration crisis was created by the West. The United States is still fighting in Afghanistan, even though our alleged reason for going there was Afghanistan’s refusal to give us Bin Laden – long dead, even by the official narrative. We fought a war in Iraq for a decade over weapons of mass destruction that even the Bush administration eventually admitted didn’t exist. We bombed Libya into utter chaos because Muammar Gaddafi wanted to introduce the gold dinar as Africa’s currency, upsetting America’s dollar-based banker oligarchy. And when President Obama couldn’t gain public support for war on Syria over the false claim that Assad used sarin gas on his own people, war on Syria was wangled anyway, through staged beheading videos and switching the professed enemy from Assad to ISIS – i.e., the very forces we had trained and equipped to fight Assad.

For those who still don’t know it, the Pentagon already had a plan in 2001 to war against seven Middle Eastern/North African countries, including Iraq, Libya and Syria, as was revealed by General Wesley Clark:

• The crisis has been hyped by mainstream media. The presstitutes of the tightly controlled media only shed their crocodile tears when their chiefs require it to serve an agenda. Child atrocity stories are a proven winner; thus we had faked tales of German soldiers cutting hands off Belgian children for World War I, the “Shanghai Baby” for World War II, and the infamously fabricated “baby incubator deaths” for the Gulf War. For the refugee crisis, the media selected a drowned boy, “Aylan,” as the iconic image they needed to impress on the public brain:

This boy’s death was a tragedy. But no less tragic were countless other child deaths the media has ignored, from the Holodomor to Gaza. Furthermore, as well summarized by James Delingpole, there are many problems with the Aylan story, not the least of which are details suggesting the body was carefully positioned at water’s edge for maximum dramatic effect.

• Most of the “refugees” aren’t Syrian, as claimed. According to this Town Hall post by Leah Barkoukis, about 80 percent actually come from other countries. Even sub-Saharan blacks are being passed off as “Syrians.” Furthermore, most are young adult males (i.e., ISIS recruiting age), not women, children, families, or the elderly.

To reinforce and flesh out the above points, I highly recommend the following video by “Syrian Girl”:

(Although I won’t embed it here, I also recommend her very informative 2012 video “Why the NWO Hates Syria.”)

SO WHAT IS THE ILLUMINATI AGENDA BEHIND THE REFUGEE CRISIS?

Why are the politicians who obediently serve as fronts for the global bankster oligarchy crying that their nations have a “moral duty” to accept these refugees? Germany’s Angela Merkel has said there is no limit to the refugees her country should accept. David Cameron has said the UK will take 20,000. Obama has offered  to accept 10,000; Hillary is calling for 65,000.

Actually, as this Infowars clip from earlier in the year reveals, the Department of Homeland Security has been quietly bussing about 100,000 Muslims into the U.S. each year, well before the “Syrian refugee crisis” emerged in the headlines:

Obviously, the most sensible places for Muslim refugees are other Muslim nations, where barriers of language and culture are comparatively minimal (yet wealthier Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have steadfastly denied admittance to Syrian refugees). Already Germany is feeling the effects, as gangs of “migrant” men roam the streets, stalking and sometimes sexually assaulting women.

Osama Bin Laden, the patsy of the 9/11 false flag, made a relevant point in his remarks reported by the Pakistani newspaper Ummaut on September 22, 2001:

I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. [emphasis added]

“Conflict between Islam and Christianity” is exactly what the Zionists behind 9/11 have been generating through the never-ending Middle East wars. Now, the transplanting of hundreds of thousands of young male “Syrian” refugees into Europe and America could turns these lands themselves into battlefields. Besides the natural tensions resettlement creates (job competition in already-stressed economies; conflicts in religion, culture and language; lingering resentment among Muslims over what the West has done to their homelands), some of these “refugees” may be sleeper ISIS fighters. All it would take to ignite chaos would a major false flag, such as the demolition of the Dome of the Rock, perpetrated by Mossad but blamed on others. (The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is one of Islam’s holiest shrines; it has been falsely claimed to be erected on the ancient site of Solomon’s Temple, which Zionists have long wished to rebuild as the throne of their false Messiah/antichrist, ruler of world government.)

The chaos of bloody street clashes between displaced Muslims and Americans/Europeans could achieve yet other Illuminati goals, including imposition of domestic martial law and suspension of remaining freedoms. Fighting could also expand, like a wildfire, into a global war including Russia and China, which would fulfill yet more Illuminati aims: population reduction, and emergence of world government as “the only way to relieve the planet’s suffering.”

There is one other apparent objective to the refugee crisis worth mentioning: mass evacuation of Muslims from the Middle East war zones helps empty the space Zionists covet in order to create “Greater Israel,” a plan laid out in this detailed article at Global Research.

What is the true solution? Putin put it well in his UN speech:

I would like to stress that refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen government institutions where they still exist. . . .

The answer to the refugee crisis is not transplanting myriad people out of their native lands, but to restore stability to those lands, so people can remain in their homes. And that means (1) an end to the West’s policy of training and arming the very terrorist groups which it alleges to fight; (2) an end to Western support for Israel’s program of aggression, expansion, and ethnic cleansing.

October 7. Update. While I wouldn’t agree with every remark he makes, I found this commentary by a Russian analyst adds some helpful insights regarding Europe’s refugee crisis:

October 12. Further thoughts. The Western/Zionist-imposed “Arab Spring” has been “Balkanizing” the Middle East: reconfiguring it into small, divided, chaotic states. (With Russia’s help, Assad is still holding out.) Assad notwithstanding, it would be relatively easy for Israel’s military, now ranked among the world’s most powerful, to throw its tanks against these lands and annex them in its quest for “Greater Israel.” (Again, the strategy is: divide, then conquer.) However, for Israel to do this, it would first desire the support of public opinion in the EU and America. It occurs to me that if extensive fighting broke out between Europeans and these Muslim migrants, probably triggered by false flag events, it would create European sympathy for Israel as its military blasted away against “our common foe.” No doubt Israel would justify its aggression by first portraying itself (as it always does) as a “victim.”

This post is adapted from Chapter 17 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.

Producing a One-World Religion: A Three-Step Plan

Karl Marx denounced religion as the “the opiate of the people,” and communist states tried extensively to abolish it. However, the Illuminist oligarchs who run most of our world know that man has a spiritual nature which cannot be fully eradicated. They therefore deemed it more practical to infiltrate and control religion than try and destroy it outright.

The basic mechanism underlying the satanic New World Order: consolidation. In the context of nations, this has meant ending national sovereignty – bringing Europe from the Common Market to the European Union, and North America from NAFTA to the proposed North American Union, eventually merging these regional structures into a one-world government. In the world of “big business,” a parallel consolidation process is taking place, as multinational corporations merge with each other and buy up small competitors.

The Illuminati also want consolidation of religions. The technical word for this is ecumenism, which comes from the Greek word “oikoumene” meaning “world” and “earth.” All avenues of life must be consolidated for the Antichrist to rule, and religion is no exception. British globalist historian Arnold Toynbee stated: “I believe that, in the field of religion, sectarianism is going to be subordinated to ecumenicalism, that in the field of politics, nationalism is going to be subordinated to world government . . . .”¹

Of the many tasks to which the Rockefellers committed their vast fortune, one was ecumenical religion, which apparently required three steps:

(1) Degrade Christianity as a unique faith; this necessitated providing loans to major churches in exchange for doctrinal changes, and funding seminaries that would produce “Modernist” ministers who would undermine the faith. The subsequent weakening of Christianity would ultimately ripen it for consolidation with other religions.

(2) Specific organizations (such as the National Council of Churches) would be formed as the framework by which various denominations – and ultimately various religions – could be brought together under the ecumenical banner.

(3) To give churches motive for unification, social causes, acceptable within the morals of most denominations and religions, would be promoted as rallying points for “united action.”

THE EARLY YEARS

Degrading Christianity

The Illuminati understood that Christianity would be difficult to incorporate into a world ecumenical movement, because Christianity has always been unique among religions – offering salvation not by good deeds, but faith in Jesus Christ through His finished work on the cross. An Illuminati goal, then, was to attack the authority and historicity of the Bible.

To this end, the Rockefellers heavily funded seminaries that would question the Gospel, the most notorious probably being Union Theological Seminary in New York City. It was Presbyterian theologian Charles Briggs – both a graduate and a professor of Union Theological – who, in the late 19th century, prominently introduced into America “Higher Criticism,” claiming the Bible was full of errors, and denying that many of its books were actually written by the attributed authors.

Above: Charles Augustus Briggs

In 1922, Baptist pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick, another graduate of Union Theological Seminary, delivered a controversial sermon called “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” at the First Presbyterian Church of New York. In it, he cast doubts on: the Bible being God’s Word; the Virgin Birth; the Second Coming of Christ; and even Christ’s death on the cross serving as atonement for sins. And he denounced Fundamentalists – who held these beliefs – as “intolerant.”

Harry Emerson Fosdick, who got MSM stamp of approval; Raymond Fosdick

The sermon sparked outrage. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church demanded an investigation of Fosdick, who was forced to resign his pastorship. However, he was then immediately hired as pastor of Riverside Church – the church attended and built by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at a cost of $4 million. Rockefeller paid for 130,000 copies of Fosdick’s notorious sermon to be printed and distributed to Protestant ministers. Significantly, Fosdick’s brother Raymond was president of the Rockefeller Foundation for 12 years. The views expressed by theologians like Briggs and Fosdick were called “Modernism,” which also included denying Christ’s divinity, miracles and resurrection. In short, Modernism was not merely a quibbling over some gray area in a passage of scripture; it was a complete repudiation of the faith’s major tenets. And with Rockefeller backing, it made its way into seminaries, Christian colleges and churches across America. Modernism did not simply “happen”; it was an orchestrated, financed agenda.

John D. Rockefeller, Sr. with John D., Jr.; Riverside Church

Christians who opposed this movement were called “Fundamentalists” because they defended the fundamental doctrines the Modernists were assaulting.

Forming an Ecumenical Structure

In the Illuminati’s long view, once Modernism had sufficiently degraded Christianity into “just another religion,” it could be bonded with other faiths. But before achieving this last step, Christian denominations themselves had to be united.

The Federal Council of Churches (later called National Council of Churches) was founded in 1908. Heavily funded by the Rockefellers, it was to become the structural core of the drive to consolidate American Christianity. The man chosen to spearhead ecumenism was John Foster Dulles, an in-law of the Rockefellers. Dulles was the attorney who defended Harry Emerson Fosdick during his heresy investigation, and he served as chairman of the trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, where Emerson’s brother Raymond was president.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which formed the League of Nations – first step toward world government – John Foster Dulles was legal counsel to the United States delegation. A founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dulles contributed articles to the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs beginning with its very first issue in 1922. An inveterate globalist, he eventually helped write the preamble to the United Nations Charter (which makes no mention of God). Dulles also chaired the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his choice for president of that institution was Alger Hiss, the notorious communist spy who was secretary-general at the UN’s founding conference in 1945.

Part of Dulles’s religious agenda was to persuade American churches to accept world government. In 1937, he wrote in the magazine Religion in Life: “Where then does the solution lie? A theoretical solution lies in the abolition of the entire concept of national sovereignty and the unification of the world into a single nation. All boundary barriers are thus automatically leveled . . . .”²

John Foster Dulles with his brother Allen (left), who served as both president of the Council on Foreign Relations and director of the CIA.

John Foster Dulles was on the executive committee of the Federal (later National) Council of Churches. In 1942, he chaired a meeting of 30 religious denominations brought together by the Federal Council of Churches, and Time (March 16 of that year) reported they adopted a program calling for “a world government of delegated powers,” “strong and immediate limitations on national sovereignty,” “a universal system of money,” and various other globalist measures.

Since the Illuminati ambition was not merely to consolidate churches in America, but throughout the planet, in 1948 the World Council of Churches was formed. John Foster Dulles attended the founding conference in Amsterdam. The conference’s director of research was John C. Bennett – member of the Council on Foreign Relations and president of Union Theological Seminary. Also attending was Reinhold Niebuhr (CFR, Union Theological). Funding for the World Council of Churches came from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations.

 World Council of Churches founding conference, 1948

The Social Gospel: A Method for Implementing Ecumenism

Although the National and World Council of Churches provided structures for consolidation, the question remained of how to motivate churches to unite. Christian denominations often differ over various theological issues. But they generally agree on values (helping the poor and sick, for example). The strategy for unification, therefore, was to encourage them to collaborate where they did agree. This took the form of an action-oriented program known as “the Social Gospel.”

Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist minister trained at Rochester Theological Seminary – also funded by the Rockefellers – became a socialist and was known as “Father of the Social Gospel.” In 1893 – about the time Charles Augustus Briggs was initiating the U.S. Modernist movement – Rauschenbusch declared that “the only power that can make socialism succeed, if it is established, is religion.” He said that “Christianity is in its nature revolutionary,” denied that Christ died in substitutionary atonement for our sins, and said the Kingdom of God “is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven.”³

Walter Rauschenbusch 

Perhaps the most notorious “Social Gospel” pusher was Rockefeller-backed Reverend Harry F. Ward, who taught for 23 years at Union Theological Seminary. Ward was also founding chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – an ironic position, since the organization has been a dedicated opponent of religious displays on public property. Ward also chaired the American League against War & Fascism, which was founded by the Communist Party, USA. Manning Johnson, a former Communist Party official, told Congress in 1953 that Ward “has been the chief architect for communist infiltration and subversion in the religious field.”⁴ Union leader Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, called Ward “the most ardent pro-Bolshevik cleric in this country.”⁵ (Note the irony of a clergyman supporting communism, an ideology that denounces religion as “the opiate of the people” and has slaughtered millions of Christians.)

Harry F. Ward 

Ward’s Social Gospel was a push for ecumenism. He helped found, in 1908, the Methodist Federation for Social Service (now called the Methodist Federation for Social Action). Ward was its secretary for 33 years. In the Federation, the Gospel of Christ took a back seat to the Social Gospel, which called for Christians to fight for things like social justice, better labor conditions, and “world peace.” Not surprisingly, these were the same goals proclaimed by Marxists. Christians were thus to be united into a cheap volunteer work force for a socialist new world order.

Missionary work was not neglected. In 1930, at John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s request, and with his financial support, a group of Baptist laymen persuaded seven denominations to participate in the “Laymen’s Foreign Missions Inquiry.” Their report, Re-Thinking Missions: A Laymen’s Inquiry after One Hundred Years, recommended that missionaries de-emphasize Christian doctrine and seek to ally themselves with other religions in doing good works.

The denominations distanced themselves from the report. However, Pearl Buck, author and former missionary to China, praised it in The Christian Century, saying every Christian should read it. In articles published in Harper’s and Cosmopolitan, Buck rejected the doctrine of Original Sin, and said that belief in the divinity – and even historicity – of Christ was unessential to the faith. She criticized the typical missionary as “narrow, uncharitable, unappreciative, ignorant.”⁶ In place of evangelization, she recommended that missionaries help with agricultural, educational, medical and sanitary work (i.e., the Social Gospel). In short, Pearl Buck’s pronouncements fit perfectly with the Rockefellers’ scheme for a “modernized” ecumenical Christianity. It should not be overlooked that, subsequent to praising Rockefeller’s missionary inquiry, her novel The Good Earth was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature and was turned into an Oscar-nominated movie.

The “Re-thinking” report; Pearl Buck

RECENT YEARS: THE THREE-STEP PLAN CONTINUES

Degrading Christianity

The process begun by Charles Briggs, introducing “Modernism” with its attack on every fundamental of Christianity and the Bible, continues today.

One prominent assault on the Bible’s authenticity has been the Jesus Seminar, begun in 1985 by the late Robert Funk, with backing from the Westar Institute, whose financial supporters are not publicized. Funk packed his seminar with liberal “scholars” – more than a dozen had studied at Union Theological Seminary, and about half came from three liberal Establishment schools: Harvard and Vanderbilt (both of whose divinity schools were heavily funded by the Rockefellers) and the openly ecumenical Claremont School of Theology.

The Jesus Seminar used a system of colored beads to vote on whether something was really said or done by Jesus. A red bead meant “definitely yes,” a pink bead “probably yes,” a grey bead “probably no,” and a black bead “definitely no.” In short, the Bible’s historical accuracy was to be determined by votes, based on personal opinions of people living two thousand years after the original eyewitnesses to the events.

The seminar concluded that over 80 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus were not actually said by Him, and that only 2 percent were definitely accurate. Likewise, the seminar followed Modernist tradition by denying the miracles, divinity and resurrection of Jesus. Funk, who himself held these views, had handpicked his seminar’s participants; thus its outcome was no surprise. Nonetheless, the media touted the proceedings as a “scholarly” refutation of most of the New Testament.

Additionally, a slew of “documentaries” aimed at casting doubts on the Bible have aired on TV. These typically spend most of their air time interviewing Modernist theologians rather than conservative ones. The documentaries have aired prominently on:

• the History Channel (owned by A & E Television Networks, a joint venture of groups with CFR fingerprints: Disney-ABC Television Group, NBC International, and the Hearst Corporation);
• the National Geographic Channel (owned by CFR member Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Cable Networks and National Geographic Television); and
• the Discovery Channel (which, in 2005, hired as its managing editor Ted Koppel – former CFR member and good friend of CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger).

Perhaps the most ambitious strike at the Bible has been Dan Brown’s 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code. As of 2009, it had sold over 80 million copies, making it the best-selling English language novel of the 21st century. It was also made into a film, released in 2006, which grossed over $200 million.

Although The Da Vinci Code is cast in the mold of an historical mystery – much like the “Indiana Jones” movies – its punch line is an assault against Christian faith. It is rife with false assertions regarding the early church. Despite thorough refutation by church historians, many people, caught up in the hype, accepted The Da Vinci Code’s disinformation as fact. At the heart of its message: Jesus was not divine, was never resurrected, and married Mary Magdalene and had children by her.

Lo and behold, within months of the film’s release, the Discovery Channel aired a documentary claiming a tomb had been found containing the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This was not a chance sequence. Media events are being orchestrated to deceive the public.

The Ecumenical Structures Grow

The National Council of Churches (encompassing 37 Christian faith groups) and World Council of Churches (representing 345 churches, denominations and Christian fellowships) continue today. They have been reinforced by such organizations as Christians Uniting in Christ (established in 2002) and Christian Churches Together in the USA (formed in 2006).

Not to be missed is the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Yes, the former British Prime Minister – a consummate insider who recently refused to speak at a world hunger conference because it could not meet his speaker’s fee of 330,000 pounds – has formed another ecumenical organization. Blair might be compared to John Foster Dulles, the globalist politician who helped form the World Council of Churches. On the foundation’s website, Blair stated:

I launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation to promote respect, friendship and understanding between the major religious faiths . . . . I have always believed that faith is an essential part of the modern world. As globalisation pushes us ever closer it is vital it’s not used as a force for conflict and division. . . . Rather, faith is something that has much to give and to teach a world in which economic globalisation and political change is offering many opportunities but also presenting many dangers.⁷

Note Blair’s emphasis on globalization and his desire for unity among all faiths. Behind the fuzzy talk about “respect, friendship and understanding” is an aim for one-world religion – which the Antichrist will require to rule the globe. In fact, the Antichrist probably couldn’t have said it much better.

The New Social Gospel: Today’s Methods for Implementing Ecumenism

What is used to motivate today’s churches to unite? As before, it’s social action. Just as Marxist pastor Harry F. Ward headed the Methodist Federation for Social Action, the website for Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation originally had a section called “Social Action Projects.” Viewers were asked to sign a declaration which stated: “I commit to working together with people of all faiths to fight against disease and poverty.”

In short, it’s not about what you believe – social action should transcend your faith, so that it can be melded with all the others.

In America, the push for ecumenical social action has been spearheaded by Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. He is perhaps best known for his book The Purpose Driven Life, which by 2007 had sold over 30 million copies. Many churches were persuaded to join Warren’s “Purpose-Driven” movement because his book topped the New York Times bestseller list and he was featured on MSM shows such as Good Morning America. After all, didn’t this prove Warren was anointed by God? Somehow, where other evangelical spokesmen had failed, Warren had penetrated the anti-religious bias of America’s mainstream media. CNN even called him “America’s Pastor,” and Barack Obama invited him to give the invocation at his inauguration.

The true reasons for Warren’s bursting on the scene suggest something besides God’s anointing. Warren is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has distinct ties to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, whose empire includes the Wall Street Journal and England’s The Times. Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life was published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins, which has been owned by Murdoch’s News Corporation since 1989. Murdoch also controls Fox, which produces the viciously anti-Christian TV show Family Guy; and he owns pornographic channels in Europe. Yet Rick Warren was quoted in The New Yorker as saying that he is Rupert Murdoch’s pastor.⁸ If so, Christians have been asking, why does he not influence Murdoch away from his anti-faith, anti-family programming?

Once one realizes that Rick Warren is intimately connected to a man who is arguably the world’s most powerful media magnate, and that both have been CFR members, Warren’s rising star becomes more fathomable.

While many Christians have criticized Warren for his theology and for his use of questionable Bible translations, his most disturbing attribute may be ecumenism. In 2008, helped by a $2 million donation from Murdoch, Warren launched the PEACE Coalition. Time magazine reported the initiative with the headline “Rick Warren Goes Global.”⁹ The organization’s website states that “The plan is a massive effort to mobilize 1 billion Christians to attack the five global, evil giants of our day – spiritual emptiness, self-centered leadership, extreme poverty, pandemic disease and illiteracy/education.” Once again, behind idealist language lies a plan for an ecumenical world. Would it be healthy for Rick Warren to preside over an empire of a billion Christians?

Warren’s PEACE coalition was an obvious complement to the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Not surprisingly, Warren was on the Religious Advisory Council of Blair’s foundation. On the latter’s website, Warren stated: “The vision and values of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation are desperately needed when every major issue in our world is influenced for good or harm by faith factors.”¹⁰

As America’s point man for ecumenical social action, Rick Warren might be called the Harry F. Ward of today. Unlike Ward, Rick Warren does not praise communism – which, as an ideology, is considered passé. But like Ward, his coalition plan would forge churches into a volunteer (i.e., unpaid) army in the service of the globalist, socialist new world order.

Adding yet more fuel to the ecumenical fire is the 2009 Manhattan Declaration. Though intended to appeal to conservative Christians, with its anti-abortion, traditional-marriage, religious-freedom proclamation, it is highly ecumenical. The declaration states: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered together in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration . . . .” One of the three men on the declaration’s drafting committee was Robert George – a CFR member who serves the UN on UNESCO’S World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. A signer of the Declaration is Richard Land, then President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission – and a CFR member. A major ecumenist, Land also signed the 1994 document Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and is a member of the Leadership Group on U.S.–Muslim Engagement – a role he shares with several other CFR members, such as Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

An Analogue in Catholicism

The Rockefellers, as “Baptists,” made non-Catholic churches their zone of influence. However, parallels exist in Catholicism, on whom pressures tend to emanate more from European than American sources.

The Catholic Church has had its own experience with attempts to degrade faith through Modernism: pressures to reject the authority of Scripture, to compromise with Darwinism (as prominently advocated by the priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin), to accept abortion, and to ordain women and homosexuals as priests.

Like the non-Catholic church, the Catholic Church has recently seen major ecumenical developments, such as: the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by Lutheran and Catholic representatives (1999); dialogue with Eastern Orthodox churches, resulting in the Common Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I (2006); an unprecedented Catholic-Muslim summit at the Vatican (2008); and visits of Pope Benedict XVI to Israel and to the Great Synagogue of Rome (2009). Pope Francis is also prioritizing ecumenism, and has issued a 192-page encyclical on climate change, a cause which globalists view as a major pretext for world government.

And Catholicism has experienced its own “social action” movement – comparable to the tactics of Harry F. Ward – as in the doctrine of liberation theology, which was seen especially in Latin America beginning in the 1950s and 60s, where the Gospel took a back seat to fighting poverty and social injustice via Marxist precepts.

Unity and Discernment

Unity is a complex matter. The Apostle Paul did say to be “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3) and “to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus” (Romans 15:5).

Furthermore, we know that a satanic strategy is to “divide and conquer.” At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin famously warned his peers that “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

So has Satan’s goal been to unite the church or divide it? It appears that he has employed both strategies, but that essentially division was the first phase and ecumenism the second.

Intelligence analysts have cogently argued that:

• The Illuminati were behind nearly every major split in the Christian church – beginning with the Catholic-Orthodox division of 1054.
• Illuminati infiltrators in the Catholic Church spawned the Inquisition to deliberately alienate Christians from their faith.
• This infiltration was also responsible for the 16th-century Papal corruptions – such as selling indulgences and squandering the church budget – that resulted in the Protestant split. Martin Luther, while himself a sincere reformer, was encouraged by Illuminati seeking church division.
• The Protestant church was in turn infiltrated to split it into smaller and smaller denominations, ostensibly over doctrinal issues – some less essential to the Gospel than others. Unquestionably, many of those who argued for division were sincere in their beliefs, and truths can probably be found on both sides of most doctrinal rifts. But Satan held the long view: divide to conquer.

As part of its strategy to fragmentize Christianity, the cartel was also reportedly behind the formation of major cults – including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism. (I mention this while having great respect for the morality and sincerity of many of the followers of these two sects.) Jehovah’s Witnesses deny Christ’s divinity, His physical resurrection, and the existence of hell. Mormons believe in multiple gods, that Jesus is a created being – Lucifer’s brother – and treat the Book of Mormon as holy scripture, equal or even senior to the Bible.

Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Witnesses, and Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, were both Freemasons. Early issues of The Watchtower – the Witnesses’ official publication – bore the Freemasonic cross on their covers.

Compare the cross in this Masonic meeting hall to the one on the Watchtower.

Russell is buried next to the Greater Pittsburgh Masonic Center. A pyramid, displaying a Masonic cross, marks his grave:

(Thanks to the website http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Jehovah%20Witnesses/jw.htm which features these images.)

Masonic symbols also adorn Mormon temples. An all-seeing eye crowns the entrance to the Salt Lake City temple:

According to some researchers such as David Icke, initial funding for both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons originated with Rothschild banks. These sects did not “just happen,” but were created to confuse and splinter the Christian church.

From the perspective of the twenty-first century, it appears that the strategy of division has now essentially completed its season. With the church successfully fragmented, and disoriented by Modernism, it appears nearly ripe for the Illuminati’s final phase: ecumenism – the uniting of all Christian denominations, in turn to be merged with other faiths, to create a one-world religion over whom Antichrist can rule.

However, this does not mean churches should never stand together. For example, if several local pastors, from different denominations, wish to engage in a joint protest against abortion, nothing is inherently wrong with this. Discernment is called for. Is unity for the purpose of serving God – or of serving Satan’s ecumenical goal? Examine the hearts and motives of those calling for unity. And follow the money: efforts tied to Rockefeller-Murdoch-Warren-Blair initiatives should be absolutely avoided.

Part 2 of this post will address an equally pernicious and even more controversial step in the war on Christianity: infiltration and subversion of the Fundamentalist/evangelical churches themselves, especially through the introduction of Christian Zionism.

NOTES

1. “One World Is Coming Says Arnold Toynbee,” The Milwaukee Journal, May 2, 1964, 10.

2. John Foster Dulles, “The Problem of Peace in a Dynamic World,” Religion in Life, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring 1937): 197, as quoted in Alan Stang, The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State 1953 to 1959 (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1968), 98.

3. “Walter Rauschenbush,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Rauschenbusch.

4. Ronald J. Lawrence, The Marxist Goliath Among Us: The David We Need to Be (Xulon Press, 2010), 319.

5. LeRoy F. Smith and E. B. Johns, Pastors, Politicians, Pacifists (Chicago: The Constructive Educational Publishing Co., 1927), 95, quoted in Alan Stang, The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State 1953 to 1959 (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1968), 48-49.

6. “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_Controversy.

7. At the time of publication of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior (2013), this quote appeared in “Message from Tony Blair” at http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundationus.org/page/message-tony-blair. The quote has since been removed.

8. Malcolm Gladwell, “The Cellular Church,” The New Yorker, September 12, 2005, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/09/12/the-cellular-church.

9. David Van Biema, “Rick Warren Goes Global,” Time, May 27, 2008, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1809833,00.html.

10. Warren is no longer listed on Blair’s site, but the quote can still be found abundantly on the Internet.

NOTE: While researching The War on Christianity, Part 2, I felt we needed to switch to something fun. I thank the many creators of these memes and videos. (All videos are linked directly from YouTube. It is not always possible to identify the creators of memes, many of which crop up uncredited on social media. Most of the ones with voice balloons are my own. If anyone wants credit for a meme they designed, or removal of content they created, email me via this site’s contact form.) I especially want to acknowledge David Dees, the Norman Rockwell of the Truth Movement. Please visit his site and support his work. Finally, I acknowledge that what is funny to some is not necessarily funny to others, but I hope most readers will find things here they enjoy.

We Truthers are supposed to be paranoid, but as this meme explains . . .

OK, admittedly, Truthers can come on a little too strong sometimes, which as Joy Camp points out, can lead to social strain in our lives:

But the Truth Movement stands on solid ground. It was essentially launched after the government’s official explanation of 9/11 collapsed.

That “official story” has been concisely summarized by James Corbett:

No, you just can’t get away from those pesky 9/11 realities:

It soon became clear that 9/11 was only one of many false flags. Now in case you’re wondering what a false flag is (wish I’d had this teacher in high school) . . .

These false flags have patterns:

Besides drills (which go “live” once it becomes clear that the false flag can be successfully carried out; otherwise they can remain drills), there were the IDs of terrorists at Charlie Hebdo and Paris conveniently left for police to find, just like on 9/11. Today, not even BABIES are fooled by this false-flag cliché:

Of course, we all know whose passport was really found intact near the World Trade Center (just kidding):

And just like Syria Danny, we discover the same crisis actors being employed:

Betsy McGee seems to have caught on to “Super Witness” Steve Silva:

Use of counterfeit witnesses shouldn’t surprise us, since it’s becoming widely acknowledged that the FBI contrives most of the terror plots it claims to prevent.

Wag the Dog (1997) had already dramatized how Hollywood cooperates with the government to create artificial news crises:

Of course, when confronted with this revelation, many people have a standard response:

To get past these two misconceptions, one must step outside the box and recognize that, in reality, our geopolitical world is ruled by a Luciferian oligarchy, which has been documented by many resources, of which Truth Is a Lonely Warrior is but one.

To get a feel for the level of control, watch the prime ministers of Australia and Canada make identical speeches calling for war in Iraq (not funny, but fascinating):

This oligarchy, long centered at the wealth of the Rothschild banking dynasty, is worldwide. Brits are waking up to it:

The oligarchy also runs America. Don’t believe it? Watch this 12-minute excerpt from an interview with the late Aaron Russo, Hollywood producer of such films as Trading Places and Wise Guys:

Yes, Americans are waking up too.

But don’t we get to vote? I never discourage people from voting, especially in local elections, but this comedy clip captures the illusion of national democracy:

The oligarchy rules both parties:

 . . . making a mockery of “choice”. .

 . . . with the reality that . . .

 Presidents and prime ministers are pre-selected by the oligarchy:

In exchange for obedience, these politicians receive fame, power and other perks like Nobel Prizes (which sometimes cheapens the perk’s value):

With Obama, they even gave us a President who took years to produce a Photoshopped birth certificate, and wasn’t even who they said he was . . .

. . . nor went to the school they claimed:

Even political speech venues use crisis actors, as the incomparable Redsilverj has exposed for Obama and Hillary:

And with the advent of electronic voting machines, which may be programmed to fix an election, the Establishment can be absolutely sure they get their candidate of choice, as Onion News parodied before the 2008 elections:

So why doesn’t mainstream media tells us what’s really going on? Since 90 percent of all American media is owned by just six corporations, the oligarchy that controls the government also controls the news. The “CNN vs Fox” paradigm is as phony as the “Democrat vs Republican” paradigm.

They’re counting on us to be gullible:

We need a BS detector . . .

 . . . until we can instinctively detect it:

 (And if you’re putting faith in Wikipedia, you might like to watch Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s 10-minute talk.)

Then we can step outside the box . . .

. . . and start to learn about the oligarchy’s other intrigues, such as the Federal Reserve, a legalized counterfeiting scheme which has created trillions of dollars from thin air, destroying 98 percent of the dollar’s value since its founding 102 years ago:

The money ends up in the hands of banks and multinational corporations—NOT you.

Here’s Janet Yellen and her Federal Reserve Board (OK, it’s not Yellen, but the meme encapsulates the reality):

Ron Paul tried to rein in the Fed, but of course, mainstream news neglected to report that. Nor did they tell you about Alan Grayson, one of the few congressmen who could make Ben Bernanke squirm:

Of course, you realize why the Post Office had to cancel its series of stamps portraying Federal Reserve chairmen—people were confused about which side to spit on.

And do you know how many Federal Reserve Board members it takes to screw in a lightbulb? NONE. They just stand still and screw the whole world around them.

The old axiom holds:

Nor does Mainstream Media remind us that in 2001, according to General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon already had a plan to make wars on seven countries, including Iraq, Libya and Syria. And thus we have had endless Middle East wars, each of which required a pretext. That’s why we had Bush saying:

The latest war, on Syria, is being waged for up to eight reasons, but is perhaps best summed by this meme:

Yes, Obama did fund the Syrian rebels we now call ISIS (remember how he wanted to bomb Assad in 2013 over phony allegations that Assad used sarin gas on his own people?). And anyone who wonders about the current refugee crisis, and its potential to create ISIS threats in Europe and America, should recognize that Obama and his NATO allies have generated this crisis through the insane policy of never-ending wars destabilizing the Middle East.

And since the DHS has been quietly bringing 100,000 Muslims into the U.S. each year, who would REALLY be at fault for a domestic ISIS attack?

And let’s not forget . . .

The answer to Columbo’s question, of course, is America’s allies Turkey and Israel.

Yes, while American Social Security recipients have been told they will get no cost-of-living adjustment in 2016, due largely to our grossly understated rate of inflation, military aid to Israel is expected to increase to $5 billion annually.

After all, since Israel only has 4,000 tanks and 10,000 armored fighting vehicles, it desperately needs more against the rock-throwing Palestinians. . .

. . . whose land it has been progressively stealing since 1946:

How would, say, the British feel about the same situation?

As a matter of fact, the BBC asked that very question:

Further acquiescing to Israel’s plan to expand into “Greater Israel” by destabilizing the Middle East . . .

. . . could, of course, lead to World War III. But since America doesn’t have the money to fight a world war, The Second City launched a campaign to help fund it in the nick of time:

When World War III didn’t happen as soon as hoped for, Second City produced an update to reassure disappointed donors:

One event that recently threw a monkey wrench into the whole Middle East destabilization process was the arrival of Vladimir Putin’s Russian forces, causing considerable outrage amongst NATO leaders:

Yet Russia’s air force apparently did more damage to ISIS in its first week than the U.S. air force had done in one year, suggesting that Obama’s original motives for Syrian intervention had never changed.

Yes, Putin, is making Obama look pretty bad:

In the fight against ISIS, other NATO leaders, like France’s Hollande, don’t look very convincing compared to Putin either:

Now I realize that some say Putin is a war-monger . . .

However, his image is a lot better in Russia than Obama’s is at home:

The Powers that Be have an agenda that goes beyond profits and the Middle East. After 9/11, President Bush told us the perpetrators had done it because “They hate our freedoms.” But Americans are asking:

After all, nothing has reduced our liberties more than the Patriot Act:

Some may have been fooled . . .

(Credit: Robert Mankoff, The New Yorker, 1-21-2002)

. . . but many are NOT:

It’s increasingly clear that the greatest threat to the Bill of Rights is coming from the government itself (picture credit Dees):

With ever-widening definitions of the word “terrorist” . . .

. . . many fear that we’ll be on the run ourselves . . .

. . to avoid being sent to FEMA camps:

The main thing that has been holding back this development is gun ownership, which is why we are suddenly seeing so many false-flag shooting events:

These are intended to create GUN CONTROL:

Of course, gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

Gun control didn’t work out so well for Native Americans:

There’s simply no reason to punish millions of law-abiding citizens over the crimes of a handful:

The fact is: terrorist groups like ISIS don’t register their guns . . .

. . . so the only result of gun control would be DEFENSELESS AMERICANS:

In fact, lawful gun ownership is a DETERRENT to crime. . .

. . . because as this meme aptly puts it, there are . . .

Perhaps this Glock commercial says it best:

But the oligarchy’s agenda has yet other items. To control the population, they want it dumbed down through politically correct “education” . . .

. . . and our minds numbed by Big Pharma drugs.

Even worse than population control, they want population reduction, to be achieved through many means, such as genetically modified foods . . .

. . . and through deadly vaccines . . .

. . . which are encouraged with “free” and “special offer” . . .

. . . and which, thanks to draconian laws, are increasingly mandatory . . .

. . . mandatory even for the childhood infections which most of us older folks long ago went through and knew were relatively harmless, as these old TV clips on measles remind us:

Heavy-duty population control advocate Bill Gates, who is donating over $10 billion to vaccine development, let it slip during a talk that vaccines will reduce population.

And then there’s wi-fi radiation . . .

. . .and chemtrails and geoengineering . . .

Of course, if we absorb too much negative information, we can end up feeling like the guy in Joy Camp’s Dial P for Paranoia:

Nevertheless, we keep our hopes high that enough people will awaken, and the global elite will finally face justice:

MEME CAPTIONED “I HAVE A DREAM”:

MEME CAPTIONED “IT’S A LOVELY DAY FOR A WALK”:

And if justice doesn’t occur in this life, there is justice in the life to come.

Speaking of the life to come, I’d like to close, not on note of satire, resentment or even information, but on a note of love. The following picture, recently somewhat viral on social media, was of a dying elderly woman whose cat was allowed to visit her in the hospital during her last days on Earth:

Let’s keep fighting for freedom and justice, but let’s keep laughing and loving as well. For all of you who celebrate Christmas, I wish you a safe and blessed holiday.

James Perloff

Those who say what I’m about to say have been widely labeled “trolls.” Therefore I’d like to mention my alternative-media background. In 1985 I wrote my first article for The New American, for whom I subsequently wrote many pieces, e.g., cover stories on the Pearl Harbor cover-up in 1986 (and again in 2001) and the Kennedy assassination in 1988. My The Shadows of Power is a long-standing best-seller. Beginning in the late 90’s I wrote two books debunking Darwinism, about which I’ve lectured widely. My latest book is Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, and I wrote the script for Free Mind Films’ new documentary ShadowRing, narrated by Hollywood’s Kevin Sorbo. I was the leadoff speaker for the 2015 New York City LibertyFest, emceed by Adam Kokesh. On this (post-cancer rebuilt) website, you’ll find wide-ranging articles. I believe I’m the only revisionist to explore the Spanish-American War or 1775 Battle of Lexington in depth.

In all those years, I’ve never written a negative article about someone else in alternative media. Doing so can play into the PTB’s “divide and conquer” strategy. However, today I’m making an exception.

When Rebekah Roth’s Methodical Illusion appeared a year ago, I rejoiced. A flight attendant joining the Truth Movement! I heard her impressively interviewed on the Hagmann and Hagmann Report. I personally commended her for her book (to which she cordially replied), gave it a 5-star Amazon review, linked to her from this website, and recommended her to radio hosts I knew.

I was therefore surprised in August to receive an unpleasant email from Roth, directed against myself. Since the email was private, I kept my reply, factually debunking her allegations, private also. However, I resolved that if she took her accusations public, I would also go public, so people could see precisely what had been said, and decide the matter for themselves. I did not hear back from her.

I did, however, do something I’d never done with anyone before: removed Roth from this website’s “links” page. Incidentally, Roth’s website links to nobody.

I’d almost forgotten the episode until a couple of weeks ago, when a Truther friend sent me a video of Jim Fetzer interviewing Allan Powell about Roth. A major focus: the uncanny resemblance between Roth’s voice and that of a “Moniker Gainor,” who pitches doTERRA essential oils on a show called “pHix Your Health.” My friend had begun listening in the middle of the Fetzer interview, thought she was hearing a clip of Roth, and was stunned to learn it was “Gainor.” I suggest starting around the 13-minute mark, and decide for yourself:

Also, the voice of Michael Harris, the “pHix Your Health” man introducing Gainor, markedly resembles Roth’s radio co-host, “RamJet.”

For those who consider the similarities coincidental, turn to the “acknowledgements” at the back of Methodical Illusion. Among the three there, Roth includes “the pHix Your Health Team.” Methodical Illusion also works in doTERRA (page 15).

I must interject: Products do require marketing, and I highly approve naturopathic remedies, including essential oils. But “pHix your Health” looks money-centered. Their YouTube channel hosts videos like “Understanding doTERRA Compensation” (subtitled “This video will help you to understand the bonuses and many ways you can make money with doTERRA”); “How to Enroll a New Wellness Advocate”; “The Fast Start Bonus with doTERRA“; and “Loyalty Reward Program.” Fetzer and Powell also note the rather extreme claims made for this oil brand’s healing powers, ranging from asthma to autism; or as Powell puts it, “sounds like Jesus in a bottle.”

More importantly: If, as they contend, Roth doubles as “Monika Gainor,” credibility issues arise. Here’s how Roth’s book introduces her: “I enjoyed a nearly thirty year career working as both a flight attendant and an international purser. I was trained as an emergency medical technician and served as a volunteer firefighter.” Here’s Michael Harris introducing “Gainor” (condensed for brevity): “Let me share with you a little about Monika. . . She has studied or been involved in natural healing methodologies for nearly thirty years. She’s studied under a Hawaiian Kahuna in the art of huna healing . . . she’s a lomilomi massage technique master, and as a result of that she’s had very many well-known NBA players that have been her clients. . . she’s a reiki master, she’s studied biochemistry and organic chemistry in college. . . she has the ability to . . . intuitively know what a body needs in order to regain its health.”

I’m not suggesting “Rebekah Roth” couldn’t simultaneously maintain two careers. Many people, myself included, have done that. But the achieved masteries claimed for Gainor sound rather extensive for a career flight attendant. And personally, if I had “very many well-known NBA players” as clients, I doubt that I’d need a second job.

Being a Bostonian, I’ll observe that “Monika” is the Boston-accent version of the word “moniker,” meaning “name” or “alias.” And “Gainor,” carrying its own implications, is much more typically spelled “Gaynor,” as with the actress Mitzi Gaynor. If “Roth” is only, as she says, devoted to “truth,” why market products under a false name? Some may say “She has to protect her identity so the CIA won’t bump her off.” OK, maybe can that could fly for 9/11, but for essential oils? (Incidentally, a pen name won’t bamboozle modern surveillance agencies like the CIA or NSA.)

Some say the rarely-photographed Roth wears glasses and somewhat frumpy hairstyle (or wig?) for a safety disguise. But does Methodical Illusion really contain assassination bait? It’s a novel mostly without real names (like Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld). In the end, the hero is the POTUS himself—a Speaker-of-the-House-turned-President-by-default. Methodical Illusion’s faith in the U.S. government’s self-correcting capacity hardly seems like something that would put you in CIA cross hairs (though I’ve heard her sharply condemn the government on radio).

According to Fetzer, when Dennis Cimino, a former Navy electronics trouble-shooter, interviewed Roth, Cimino noticed Roth’s call traced to Langley, VA—home of CIA headquarters.

Methodical Illusion consumes some 160 fiction pages before really addressing 9/11. When it does, much of it retreads work of others. Pages 209-212 contain a thinly disguised rephrasing of James Corbett’s video 9/11—The Truth in Five Minutes. Certainly, Roth offers special flight-attendant insights that are fresh. She has noted, for example, that cockpits had pilot axes that box cutters would have been no match for. She also has a completely unique take on the planes’ fates.

However, she’s definitely not the first flight-professional Truther. Pilots for 9/11 Truth (founded 2006) has an extensive membership list, maintains a website with several videos debunking the official 9/11 story, and numerous threads with theories. Its members give real names. I don’t know why anyone would accord them less precedence than Roth.

I do not concur with the suggestion that Roth was never a flight attendant. She is too well-versed in that profession, and a fake would easily risk exposure on radio. Nevertheless, over recent days, several Truthers besides Fetzer and Powell have noticed a “Dark Side.” Although Roth has cried “trolls,” that label is wearing thin.

On December 23, radio host Pete Santilli announced he is removing his interview with Roth from his archives due to too many unanswered questions about her. Santilli says he has never done this with any other guest:

On December 25, Truth Frequency Radio’s founder Chris Geo, whose integrity I have the highest respect for, enumerated in “Rebekah Roth Unwigged” why he’s glad Roth’s brief stint on TFR ended:

Roth moved to TalkNetwork.com, but that network has now announced: “The Rebekah Roth Show is no longer carried by TalkNetwork.com. We wish Rebekah (or whatever her real name is) the greatest success somewhere else.”

On December 29, Natural News renounced Roth as a “possible government plant.” Said Mike Adams: “Observing her behavior, we came to find that she’s an expert in infiltration and provocateur-type operations, getting groups of people to turn on each other and causing chaos inside the truth movement.” See http://www.naturalnews.com/052458_Rebekah_Roth_fake_identity_agent_provocateur.html.

A leader in exposing Roth is Kurt Haskell, famed as attorney-turned-Truther after personally witnessing the “Underwear Bomber” fiasco. He now lives in Costa Rica, hosting a show called Real Investigations. Haskell goes into depth about “Roth,” her various aliases and background. See, e.g., his December 25 page.

News kept breaking while writing this article. On December 26, Roth uploaded a video defending herself against the “trolls,” saying she is really Koreann Ashlie (a name already identified by Haskell), and supplying documentation of her flight-attendant career (though not the long-requested photo of her in uniform). I will not embed the video here, but the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiD9BstIbNc.

Haskell responded in a December 27 interview (which experienced considerable electronic interference), stating Koreann Ashlie is still not her true name:

So is “Roth” a Truther? Ambitious promoter? Intelligence asset? One thing I’ve always liked about Roth: her identifying Israel as the number-one force behind 9/11. That’s spot-on (see https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it). But some of the above commentators believe Roth was conceivably “set up to fail”; that it was too easy discovering “Gainor,” possibly so the Truth Movement, or something about it, could get “discredited” along with the author.

I don’t know the answer, but I do believe Truthers should at least be aware that this controversy exists.

Update, January 5. From time to time, I may update this post.

During the Cold War (and other wars), an occasionally used tactic was to send a fake defector to the other side to plant false information. However, there was a very important corollary to this strategy. To be accepted, the fake defector would need to bring some true information. If everything they brought was false, they would be quickly shown the exit (or firing squad). So they would provide maybe five pieces of good information along with the all-important bogus item, so the latter would be presumed genuine.

Thus, for example, a fake KGB defector, sent West to plant disinfo, might disclose the names of some Soviet spies—people who genuinely worked for the KGB, but who’d outlived their usefulness, and whom the Kremlin didn’t mind sacrificing in order to accomplish a greater objective.

On January 2, the day I published this article, I received a call from Chris Emery, producer at Free Mind Films. He and I had worked together on ShadowRing. Chris said he enjoyed the article and that, like me, he had originally admired Rebekah Roth’s work. He told me that in January 2015, he had a phone chat with Roth. According to Chris, he asked Roth three times during the conversation which airline she had worked for, and each time she changed the subject. So Chris’s experience was quite similar to those of others (described in some of the videos embedded above).

“You know, Chris,” I said, “it’s really strange. Why would she mind simply saying which airline she worked for? It’s not like they could have fired her for writing a book about 9/11, because according to her, she had retired from the industry years earlier.”

Some think Roth long refused to name the airline because she was never a flight attendant. But I wonder if, just possibly, she was more sensitive about which airline. Roth finally said in her in December 26 video that she worked for Northwest. But according to Kurt Haskell (last embedded video above, 21:20 mark), he found a 9/11 obituary page for some of the victims, and Roth, under another name, had left a comment saying she had worked for American Airlines. American, of course, played a very significant role on 9/11. It was AA Flight 11 that allegedly struck the first tower, and AA 77 the Pentagon.

As Chris and I continued talking, our conversation turned to the article I published in August on Flight 11, because it contained information that overlaps another topic which especially interests Chris, the Oklahoma City bombing. Chris is quite an expert on the latter, having been a producer of A Noble Lie; his Corbett Report interview is the best I’ve heard on Timothy McVeigh.

I reminded Chris that on 9/11, American Airlines’ head of security had been Larry Wansley, former deep undercover FBI agent. And according to Wansley, after he learned of the hijackings, he phoned his friend Danny Defenbaugh, special agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office (AA was headquartered in Dallas). Defenbaugh had also been in charge of the FBI’s OKC bombing investigation. Supposedly, this call from Wansley was the first moment the FBI knew of the hijackings. But if you read my article, that claim is controversial. According to the AA reservationist who took the call from Flight 11 flight attendant Betty Oong, she was pulled off the phone by FBI agents about a half-hour before Wansley said he notified Defenbaugh.

During our phone conversation, Chris (who used to reside in that region) mentioned that Defenbaugh lived, or had lived, on an estate in Grapevine, Texas. “Grapevine, Texas?” I said. “That’s quite a coincidence, because I just heard that name.” It was at the bottom of Kurt Haskell’s Facebook post on Rebekah Roth. Kurt had said not to confuse Rebekah with a lady in Grapevine, TX, but gave Roth’s location as a town practically next to Grapevine. What were the probabilities of Roth living so close to Defenbaugh, the FBI’s point man for both OKC and 9/11?

A thought then crossed my mind. What if there was some sort of connection between Roth and the American Airlines-Wansley-Defenbaugh nexus? Could that account for her chronic unwillingness to disclose which airline she worked for?

I’m not making any affirmations here. There is no proof of a connection whatsoever. Only coincidences. In fact, according to Kurt Haskell’s research, Roth appears to have been living in the state of Washington at the time of 9/11.

On another note, I received an email from someone suggesting that in challenging Roth, the Truth Movement is being cleverly manipulated by the Powers That Be—that articles such as this are precisely what they want. I leave the door open to that possibility too. My investigation of the Lindbergh Kidnapping a few years ago taught me just how complicated the truth can sometimes be.

Update, January 8. Kurt Haskell has now brought his show Real Investigations to YouTube. On January 7, he uploaded “Episode 13: Final Report on Rebekah Roth.” It makes some corrections to his earlier findings and also provides some new information. I will not embed the show here, as it is broken into 4 rather short segments. The link to the first one is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO9izl4GPNI. Hopefully this will pretty much close the subject.

They say if you want to boil a frog, you can’t just toss him in boiling water. Instead, you put him in lukewarm water, and gradually turn up the heat. That way, the frog never realizes he’s been boiled. The Powers That Be (PTB) have exercised the “frog” axiom throughout history.

• Take income tax. Though now an accepted way of life, income tax wasn’t always around. The original U.S. Constitution excluded it; in 1895 the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

Therefore the only way the PTB could establish income tax was by legalizing it through a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment was introduced in Congress by Senator Nelson Aldrich, who also introduced the original legislation which ultimately became the Federal Reserve Act. He was David Rockefeller’s maternal grandfather.

Why did Americans accept income tax? Because it was initially only one percent of a person’s income for salaries under $20,000 (the equivalent of around $500,000 in today’s dollars). Senator Aldrich and other supporters of the tax gave assurances it would never go up. So patriotic Americans said: “If Uncle Sam needs one percent of my salary, and I can always keep the rest, it’s OK by me!”

But you know what happened. Congress later dolefully informed Americans it needed to raise taxes a smidge. A few smidges later and, depending on bracket, typical working Americans lose 15, 25, 28 or 33 percent of their income to federal tax. Income tax would never have passed had Americans known it would reach these levels. So the PTB boiled the frog: start low, gradually increase heat.

(Picture credit unknown)

• Another example: Television. The 1950s saw what was called “the Golden Age of Television.” Every program was a family show. By design, there was no sex, gore, or foul language. If there had been, hardly anyone would have purchased a TV back then. So the programs were loaded with traditional values. Someone would say, “Hey, Joe, I just bought a TV and it’s great! My children are learning the importance of honesty, patriotism, and obeying parents!” His friend would respond, “Gee, if that’s what TV’s like, I’m buying one for my kids too!” Then, around 1963, television approached saturation—over 90 percent of American homes had one. Programming then began to change, gradually modified year-by-year, until now you’ve got R-rated stuff: sex, gross violence, bizarre occult horror, foul language, “politically correct” propaganda. The frog—TV audience—was boiled.

• Another example: world government. After the League of Nations failed, the same banksters arranged the United Nations. The Korean War was little more than an effort to validate the UN as the world’s peacekeeper. However, when sovereignty-minded Americans resisted further direct empowerment of the UN, the strategy was changed, as outlined in an article in Foreign Affairs (journal of the Council on Foreign Relations) by Richard N. Gardner. He explained that “instant world government” was unrealistic. Instead, “the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. . . . An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”¹

So world government was to be frog-boiled—instituted in pieces, such as international trade agreements like GATT, financial structures like the IMF, environmental measures like the Kyoto Protocol. The “Common Market to EU” and “NAFTA to North American Union” conversions are part of this “piece by piece” strategy. As Zbigniew Brzezinski famously put it: “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. . . . The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”

• In fact, “boil the fog” epitomizes the entire CFR strategy. It was enunciated by Elihu Root (using a bricklaying metaphor instead of boiling) at the 1930 ceremony opening the CFR’s new headquarters:

I take a special satisfaction in the opening of this house. The laying of one brick doesn’t create any very great disturbance, but without it, how would you have your house? I think the first thing that impresses me as an immediate lesson from the establishment of this building and the centering of the work of the Council on Foreign Relations here, is that it indicates an appreciation of a truth very widely neglected, and that is that the work of improving the foreign relations of civilized man is necessarily very slow and laborious and difficult, and that anyone who is going to contribute materially to it must settle down to steady, continuous and unspectacular labor.²

How does all this relate to gun control? Obama, and the PTB that tell him what to do, know they cannot destroy the Second Amendment overnight. It must be done incrementally, boiling the frog. So Obama is giving executive orders to ban guns for people on “terrorist watch lists” and the “mentally impaired.” To rephrase that, he doesn’t want all our guns, just one percent. Now where’d we hear that before? Oh, yes, income tax.

Let’s see how the frog would eventually boil in practice. Some Americans may think: “Terrorist watch list. Oh, they’re talking about ISIS. And since I’m not an ISIS member, that won’t affect me.”

Not so fast. “Terrorist” is loosely defined in Orwellian Newspeak. Two months after 9/11, Anna Quindlen published a Newsweek column entitled “The Terrorists Here at Home.” She was referring to the pro-life movement, characterizing it as ultraviolent. Interplaying images of pro-lifers and 9/11 attackers, Quindlen wrote: “There’s no real ideological difference between these people and the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center. One of the leaders of Operation Rescue once sent his followers a letter that concluded ‘Return to the training so that God may use you.’ Sound familiar?”³

Comparing 9/11 to the pro-life movement was quite a stretch. Thousands died in a single day at the World Trade Center. By contrast, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, a total of seven people had been killed working at abortion clinics. Yet Quindlen attempted to broad-brush the entire movement as “terrorists” based on the acts of a handful of extremists.

Americans are quick to accept restrictions on freedom when they think America is under attack by foreigners like Al Qaida and ISIS; they are far more reluctant when the disturbance is domestic. Thus, after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing—blamed on Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols—failed to produce Homeland Security, the terror level was upgraded to 9/11 and blame shifted to foreign terrorists. Homeland Security and the Patriot Act were then easily enacted.

Trampling of civil liberties grew steadily under these measures, but in March 2013, two significant events occurred that revealed Americans were rebelling. One was Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster protesting the domestic use of drone strikes against Americans suspected of terrorism; a Gallup Poll showed Americans overwhelmingly supported Paul. The second event that month was public outcry over reports that the DHS was planning to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (enough to kill every American five times over) as well as over 2,700 armored vehicles. March 2013 was a watershed month during which Americans said: “Enough! What’s going on? This can’t be just about fighting terrorism!” After all, no significant “Islamic” event had occurred on our soil in the 12 years since 9/11.

So the following month—April 2013—came the Boston Marathon bombing, and quickly came the announcement: the perpetrators were Islamic terrorists. Objections to the Patriot Act were back-burnered. What had worked on 9/11 would work again. Patriotic Americans could be counted on to “rally round the flag” if they believed America was again under foreign attack.

The success was so great that it was evidently decided Americans needed a permanent Islamic threat to keep them in fear: ISIS, created by the West, complete with staged “Jihadi John” beheading videos.

The recent ISIS-blamed San Bernardino incident is being used as the most immediate excuse for Obama’s unconstitutional gun measures. For one of many debunkings of this incident, click here, but among the most egregious anomalies were the failure of law enforcement and mainstream media to follow up on eyewitness accounts that three white males in military dress did the shooting, and that Syed Farook, one of the publicly blamed perpetrators (who are dead and cannot speak for themselves) was photographed lying face down, dead, his arms handcuffs behind his back.

This raises the question: Was he handcuffed before or after being shot? If he was handcuffed first, then shot dead while in custody, law enforcers committed murder. But why would you handcuff a man after he was mortally wounded, lying in a pool of blood?

What might make more sense is that Farook and his wife were patsies who were abducted, handcuffed, then shot to death and dumped in the street. However, the black ops carrying out the mission, in their haste, forgot to remove the cuffs.

Whether things played out that way or not, San Bernardino is the event Obama is most exploiting to ramp up gun control. Let’s examine why his actions are illegal.

When Obama became President, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress may make laws. Article 1, Section 1 says: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The Constitution grants the President no authority to make laws, only authority to enforce the laws Congress passes. Many believe Obama’s tears during his January 5 gun-control remarks were faked, using an emotional appeal to sucker the public into granting him illegal power.

One of Obama’s controversial measures enables health-care providers to report people with“mental health” problems to the FBI. While this might sound benevolent at first glance, “mental disturbance” can be highly subjective. The old Soviet Union used “insanity” as a pretext to incarcerate dissidents. Suppose you told your doctor that you didn’t trust the government, and he reported you as “paranoid” to the FBI? Might your guns be confiscated?

Another Obama gun measure targets Social Security recipients. The White House says it would restrict those “who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.” But how long would it take to boil the frog, and threaten all Social Security retirees with having benefits withheld unless they forfeited their guns? (“Disarm or starve.”) The government could easily justify this on the pretext that the elderly cannot be trusted with firearms. (In reality the elderly often need them most—a gun can be the only “equalizer” a 75-year-old has against a 25-year-old intruder.)

If Obama is allowed to get away with his unconstitutional measures, I expect we would next see another “San Bernardino.” But this time ISIS would not be blamed—Obama having gotten his foot in the door with “watch lists,” the fall guy would become a domestic group, whomever the government wanted classified as its “terrorist du jour.” A militia group? Oath Keepers? Pro-lifers? A 9/11 Truth group? Let’s say, just for example, it was blamed on the truther organizaton We Are Change. All We Are Change members might then go on a “watch list” and be forbidden to own firearms. OK, who’s next? Boil that frog.

One other booby trap lies in allowing Obama’s “executive orders” to override the Second Amendment. Once he tramples on that one, he establishes a precedent for overriding any provision in the Bill of Rights. What would the hit list target next? The right to a jury trial? To peaceably assemble? How about freedom of speech?

“Since this most recent shooting tragedy was provoked by irresponsible hate speech on the Internet, and Congress has failed to take any action, I am hereby creating a new set of measures which will eliminate certain types of content on the Internet. But don’t worry—I’m not revoking ALL speech, just that ONE PERCENT . . .”

(Picture credit: David Dees)

They say “always leave them laughing.” I hope these gun-themed memes and short videos will help do that:

NOTES

1. Richard N. Gardner, “The Hard Road to World Order,” Foreign Affairs (April 1974), 558.
2. Elihu Root, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs (January 1931), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1931-01-01/public-opinion-and-foreign-policy.
3. Anna Quindlen, “The Terrorists Here at Home,” Newsweek (December 17, 2001).

It has been my personal belief for some time that the oligarchy that runs America has opted for Hillary Clinton as the next U.S. President. One clue to this was, after her stint as Secretary of State (which gave her an important “foreign policy expertise” credential), CBS began running the series Madame Secretary, which was clearly designed to portray her in a flattering light on a weekly basis. Another hint was Hillary’s previous term as U.S. Senator representing New York (giving her an important “can work with Congress” credential). Prior to that, Hillary had never been a New York resident, but that state has long been used as a launching pad for Presidential candidates.

Though they have some “acceptable” qualities, Sanders is too anti-banker to suit the Rothschilds, and Trump is too pro-2nd Amendment and anti-immigration. Shillary—er, I mean Hillary—is the only viable candidate who fits the Establishment agenda 100 percent: pro-gun control, pro-Israel, pro-“War on Terror,” pro-Federal Reserve, pro-GMO, pro-mass immigration, pro-population control, pro-Internet censorship, and according to some analyses she’s receiving more contributions from Wall Street than any other candidate. She’s ruthless and amoral. She will give the Rothschild banksters everything they want. The email and other scandals will likely be suppressed (just as all of Bill’s were), Sanders will be eliminated through dirty tricks (the coin flips are just a taste) and the Republicans will be deliberately splintered. And remember, if all else fails, there’s Diebold.

(Picture credit: David Dees)

(Meme credit: Mike Rivero)

I believe the best way to avert Hillary’s prearranged Presidency would be a groundswell of public opinion opposing her, so massive and obvious that not even the controlled mainstream media would dare try and sell the idea that Hillary captured the nomination, let alone the election. In that case, the Rothschild oligarchy would have to discard her and go to a “plan B,” giving us a President who would hopefully at least be less detrimental.

One of the most appealing ways to convey ideas is through humor. So rather than compose a blog post summarizing Hillary’s misdeeds and unsavoriness, let’s let the comedians carry the message.

To begin at the beginning, this picture has been labeled “Separated at Birth”:

But her husband’s Presidency is perhaps the best place to start reviewing Hillary’s political saga.

Now, of course, she’s trying to minimize that:

(Credit: Mike Rivero)

Hillary’s stint as Secretary of State could not escape this Onion News satire:

In a sendup from Steven Crowder, Hillary’s campaign manager reveals her overall strategy:

Of course, one of Hillary’s most provocative claims was that of being “dead broke” after leaving the White House. Even the very liberal CNN acknowledges that the Clintons have made $153 million in speaker fees since 2001.

Just the same, Hillary tries to relate to common folks, as Jenna Marbles shows us:

Of course, Hillary has plenty of scandals to brush aside, such as Benghazi . . .

. . . and the emails . . .

But the most damaging issue may be her personality itself:

Hillary has managed to iron out her personality kinks by doing plenty of campaign ad rehearsals, as Joanna of Above Average demonstrates:

However, she just can’t rid of the infamous “Hillary cackle,” as TruthStream Media reminds us:

Some claim Hillary is suffering brain damage, but that simply isn’t so:

The real problem isn’t her mental state. . .

Of course, I realize that Hillary’s supporters are ticked off about all the memes and videos that have been coming out, so let’s let them tell their side of the story:

And here’s a futuristic response from Hillary herself:

So before you vote, just remember:

BONUS VIDEO. Michael Armstrong brings you Hillary lying for 13 minutes straight:

BONUS MEME (Is there justice after all?):

Caption: “It’s a lovely day for a walk.”

(Credit: unknown)

My friend Rachael McIntosh was an alternate delegate at the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa, Florida, representing Ron Paul for the state of Rhode Island.

Rachael had worked for a private defense contractor for years. Awakened by the corruption and darkness she witnessed, she left the defense industry, and began working tirelessly toward getting Ron Paul elected. She has fictionalized her experiences in a superbly written trilogy of novels, Security through Absurdity.

The Tampa convention was supposed to begin on Monday, August 27. Ron Paul was originally slated to speak, but the convention was cancelled for that day due to the threat of a “hurricane.” The hurricane turned out to be no more than a brisk rainstorm. Rachael and many other Ron Paul delegates braved it that morning and went to the convention center (the Tampa Bay Times Forum, a sports complex) and saw Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus officially proclaim the delay. After the gavel had been struck and the chairman left the stage, the delegates found themselves watching a movie glorifying Mitt Romney. At the film’s conclusion, Rachael heard ear-splitting applause. But when she looked around, almost no one was cheering. The applause was “canned”—the type sports stadiums pipe in when the home team is losing and their spectators show low enthusiasm.

The next day at her hotel, Rachael’s husband called and said: “Hey, I watched it yesterday and the crowd was really diggin’ Romney.” Rachael had to break the news: what he (and the rest of America) heard on TV had been faked.

The real blow to the Ron Paul people came when the Republican National Committee made last-minute rule changes. Under the existing rules, Paul had won enough primaries and caucuses (five) to have his name placed in nomination. Under the new rules, the required number of states would be increased to eight, thus rendering Paul’s nomination impossible. Mitt Romney, who had already won sufficient delegates through dirty tricks during the primaries to become the “presumptive nominee,” would also be granted power to replace duly elected delegates with people of his own choosing.

Naturally, Paul’s delegates were anxious to vote on the rule changes. However, the convention busses showed up at their hotels late. The driver of Rachael’s bus didn’t seem to know the way to the convention center, got stuck in traffic, and took about two hours to complete the trip. By the time most of the Paul delegates reached the center, and passed through its heavy security, the vote was already over. Mitt Romney would be the Republican Convention’s “unanimous” choice.

Ron Paul was still offered a chance to make a speech, but only under two conditions: (1) that he endorse Romney; and (2) that the Republic National Committee first vet and approve the speech. Under these conditions, Paul acted on integrity and declined to speak.

A word should be added about the media in Tampa. On the convention’s last day, Rachael dressed up in funeral black and handed out cards offering condolences to America upon the loss of the democratic process. She gave one to a leading news journalist who said “I love it.” When Rachael asked if he would do a story on it, he literally replied: “It doesn’t fit the pre-scripted narrative. Sorry.”

That the media was bound to a “pre-scripted narrative” was later proven when a brawl broke out between the Romney and Paul delegates, complete with screaming, pushing and shoving, right by the entrance to the press boxes (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.). Although the brawl should have been “news,” not a single journalist emerged with a camera to record it. After all, it didn’t fit the “pre-scripted narrative”—namely, that Republicans unanimously supported Mitt Romney.

What lesson can we draw from Rachael’s experience? The same one that people have been learning the hard way for decades: that regardless of much you work for a Presidential candidate, the PTB (Powers That Be) will railroad their candidate to the top. The following quote from my 1988 book The Shadows of Power refers to the election year of 1952:

At the Republican nominating convention, “dirty tricks” abounded. The rules for selecting delegates were changed: Taft delegations from Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas were thrown out and replaced by Eisenhower supporters.¹

I.e., the same sort of tactics that Ron Paul’s supporters faced in 2012 were used at the GOP Convention 60 years earlier. I’ll add that Dwight Eisenhower had no previous affiliation with the Republican Party; the Democratic Party had tried to draft him in 1948, and President Harry Truman (Democrat) had approached him about running on the same ticket.

Above: Nixon and Eisenhower at the 1952 convention

Let’s kick it back to 1940. Seven weeks before the GOP Convention, a poll showed only three percent of Republicans favored candidate Wendell Willkie, who, prior to that year, had been a registered Democrat. But with powerful magic, Willkie got the nomination. Ten-term Congressman Usher Burdick of North Dakota said of this:

We Republicans in the west want to know if Wall Street and the international bankers control our party and can select our candidate? I believe I am serving the best interests of the Republican Party by protesting and exposing the machinations and attempts of J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers in forcing Wendell Willkie on the Republican Party. . . .There is nothing to the Willkie boom for President except the artificial public opinion being created by newspapers, magazines, and the radio. The reason back of all this is money. Money is being spent by someone, and lots of it.²

Wendell Willkie

Usher Burdick (right) in 1958 with Ezra Pound

For those who wonder if such phenomena only happen to Republicans, Bernie Sanders can already “feel the spurn.” He won New Hampshire by a landslide (60 to 38 percent) only to discover that Hillary Clinton had been awarded the majority of delegates. This is because the Democratic Party has 717 “superdelegates” who support whomever they prefer, regardless of the wishes of voters or primary results.

Go back to 1976. According to a Gallup poll, just seven months before the Democratic National Convention, less than four percent of Democratic voters favored Jimmy Carter for President. What happened? As Lawrence Shoup noted in The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.³

How did Carter acquire this media following? It began at a dinner with Republican David Rockefeller— kingmaker of the Establishment—at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York estate. Also present was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who helped Rockefeller found the internationalist Trilateral Commission, and whom Carter would later appoint National Security Adviser.

The media blitz included adulatory pieces in the New York Times, and a Wall Street Journal editorial declaring that Carter was the best Democratic candidate. Before the nominating convention, his picture appeared on the cover of Time three times, and Newsweek twice. Time’s cover artists were even instructed to make him look as much as possible like John F. Kennedy.⁴ The TV networks inundated the public with his image.

As former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater said:

David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination and the presidency. To accomplish this purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community – which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations – and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR and the Trilateral.⁵

If you want to glimpse how far back this sort of power-brokering goes, read Ferdinand Lundberg’s 1937 classic America’s Sixty Families. He related how, a century ago, the rich were scorning voters and maneuvering their own choices into nominations, whether a Democrat like Woodrow Wilson in 1912 or a Republican like Herbert Hoover in 1928.

The 2016 Race

What about this year? Who have the “PTB” anointed to become President? While I am of course not privy to their conclaves, I believe their chosen one, as I stated in my blog post of February 15, is Hillary Clinton. There are several indicators:

(1) Despite her “anti-Wall Street” rhetoric, Hillary receives by far the most donations from Wall Street of any candidate. Jeb Bush competed with her for that distinction, but since Jeb’s personality proved too lackluster to muster enough votes to stay in the race, Hillary holds the honor alone.

Above: Hillary partakes in groundbreaking ceremony for Goldman Sachs’ new headquarters in 2005.

(2) Of the viable candidates, only Hillary is committed to 100 percent of the Rothschild agenda:

• pro “War on Terror”
• pro Israel
• pro gun control
• pro GMO (Monsanto)
• pro population control (abortion, vaccines, etc.)
• pro “climate change” control
• pro mass immigration
• pro Internet censorship
• pro gay agenda
• pro TPP (she is currently backing off on this because of voter concern about jobs, but before running she said “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” and was a strong proponent of the job-destroying NAFTA and GATT agreements.)

(3) I’ll interject here that Rachael McIntosh told me she believes that in 2008, an understanding was reached concerning Obama and Clinton, both of whom were running that year. Obama would become the first black President; Hillary’s turn would arrive in due time, and she would become the first woman President. Having a black or woman in the Oval Office, of course, gives the public the illusion that they are “empowered” and that the Establishment has somehow been stymied, whereas in fact both Obama and Hillary are flunkies for the Establishment. I agree with Rachael’s assessment 100 percent.

And so it was that Obama appointed Hillary his Secretary of State, a move clearly intended to give her a “foreign policy expertise” credential for the 2016 Presidential campaign. After Clinton left the position (2013), CBS began airing (2014) its still-running drama Madam Secretary, all about a blonde woman Secretary of State. Beginning with the very first episode, in which “Madam Secretary” rescued American hostages held in Syria, viewers would receive a weekly dose of subliminal propaganda for Hillary’s campaign, portraying her as beautiful, heroic, honest and competent.

(4) Prior to being Secretary of State, Hillary served as U.S. Senator from New York. She had never lived in New York before, but the state is the center of America’s banking industry, and has been a launching point for Presidential candidates such as the Roosevelts. Serving a Senate term, of course, would also give Hillary an important “can work with Congress” credential for her Presidential run. There is considerable Internet buzz that John F. Kennedy, Jr., who had long lived in New York, was planning to run for the Senate in 2000, the same year as Clinton. The handsome son of the popular President would likely have defeated Clinton, adding interest to Kennedy’s death in a suspicious plane crash on July 16, 1999, especially in light of what has been termed the Clinton Body Count.

(5) Perhaps most importantly, the Establishment has already marked Hillary with their stamp of approval by entrusting her with two terms in the White House. Yes, Bill Clinton was President then, but if Hillary is elected, Bill will of course be returning.

Will the email or Benghazi scandals derail her Presidential bid? I doubt it. During Bill’s tenure, the Clintons were plagued by innumerable scandals besides mysterious deaths: sex charges, perjury, Whitewater, “Chinagate,” “Travelgate,” drug allegations connected with his Arkansas governorship, Hillary’s incredible cattle futures profits, etc. Yet although many pundits back then claimed these scandals would lead to impeachment, the Clintons always remained untouched by justice. So far, nothing seems to have changed. However, Hillary’s scandals do give the Establishment a blackmailer’s leash on her; i.e., if she ever steps out of line, prosecutions could suddenly materialize.

What about the other candidates currently running? All of them share some of Hillary’s positions, but none do 100 percent. Bernie Sanders is too opposed to banker bailouts to be acceptable, even though the Establishment is OK with his socialism (since, in an illusional democracy, empowering government empowers them). Cruz’s wife Heidi is a former term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a vice president at Goldman Sachs, from whom Cruz’s Senate campaign received a million-dollar loan; but his positions on matters like abortion, gun control and immigration don’t pass muster. And Donald Trump is too openly committed to immigration restriction and job preservation.

A few words should be said about front-runner Trump. Many patriots, and many in alternative media, view Trump as “anti-Establishment.”

As Alex Noble notes, Trump supported Hillary’s Senate campaign in 2000, Obama’s Presidential campaign in 2008, has donated over $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, has switched parties at least five times, and in the past supported abortion, gun control and socialized medicine. Though its editing seems too chopped, I believe this YouTube clip still has relevance:

Enemies to the teeth? I don’t think so.

Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton

Trump is reminiscent of Willkie and Eisenhower, two non-Republicans whom the banksters quickly turned into Republican nominees. I realize that some may object that Trump is a “self-made man,” but Trump inherited his wealth from his father, which he put into enterprises such as casinos, beauty pageants, and real estate­—hardly the blood and marrow of a thriving American economy. And when Trump Entertainment went bankrupt, he had to be bailed out, evidently leaving him with IOUs, which are not always repaid on a cash basis. This point is not lost on Brother Nathanael, who was Jewish-born and raised, and is now a Christian; I regard him as one of today’s most insightful political commentators:

Here is one of Trump’s IOUs, his unique campaign commercial for Benjamin Netanyahu, made for Israeli television:

Thus, if Trump were elected, we would likely have yet another “Israel first” President, continuing the pre-planned wars of the Middle East for the sake of creating Greater Israel.

Trump is being praised for calling for an audit of the Fed, which seems to be based on the following Tweet, possibly ghost-written:

“Audit the Fed” makes a great election-year sound bite that appeals to Truthers, but I must point out: Ron Paul has been fighting the Fed for over 30 years. Where was Donald Trump all that time? One Tweet does not a crusader make.

Someone will probably say my criticisms of Trump only play into Hillary’s hands, so let me be explicit: in a Trump-Clinton showdown, Trump has my vote. Nothing would be worse than seeing the Wicked Witch of Wall Street being inaugurated next year, which ominously will be the 100th anniversary of America’s entry into World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Balfour Declaration. However, Mr. Trump should not be above scrutiny.

What is the Trump candidacy’s true meaning? I believe the Establishment is playing its old “splitter” strategy to ensure that their favorite, Hillary, occupies the White House.

The 1912 Election

A famous example of “splitter” strategy occurred in 1912. The banksters of the day (then known as the “Money Trust” —the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Rothschild, and their confederates) wanted Democrat Woodrow Wilson as the next President. Wilson had promised banker Bernard Baruch that, if elected, he would approve a central bank (Federal Reserve), approve an income tax, and “lend an ear to advice” if war broke out in Europe.⁶ Indeed, both the income tax and Federal Reserve became law in 1913 (the year Wilson took office), and six months after the Fed passed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, touching off World War I. After maneuvering the U.S. into the war, largely through the Lusitania incident, Wilson brought his plan for the League of Nations (a pseudonym for world government) to the postwar Paris Peace Conference.

Woodrow Wilson with his Wall Street handler, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House.

However, the Money Trust faced hurdles in getting Wilson elected. Prior to 1911, he had never held any public office. That year, he became governor of New Jersey with campaign backing from Cleveland Dodge of National City Bank.⁷ Still, a single year of political experience made him a tough sell as President, even with the mainstream press behind him.

This is where the “splitter” strategy emerged. The incumbent Republican President, William Howard Taft, was challenged when former Republican President, popular Teddy Roosevelt, ran on the short-lived Progressive or “Bull Moose” ticket. In the 1912 election, Republican votes were split between Taft and Roosevelt, enabling Wilson to win the Presidency with less than 42 percent of the popular vote.

Taft and Roosevelt

There was another facet to this “splitter” election that is little-remembered. Republicans had occupied the White House for 16 years. However, led by Senator Bob La Follette (who might arguably be called the Ron Paul of his day) there was a growing insurgency within the party called the Reform Movement. The Reformers sought to wrest the party’s control away from Wall Street (J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller) and believed La Follette had a genuine chance to secure a nomination in 1912. This was a major reason why the Money Trust decided to switch White House control to the Democrats, and also a factor in rolling out Roosevelt and his “Bull Moose” Party. Roosevelt whistle-stopped the nation making tongue-in-cheek speeches calling for “reform,” taking all the steam out of the movement for La Follette.⁸

“Fighting Bob” La Follette, Senator from Wisconsin.

The Splitter Strategy in 2016

The 1912 Taft-Roosevelt rift appears to have an encore shaping up this year, with the abrasive Trump perhaps comparable to the bulldoggish Roosevelt calling for reforms, while Taft might be compared to Cruz as a more routine GOP standard-bearer.

I realize Trump is being idolized because he has been overtly criticized by “Establishment” figures and media. It is reported that billionaire George Soros funded the violent protests that disrupted the Chicago Trump rally, just as he funded last year’s riots in Ferguson, Missouri. National Review, founded by William F. Buckley (CIA/CFR) as the voice of lackluster traditional conservatism, has launched a “stop Trump” campaign.

The conspicuous attacks are a sharp contrast to the approach the Establishment took against Ron Paul, which was to ignore him with the “silent treatment,” as if he didn’t exist. While loud opposition serves to give Trump an anti-Establishment halo, I wish to remind my readers that in 1913 the Money Trust barons publicly denounced the Federal Reserve Act, which they themselves had created. Why? Because once it was believed that the hated banksters opposed the act, the public enthusiastically supported it. As Gary Allen and Larry Abraham explained:

In order to support the fiction that the Federal Reserve Act was a “people’s bill,” the Insider financiers put up a smokescreen of opposition to it. It was strictly a case of Br’er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch. Both [Nelson] Aldrich and [Frank] Vanderlip denounced what was in actuality their own bill.⁹

Similarly, I doubt that the Establishment is truly interested in “stopping” Trump from becoming the GOP nominee. I believe what they want is tremendous friction and conflict within the Republican Party, so that Hillary can ride seamlessly into the White House. Trump’s own acerbic rhetoric, such as his call to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., and his reference to shooting Muslims with bullets dipped in pig’s blood, seem almost designed to drive immigrant voters into Hillary’s camp. As things look now, barring something completely unexpected, the GOP will have a very chaotic convention this summer, which pundits will compare to the 1968 Democratic Convention.

In reality, 2016 should have been an easy gig for the Republican Party. After eight years with a Democrat in the White House, the economy is in its worst shambles since the Great Depression; Americans are sick of wars, infringements on civil liberties, and “Obummercare.” What can Hillary, an Obama cabinet member who is already widely distrusted, offer but more of the same? Even if the Republicans ran their usual Establishment stooge, the mere hope of some change would have been enough to drive desperate voters into their arms. Instead, the GOP Convention is on target to become an explosion, while Hillary will enjoy unanimity at hers after Sanders is eased out.

Incidentally, I don’t look for the long-awaited dollar collapse to occur before November. An economic disaster under Obama would taint Hillary by association. The banksters can’t let that happen until Hillary’s Presidency is assured. This may also explain Obama’s “feel-good” renewal of Cuban relations, and the sudden drop-off in false-flag shooting events (knock on wood). The Establishment may want voters to sense: “Gee, maybe things aren’t so bad under Obama, and look at all the violence the Republicans are stirring up.” But after the election, all bets would be off.

In case you’re wondering which candidate Ron Paul supports this year. Answer: none.

As Rachael McIntosh points out, no candidates are talking about the Constitution (even though polls have shown that Americans fear their own government more than terrorists). With the current array of candidates, we can only hope for a “lesser evil.”

The Voting Game

Even if the GOP Convention leaves the Republicans in tatters, it is conceivable that the electorate—growing better informed thanks to alternative media and the Internet­—still might not vote in Hillary.

That is where the Establishment would play its final card: vote rigging. As Joseph Stalin said, it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes. Think it can’t happen here? Watch this testimony by computer programmer Clinton Eugene Curtis before the Ohio State Legislature:

Here Princeton professor Edward Felten demonstrates the hacking of a Diebold electronic voting machine:

This next clip is for those who would like to see a more detailed demonstration by Princeton researchers:

I think Computerphile’s remarks on electronic voting are also worth hearing:

Some months ago, David Dees, the Norman Rockwell of the Truth Movement, had already produced a graphic of what we can probably expect in November:

The best solution? Raise such overwhelming opposition to Hillary Clinton that not even the PTB would dare flip the election result through fraud.

When possible, I like to end on humor; please enjoy the following two satires on our electoral system, both uploaded onto YouTube during the 2008 election year:

NOTES

1 James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (Appleton, Wisc.: Western Islands, 1988), 103.
2. Congressional Record, June 19, 1940, Vol. 86, p. 8641.
3. “Jimmy Carter,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter.
4. Gary Allen, Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter (Seal Beach, Calif.: ‘76 Press, 1976), 139.
5. Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (New York: William Morrow, 1979), 286.
6. Curtis B. Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law (Washington, D.C.: Action Associates, 1970), 137.
7. Ferdinand Lundberg, America’s Sixty Families (New York: Citadel Press, 1937), 117.
8. Walter Karp, The Politics of War: The Story of Two Wars which Altered Forever the Political Life of the American Republic (1890-1920) (New York: Franklin Square Press, 2003), 143.
9. Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Seattle: Double A Publications, 1971), 57.

One evening in the late 1960s (I was then in high school), my father and I were watching television. The local station announced that, later that week, it would show the winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1947, Gentleman’s Agreement.

My father and I awaited the film with anticipation. After all, we equated “Best Picture” Oscars with superior entertainment—films like All about Eve, On the Waterfront, Lawrence of Arabia, and A Man for All Seasons.

To our disappointment, Gentleman’s Agreement, a two-hour sermon on the woe of American anti-Semitism, was one of the dullest films we’d ever watched. It was all dialogue, no action. No humor either. A token romance was thrown in, but it had no spark.

Here’s the plot: Gregory Peck plays a writer who moves to New York City after being hired by a magazine. The editor assigns him to write a series on anti-Semitism. In order to write from real experience, Peck pretends to be Jewish. He sends two job applications to various employers, knowing the one with the Jewish name will get rejected. He soon discovers anti-Semitism lurking under every rock—at hotels, in his secretary, his doctor, his janitor, and even his new girlfriend, played by Dorothy McGuire. Peck spends much of the film lecturing these people about their bigotry, no matter how subtly they expressed it.

(Dialog box is of course my own parody)

My father and I kept waiting for this soap opera to turn a corner and become interesting. Near the film’s end, the magazine’s staff are ecstatically leafing through Peck’s article, exclaiming things like “It’s dynamite!” At this point my father remarked: “The actors are just looking at blank pages!” We both burst out laughing. Yes, Gentleman’s Agreement was so dull that we had to provide our own comic relief to stay focused on it.

What amazed us was that this yawner had won the “Best Picture” Oscar. Mind you, we had nothing against the film’s message: that anti-Semitism is wrong. My father was Jewish himself, though non-practicing and completely assimilated into American culture. What bothered us was the flat-tire script that not even Gregory Peck or the gifted director Elia Kazan could pump life into.

Today, nearly half a century later, as a veteran alt-media writer, that Oscar no longer mystifies me. It was awarded on March 20, 1948. Less than two months later, the state of Israel was proclaimed; on that same day, ignoring the objections of his advisers, Harry Truman made the United States the world’s only country to recognize it.

Dignified and popularized by its “Best Picture” status, Gentleman’s Agreement served to prep the American public for the big day, and helped ensure that opposition to the decision would be silenced—for Judaism is often conflated with Zionism, and Gentleman’s Agreement continually suggested that any criticism of Jews, however minor or inadvertent, must be stamped out (a joke today, Hitler tomorrow). Indeed, Dorothy McGuire is unable to win Gregory Peck until, at the film’s end, she too takes an active stand against anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile, Down at the Oval Office

In his foreword to Israel Shahak’s book Jewish History, Jewish Religion (1994), Gore Vidal reported a story he was told by John F. Kennedy:

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.”

According to Texe Marrs in Conspiracy of the Six-Pointed Star, the man with the suitcase was Abraham Feinberg, founder of the powerful Israeli lobbying group AIPAC.

Feinberg is on the far left behind Truman in this 1952 photo.

Truman receiving a menorah from David Ben-Gurion

Truman’s recognition of Israel, which came only 11 minutes after the state was proclaimed, may have been a factor in his stunning election victory that fall, generally regarded as the greatest upset in Presidential election history (Republican Thomas Dewey had been widely projected as the winner).

In a famous pose, Truman holds early edition of Chicago Tribune announcing his defeat.

Truman, a 33rd degree Freemason, would serve America’s shadow oligarchy well, as when he sent U.S. soldiers to fight in the Korean War, an artificially contrived conflict intended to validate the UN (world government) and set a permanent precedent for bypassing Congress’s Constitutional authority to declare war. More than 30,000 Americans were killed and over 100,000 wounded in the “police action.”

Truman in Freemasonic Garb

The Nakba

1948 also marked a tragedy few Americans ever heard about.

Echoing the catchphrase “A Land without a People for a People without a Land,” Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously said:

There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.¹

Meir’s claim is easily discredited.

I recommend this 10-minute video “Palestine pre-1948, before Zionism/Israel”:

What happened to these people? The Zionists ethnically cleansed them. Some 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes at gunpoint. Palestinians call this horror the Nakba. Quoting If Americans Knew:

Zionist forces committed 33 massacres and destroyed 531 Palestinian towns. Author Norman Finkelstein [himself Jewish} states: “According to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War… acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’”²

Victims of the infamous Deir Yassin Massacre of April 9, 1948

An extensive listing of massacres of Palestinians can be found here.

The 1950 film Sands of Sorrow depicted the conditions under which the evicted Palestinians lived; 28 minutes long, well worth a watch. You can be sure it wasn’t featured at the local American theater; it’s not even included in the comprehensive Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB).

So much for Golda Meir’s claim that Palestinians “did not exist.” Now to put it in perspective, whose suffering was worse? The Palestinians who were massacred and dispossessed? Or Gregory Peck because he found that an upscale hotel discriminated against Jews when booking reservations?

I am certainly not suggesting that there haven’t been unwarranted acts of discrimination against Jews in America. But Gentleman’s Agreement’s claim—that New York City Jews struggled to get jobs because gentiles received preferential treatment—runs smack against the reality that Jews are often favored for employment, especially in Jewish-dominated fields like finance, law, retailing, and the arts. And while the film portrayed Jews as pristinely innocent victims of prejudice, Jews have their own prejudice, as is here explained by Brother Nathanael Kapner, who was Jewish-born-and-raised in New York City, and is now an Orthodox Christian:

Note: the following remarks refer to organized Zionist Jewry, and should not be construed to apply to all ethnic Jews, many of whom are not “practicing Jews” and are often, like my father, assimilated into other cultures. In the above video, Brother Nathanael refers to the Talmud. Contrary to what many Christians believe, it is the Talmud, not the Torah (Old Testament) that is the chief doctrinal teaching of modern rabbinic Judaism. It is the written form of the cumulative oral “tradition of the elders,” which Jesus Christ so resoundingly condemned the Pharisees for. Talmudic Jewry regards non-Jews as inferior and often justifies lying to, stealing from, and killing gentiles. For documentation of this, I highly recommend Michael Hoffman’s book Judaism’s Strange Gods. As Brother Nathanael has pointed out elsewhere, it was the behavior and endemic racism of Talmudic Jews that caused them to be expelled from more than 100 countries throughout history, not some sort of universal bigotry against their ethnicity or religion.

That brings us back to Hollywood, which, yes, has always been dominated by Jews:

• Carl Laemmle (Jewish) founded Universal Studios.
• The Warner brothers were Jewish.
• William Fox (Jewish) created the Fox Film Corporation.
• Joseph Schenk and Darryl Zanuck (both Jewish) founded the Twentieth Century Film Corporation, which later merged with Fox to become Twentieth Century Fox.
• Marcus Loew, Sam Goldwyn (nee Goldfish) and Louis B. Mayer (all Jewish) formed Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM).
• Harry Cohn (Jewish) established Columbia Pictures.
• Paramount Pictures evolved from companies established by Sam Goldwyn, Adolph Zukor and Jesse Lasky (all Jewish).

Is it “bigotry,” then, to call Hollywood a Jewish town, or just a statement of fact?

Which brings us full circle to the Oscars. Another film nominated for Best Picture of 1947, Crossfire, also had as its main theme anti-Semitism, this one draped in a film noir detective story. Robert Ryan, a Hollywood favorite for bigot roles, plays a psychopath who hates Jews for no reason, he just hates them—the classic anti-Semite stereotype. In the film’s opening, Ryan beats to death a kindly, benevolent Jew simply because he’s a Jew. Later in the film, Ryan commits a second murder, saying:

“I don’t like Jews, and I don’t like nobody who likes Jews!”

Unlike Gentleman’s Agreement, set largely in upper-class New York and Connecticut, Crossfire takes place in seedy hotels, bars and dance halls. It appears the Zionists were hedging their bets, hoping that, in both highbrow and lowbrow circles, any criticism of the new state of Israel would be squelched in advance. But while Hollywood stars strutted down the red carpet, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, Christian and Muslim alike, bore their burdens down roads red with the blood of the Nakba.

NOTES

1. Sunday Times, June 15, 1969, quoted at https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Golda_Meir.
2. “The Catastrophe, Al Nakba: How Palestine Became Israel,“ If Americans Knew, http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/ref-nakba.html.

And Was the Revolution a “Christian” War?

A highly abbreviated version of this article appears on Dr. Henry Makow’s website. (The use of the word “Satanist” in the title of the condensed version was the editor’s choice.)

I consider it prudent to begin this post by duplicating the first paragraphs of the foreword to Part I:

FOREWORD: I do not expect this two-part article to be very popular among American patriots, many of whom are my dear friends. They are among the core of America’s best citizens; men and women who fight to protect constitutional liberties from the police state, and to preserve U.S. national sovereignty from the tyranny of world government.

The following article raises questions about the American Revolution, which many patriots regard as the foundation of their beliefs. It can be dangerous to shake a good man’s foundation – even if the foundation is flawed – because it might cause him to question his worldview, and weaken his resolve. However, no historical event should be held so sacred as to be immune to examination. Our country is in too much trouble to make truth secondary.

“Everyone knows” Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but not “everyone knew” it in early America. Jefferson was on the drafting committee at the Second Continental Congress. However, he made no claim to authorship until 1821, when he was an old man, and even then did so ambiguously.

Drafting committee: John Adams, Roger Sherman (said to be Freemason by descendants), Robert Livingston (Freemason, Grand Master of New York), Thomas Jefferson (believed to be a Rosicrucian), and Benjamin Franklin (Freemason, Grand Master of Pennsylvania) present the Declaration to the President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock (Freemason).

For a long time, it has been understood outside the box of orthodox historiography that the Declaration’s real author was Thomas Paine. The case was made, for example, in Junius Unmasked: Or, Thomas Paine, the Author of the Letters of Junius, and the Declaration of Independence, by Joel Moody (1872); in this article published by Walton Williams in 1906; and in Thomas Paine: Author of the Declaration of Independence  by Joseph Lewis (1947).

Paine (1737-1809) was a British author of anonymous pamphlets. In England he met Freemasonic Grand Master-at-large Benjamin Franklin (who served not only as Grand Master of Pennsylvania, but Grand Master of the Nine Sisters Lodge in Paris, as well as attending Britain’s satanic Hellfire Club). When Paine traveled to America, Franklin gave him a letter of introduction. He arrived on November 30, 1774, greeted by Franklin’s physician. This was less than five months before the orchestrated Battle of Lexington, flashpoint of the Revolutionary War.

Paine wasted little time fulfilling a mission is his new-found land. In 1775 he wrote the lengthy pamphlet Common Sense, which called for America’s independence from Britain. Widely distributed, it became the single most influential document inspiring the revolution. Inscribed at Paine’s gravesite is John Adams’s famous rhyme: “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.”

Could Paine’s overnight literary success in America have occurred without “helping hands”?

The Declaration of Independence fulfilled the objective of Common Sense. Paine was residing in Philadelphia when the Second Continental Congress met there. As Franklin’s choice to write Common Sense (which he authored anonymously), would he not also be the logical choice to anonymously write the Declaration? As we will soon elaborate, there were several reasons why this could never be publicly disclosed.

The Case for Paine

First, though, let’s review some of the evidence that Paine authored the Declaration. A blog post can only examine a sampling; for thorough analysis, I recommend consulting the sources named above.

There is, of course, a copy of the Declaration in Jefferson’s handwriting. However, there is also one in John Adams’s handwriting. These are evidently copies of Paine’s original. Both content and style are markedly like Paine, not Jefferson, who had never written any paper calling for American independence.

• The original, unedited version contained an anti-slavery clause:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce . . . .

It is commonly said that Jefferson wrote this passionate clause, and slave owners at the Congress demanded its deletion. However, this makes no sense. Jefferson was himself a slave owner; he owned over 600 during his lifetime. And in his writings up to the time of the Declaration, he had never composed even a mild denunciation of slavery.

Paine, on the other hand, had published a 1775 essay called African Slavery in America, writing, e.g.:

That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising. . . .

Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stiffle all these, wilfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden idol. . . .¹

Note the capitalization of “MEN” in both Paine’s tract and the Declaration’s anti-slavery clause!

• The Declaration exhibited undisguised disdain for King George III:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Such scorn was characteristic of Paine, who called him “the Royal Brute of Great Britain” in Common Sense, which also contained remarks such as these:

I rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England forever, and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS people can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.²

the naked and untutored Indian, is less savage than the King of Britain.³

Compare that to Jefferson’s tract A Summary View of the Rights of British America, in which he consistently referred to King George by the respectful title “his Majesty.” Extract:

to propose to the said Congress that an humble and dutiful address be presented to his Majesty, begging leave to lay before him, as Chief Magistrate of the British empire, the united complaints of his Majesty’s subjects in America . . . . which would persuade his Majesty that we are asking favors, and not rights, shall obtain from his Majesty a respectful acceptance; and this his Majesty will think we have reason to expect, when he reflects that he is no more than the chief officer of the people. . . .⁴ [Italics added]

• The Declaration, including the original draft, uses the word “hath”:

all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Why is this significant? Because in all his individual writings, Jefferson never once used the archaic word “hath,” preferring “has.” Paine, however, used it frequently—in Common Sense, for example, he used “hath” 87 times.

• The Declaration’s original draft condemned the use of “Scotch and foreign mercenaries.” In the final version, the words “Scotch and” were stricken out by the Congress. Why would Jefferson have denounced the Scotch? He traced his own ancestry partly to Scotland, had Scottish teachers during his education, and was affectionate toward Scotsmen. But Paine’s s writings in England had expressed bitter disdain for them.⁵

Many other examples can be found in the above-cited works: frequent use of capitals in the Declaration—habitual for Paine, but not Jefferson; the correlation of parts of the Declaration with passages in Common Sense; etc.

The Silence Explained

Much of the American republic’s history is surprisingly shrouded in secrecy. All the men who took part in the Boston Tea Party swore a 50-year oath of silence.⁶ This is why no participant published a description of it until George Hewes’s memoir in 1834.

In my post The Secrets Buried at Lexington Green, we explored the fact that Americans firing shots at Lexington was also kept publicly secret until 50 years after the event.

Was there also, then, a 50-year oath of silence regarding the Declaration? Thomas Jefferson dropped no hint of authorship for 45 years. Finally, in 1821 he recalled:

The committee were J. Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston & myself. Committees were also appointed at the same time to prepare a plan of confederation for the colonies, and to state the terms proper to be proposed for foreign alliance. The committee for drawing the declaration of Independence desired me to do it. It was accordingly done, and being approved by them, I reported it to the house on Friday the 28th of June when it was read and ordered to lie on the table.⁷

“It was accordingly done” is not a very emphatic claim to authorship. If there was a 50-year oath of silence associated with the Declaration, it might be noteworthy that that both Jefferson and John Adams died on the exact day it would have expired: July 4, 1826. I have always romanticized that coincidence, and perhaps it should just stay romanticized. In any event, Jefferson said nothing about writing the Declaration until after Paine’s death.

But why couldn’t Paine be acknowledged as the Declaration’s author? Three reasons stand out:

• The Declaration was supposed to be written by elected delegates, something Paine was not.
• Since Paine hadn’t lived in the colonies before November 30, 1774, it was debatable if he could even be described as an “American.” Although his allegiance to the revolutionary cause might certainly have merited that characterization, most Americans would have been surprised to learn their Declaration was penned by someone who had resided so briefly on their continent. (Paine later returned to Europe, living there from 1787 until 1802.)
• But the most important reason Paine couldn’t be acknowledged was that he later wrote The Age of Reason, in which he bitterly denounced Christianity.

Extracts:

It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend.⁸

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity.⁹

I have shown in all the foregoing parts of this work, that the Bible and Testament are impositions and forgeries.¹⁰

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.¹¹

Since America was predominantly Christian, it couldn’t be admitted that someone of such views had penned the nation’s birth certificate. It would have caused what we now call “cognitive dissonance.”

The “Christian” Revolution

I once heard a pastor preach a sermon on the Fourth of July. He quoted the beginning of the Declaration, laying emphasis on certain words in an effort to authenticate that America’s Founding Fathers were Christians:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .

As the phrases “Nature’s God” and “Creator” were quoted, congregation members were oohing and aahing in a sort of mental swoon. But I knew the writer was Paine, a self-proclaimed enemy of Christianity. Here are Paine quotes that demonstrate what he really meant by “Nature’s God” and “Creator”:

When, therefore, we look through nature up to nature’s God, we are in the right road of happiness, but when we trust to books as the Word of God, and confide in them as revealed religion, we are afloat on the ocean of uncertainty, and shatter into contending factions.¹²

But when I see throughout the greatest part of this book [the Bible] scarcely anything but a history of the grossest vices, and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales, I cannot dishonour my Creator by calling it by his name.¹³

As the pastor continued his “patriot” sermon, I heard such a litany of misrepresentations about America that rage built incrementally within me, until I finally walked out the door. I knew the pastor meant well, but Jesus Christ said he came to tell us the truth, and my tolerance for falsehood has a low breaking point.

Unfortunately, what this pastor was saying is very common in American evangelical churches, who subscribe to what might be called the “David Barton” view of the Founding Fathers. (Barton has made a career out of portraying them as Christians.)

“Free Pass” Theology

Even if Thomas Jefferson had written the Declaration of Independence, he was certainly not a Christian in the sense evangelicals mean. Jefferson created what he called the “Jefferson Bible.” This might sound “religious” at first glance, but what Jefferson did was to take the New Testament, and using a razor, cut out virtually all references to miracles, the supernatural, the Resurrection, and the divinity of Christ.

Now if I did that in an evangelical church, I would be quickly shown the exit, called a blasphemer, and the following verse would be quoted to me:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:19)

Jefferson, however, is given a “free pass” on this. This is what I call “free pass theology”: one standard for modern Christians, another for the Founding Fathers.

Let’s take taxation, which was the chief dispute between the American colonists and Britain. When pressed by the Pharisees in their attempt to entrap Him, Jesus was clear enough on taxation: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” More than once, I’ve heard pastors preach on this principle, saying something like, “I certainly hope you’re all paying your taxes, and not taking deductions you don’t deserve!” casting their winnowing eyes about the congregation for any guilty looks.

Yet if you ask these very same pastors if the Founding Fathers had to pay taxes, most will typically give them a “free pass,” saying something such as, “Well, no, because that was taxation without representation.” But Jesus made no such distinction. He didn’t say, “You don’t have to pay because you don’t have representation in the Roman senate.”

Likewise, many modern clergymen preach obedience to government, quoting Romans 13:1-2:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Yet if you ask these pastors if this principle applied to the Founding Fathers, you will almost always hear a resounding “No!” I asked one pastor why this was so, given that payment of taxes is not unbiblical. He replied: “The colonists had other grievances.”

This requires examining just what those grievances were, and Thomas Paine’s role in enumerating them.

The Tax Issue

Many Americans, myself included, were taught to believe that British taxes had “enslaved” the colonists. Rarely was it mentioned why those taxes were laid in the first place. During the French and Indian War (1754-63), colonists and British troops had fought on the same side. Britain’s national debt had nearly doubled by the long war’s end, and Parliament felt the burden of paying it off should not be borne by Britain’s taxpayers alone, but by the colonists as well, especially since they were the main beneficiaries of the war’s victorious outcome.

The result was the Sugar Act of 1764, which placed a tax on molasses of three pennies per gallon. This was vigorously protested in the colonies, and Parliament repealed it. In 1765 it tried the Stamp Act (which would have placed a tax stamp on contracts, diplomas, and other documents). Although this revenue measure had succeeded in Britain, it was protested in the colonies so violently that Britain never collected one penny from it, and it was repealed also.

British view of Bostonians’ response to taxation

In 1766, a frustrated Parliament, still seeking some practical means of raising revenues from the colonies, summoned Benjamin Franklin, the leading representative of American interests in Britain, and asked him what sort of revenue measure Americans would accept. Franklin informed them: “I never heard an objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce . . . I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every one that we could not be taxed by a Parliament wherein we were not represented. But the payment of duties laid by an act of Parliament as regulations of commerce was never disputed.”¹⁴

With such assurances from Franklin, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, assigning duties on various British goods sold in America. These, however, were also violently protested and repealed. Although it would come as a shock to many modern Americans, by 1773 there remained no British taxes on America whatsoever, with one exception: a nominal customs duty on tea of three cents per pound. Furthermore, the tea, which was surplus tea of the East India Company, was offered to colonists at half the price Englishmen paid for it. Nevertheless, Sam Adams’s Sons of Liberty were unwilling to tolerate this insult to their sacred rights. After getting suitably liquored up, they destroyed 340 chests of tea in the Boston Tea Party. The vandalism sparked outrage in Parliament, which felt it had tolerated just about enough from the colony of Massachusetts. This led to passage of the Coercive Acts, measures which included closing the port of Boston until the damage should be paid for.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, Sam Adams, who also orchestrated the Boston Massacre and Battle of Lexington, was simply seeking to goad Britain into such retaliation, in order to create a pretext for war and revolution.

Ask one of today’s “patriot pastors” if he would have participated in the Boston Tea Party, and he will assure you: “OF COURSE!” Yet these same pastors almost never dispute the taxes laid by today’s American government: federal income tax, state income tax, social security tax, Medicare tax, real estate tax, sales tax, excise tax, utilities tax, etc. Even though these taxes easily consume more than a hundredfold of one’s income compared to King George’s three-penny duty on a pound of tea, the pastors waggle their fingers at their congregations, reminding them to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Again, if cornered about this double standard, the Bartonized pastor will tell you the colonists were exempt from taxation because they “didn’t have representation.” So let’s address this point, even though I also covered it in The Secrets Buried at Lexington Green.

The Representation Issue

First, the colonists did have degrees of representation—they had their own legislatures, which could present grievances to the royal governors. The colonies also had agents in England to lobby Parliament. Benjamin Franklin was the most famous.

So the dispute boiled down to the colonies not having voting representatives in Parliament. But how practical would that be? Let’s say the colonial assemblies selected representatives to serve in Parliament. In those days of sailing ships, a transatlantic trip could easily take two months or more. Now suppose, after arriving in Parliament, the American representatives were confronted with a tax proposal. If they wished to sound out their constituencies, they would have to return to America by ship (or send a messenger or letter), consuming another two months—of course, no phones or email back then. The colonial legislatures would then have to reconvene to consider the proposal. Then the representative would have to sail back to Britain—another two months. With representatives arriving from different colonies at different times, one begins to sense what an impractical way to conduct Parliamentary business this would have been.

Furthermore, Britain then being far more populous than the colonies, America would presumably have been outvoted on tax measures anyway—making the representation issue rather moot in its practical outcome.

Paine’s List of Grievances

The Declaration of Independence states that “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” As a three-cent customs duty on a pound of tea clearly was a “light and transient cause,” it was necessary for Paine to erect a list of 27 grievances, of which “taxation without representation” was but one. Since Paine had lived in America only briefly, and since many of the grievances were specific to Massachusetts, it appears likely that Paine spent time closeted with Boston’s Sam Adams, “Father of the Revolution,” who was also in Philadelphia when the Second Congress met. While we can’t review every grievance in the Declaration, let’s examine a few. The first one is:

He [the king] has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

If you were in court, and the judge accused you of “breaking the law,” wouldn’t you want to know which law, and when? Paine’s complaint names no laws that King George refused his assent to, because there were none. The only significant colonial laws overridden by Parliament during George III’s reign were ones pertaining to the Americans printing their own money. This was probably a mistake by Parliament, but was not, in any event, attributable to the king.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

This refers strictly to Massachusetts. In 1768, after Boston had become a bedlam of violence due to Sam Adams’s waterfront mobs, Britain sent troops to restore order to the city. Because the Massachusetts House of Representatives protested the troops’ presence, the royal governor had it temporarily reconvene across the river in Cambridge at Harvard University, where the House had often met before. This was just four miles from Boston, and Harvard was quite comfortable by the standards of the day. This was a fleeting, trivial matter, of no interest to the king and long forgotten by 1776 (except, apparently, by Sam Adams).

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners

This refers to the fact that when foreigners immigrated to the colonies, there was a seven-year waiting period before they could become naturalized citizens. This is not unlike our current American laws, which require foreigners to live in the United States for five years before they can apply for citizenship. This was a neutral matter so far as King George III was concerned.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

In some colonies, judges were appointed by England, but this practice long pre-dated King George III, and payment of their salaries by the crown had ordinarily been regarded as a favor by the colonies. The judges’ salaries were fixed and in no way contingent on servility toward the king.

[HERE’S EVERYONE’S FAVORITE TO QUOTE] He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Patriotic Americans like to quote this because our own government has become a vastly overgrown bureaucracy. However, only one office was ever established in America under George III, not “multitudes”: that was the Customs office—which, as we have seen, was only created because the colonies refused taxation, and Ben Franklin told Parliament that Americans would respect customs duties. As to “swarms” of officers, it should be noted that any government agency (e.g., the Post Office) requires some employees. How many did the Customs office have? There were five customs commissioners, and perhaps some forty officers and clerks under them. All told, with 13 colonies, this would have worked out to less than five employees per colony, making the only “swarms” Paine’s own words of hyperbole.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

The colonies had their own militias which were answerable to them. However, the British army acted on the authority of the king and Parliament, which was entirely appropriate—just as the United States Army today is answerable to the President and Congress, not (for example) the local legislatures of territories like Puerto Rico.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

This grievance is predicated on the false claim in the previous one: that the British army was somehow under the colonial legislatures’ authority. I wish to mention that such specious argumentation did not speak well for the Declaration’s author.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.

Although Britain was empowered to do this for treason, in point of fact no American colonists of that era were brought to England to stand trial.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

Although petitions were sent regarding the 1774 Coercive Acts (provoked by the Boston Tea Party), petitions were certainly not received by King George for “every stage” of Paine’s enumerated complaints.

If you would like to see a refutation of the entire grievance list, I encourage you to read Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence (1776) by Thomas Hutchinson, the Massachusetts-born former governor of that colony. When the Declaration was received in England, people were dumbfounded by it, having no clue as to what most of the grievances referred to.

The Revolution’s Meaning

The Revolution was clearly not based on Paine’s list of grievances. As Hutchinson noted:

But there were men in each of the principal Colonies, who had independence in view, before any of those Taxes were laid, or proposed . . . . A concession has only produced a further demand, and I verily believe if every thing had been granted short of absolute Independence, they would not have been contented; for this [was] the object from the beginning.¹⁵

With the Declaration’s 240th anniversary upon us, I believe the time has come to reevaluate America’s founding. An excellent starting place for many people would be Chris Pinto’s series of documentaries Secret Mysteries of America’s Beginnings, which may be bought on Amazon or viewed on YouTube. A good Pinto film to begin with is The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers. While I don’t agree with his views 100 percent, that documentary was a huge wake-up call for me. If you have not already read it, I also recommend my post The Secrets Buried at Lexington Green, the only vetting of the 1775 Battle of Lexington, Massachusetts (the town I grew up in) as a false flag. I also discussed this event on The Corbett Report:

It is increasingly clear that, while many of the first Europeans to settle America were upright Christians, the discovery of the continent was regarded in Europe’s anti-Christian netherworld as what Francis Bacon called “the New Atlantis”: America was to become the re-birthing of the world that God had wiped out with the Biblical Flood. It was to be the engine of the Masonic Novus ordo seclorum, “the new order of the ages.”

While the European governments, such as Spain, France and England were needed to settle the Western Hemisphere through colonization, they were then to be kicked out one by one. The British helped the colonists expel the French during the French and Indian War (1754-63). But when the war ended, the British themselves were immediately converted from “good guys” to “bad guys” and targeted for expulsion. This kind of label-flipping is SOP for the New World Order; witness Saddam Hussein being flipped from “ally” to “enemy”; likewise the Russians went from “good” (World War II) to “bad” (Cold War) to “good” (Gorbachev era) to “bad” (Putin era).

In their new independent nation, Americans were conceded many rights, which gave other countries the illusion that if they followed through with their own revolutions, the outcome would be another America. But as the French learned from the Reign of Terror, and the Russians learned from Bolshevism, and the Chinese learned from Mao Tse-tung’s slaughters, the American Revolution was like the first hand dealt to a rube in a crooked poker game. Having received four aces from the bottom of the deck, he thinks “This must be my lucky day” and fully commits his wallet to the game. But by night’s end, he has lost everything, for he is never dealt another winning hand.

Answers to Questions

As I’m well aware this article is unlikely to earn me a Medal of Honor nomination from the Daughters of the American Revolution, I need to clarify a few things some may accuse me of.

Am I an “Anglophile” who wants America returned to British rule?

No. I have never visited the UK, and no British blood flows in my veins. I have no motive except seeking truth. Other than enjoying old comedies with Peter Sellers and Alec Guinness, I am not an Anglophile, and I’m not seeking to bring America back under British dominion. In point of fact, an Anglo-American political alliance, nurtured by banks and multinationals, has been in effect for over a century, and anyone familiar with my other writings knows how bitterly I have criticized those interests.

Am I “against liberty”?

No. I regard the Bill of Rights as one of the greatest barriers to the New World Order. However, contrary to popular belief, most of those freedoms were not denied to 18th century colonists by King George. There was an ocean between us and England, and no “police state” existed in America. Freedom of speech? Colonists said whatever they liked. No redcoats sat in homes or taverns, telling people at gunpoint what they could or couldn’t say. Freedom of religion? We had many denominations, and King George forced no one to attend a particular church. The right to bear arms? Americans already enjoyed this right; it had been included in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The right to trial by jury? This was also encoded in British law. It is true that customs-duty violators didn’t get jury trials. But this was for an obvious reason: the British knew that if every time an American broke custom laws, he went before a jury of 12 Americans, Britain would never collect a penny of revenue. So customs violators went before Admiralty courts, just as today, if you dispute a speeding ticket, you go to traffic court—you don’t get a jury trial. But for major offenses like murder or robbery, Americans had the right to trial by jury. In sum, as my friend Paul Noble has pointed out, Americans already had the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” before those words were penned.

Am I against a “just war”?

No. If some modern Attila the Hun brings an army of invaders to your borders, you had better prepare to defend your country. But like so many of America’s wars, the Revolution was fought under contrived justifications.

Do I oppose rebellion of any kind?

No. Although the Bible commends obedience to authority in Romans 13, it also lays out criteria for rejecting authority in Acts 5:29, where the Apostles disobeyed the Sanhedrin: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” If government directs you to do something contrary to God’s own laws (e.g., commit murder), you can and must disobey.

Who Was the Christian?

Was, then, King George III demanding anything in violation of God’s commandments? Neither his three-penny customs duty on a pound of tea, nor the contrived/provoked grievances enumerated by Paine, fit the Biblical criteria for disobedience. So it is with hypocrisy that David Barton adherents call the revolution “Christian,” and even more ironic since the Declaration’s author proclaimed himself an avowed enemy of Christianity.

On that note, I’ll quote excerpts from the description of George III by American historian William H. Hallahan:

He was extraordinarily hardworking, diligent, religious, frugal and moral. . . . To those around him, including his ministers, he was a generous, kindly man with a gentle sense of teasing humor. . . The young monarch had grown up dreading the prospect of being king. Yet, accepting it as a sacred trust and duty, he vowed to reign with all his might and main even if it killed him. . . . As head of the Anglican church, and deeply religious, George dutifully said his prayers from the official Anglican Bible—but with a significant change in the text. In his personal copy of the Bible, he ordered every reference to “our most religious and gracious king” to be deleted and overprinted with “a most miserable sinner.” . . . The king believed in fresh air, exercise, and an almost vegetarian diet. . . . Between breakfast and dinner, he allowed himself one slice of bread, buttered, and a dish of black tea. . . . He set a proper example for his family and country at all times. He was a devoted husband and father, rising at 6 A.M. to spend two hours every day with his wife and fifteen children.¹⁶

Quite incongruous with Paine’s description of him as “wretch,” “brute,” and “hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England.” Are we to think the author of the Declaration of Independence, who called Christianity “repugnant to reason” and the Bible “impositions and forgeries,” was more Christian than George? You can read more about the king here and here.

The Meaning of Paine’s Career

I consider it a mistake to define Thomas Paine as an “American patriot.” The Battle of Lexington occurred less than five months after he first set foot on American soil. And two years before the U.S. Constitution went into effect, he had already returned to his native England where he wrote The Rights of Man. Having inspired Americans to throw off King George, he hoped to incite Britons to do the same. When his efforts failed, he was forced to flee to France.

Paine, circa 1791

While in France, Paine wrote the Age of Reason. He participated in the French Revolution, was made an honorary citizen and elected to the National Convention. Paine advocated the destruction of all monarchies, making no exception for King Louis XVI, even though the American Revolution would have very likely failed without the latter’s assistance. In 1781, Paine had traveled to France as part of an American fundraising mission. The king treated Paine lavishly, and sent him and the mission back to America with a gift of more than two million silver livres.

Due to the fickleness of the French Revolution, where you could be switched from pedestal to guillotine overnight, Paine fell temporarily out of favor and was even imprisoned. But clearly, he was not a patriotic nationalist; he was a global anti-monarchist whose aspirations took him to whatever country would embrace his ideology.

Paine in Light of the New World Order

As a tireless advocate of destroying kings, Paine is to this day acclaimed by many as a champion of human rights. I see him differently.

Monarchies were always a barrier to the Rothschild ambition of global domination and one-world government (except for those monarchies they could thoroughly control, such as Britain’s current one).

(Meme seen on the Internet)

No matter how rich the Rothschilds grew, one thing they could not do was: enter a hereditary monarchy’s bloodline. Therefore, to gain power over nations, it was necessary for them to overthrow monarchies and replace them with other forms of government:

(1) republics, whose presidents and prime ministers would be Rothschild agents, even though “elected” through illusional democracy; for when one owns most of the press, getting 51 percent of the vote is easy.
(2) communist dictatorships, whose Rothschild rulers, such as Lenin and Trotsky, would reign without even bothering with the trappings of elections.

In either scenario, it was first necessary to eliminate the hereditary monarchies. This required revolutions: financed by the Rothschilds, organized in the secrecy of Freemasonic lodges, and agreed to by the people through literature stirring them to discontent, portraying their monarchs as tyrants in the most repulsive light (e.g., equating Marie Antoinette with “Let them eat cake”). Thomas Paine fit into this latter role with Common Sense and The Rights of Man. Revolution also necessitated attacks on religious faith, so that restraints on violence would dissolve, a likely root of Paine’s Age of Reason.

I’m sure many of my readers are familiar with John Robison’s 1798 classic Proofs of a Conspiracy. Here is the title page:

Note that the conspiracy was against governments and religion. To those who allege that Robison was merely the “conspiracy kook of his day,” I reply: his book has proven prophetic. The European governments then existing—the monarchies—are either gone now or rendered impotent. And Christian faith, which nearly personified Europe, has been shattered—huge cathedrals, that once held thousands of believers, draw only a handful on Sundays.

As the French Revolutionist Mirabeau declared:

We must overthrow all order, suppress all laws, annul all power, and leave the people in anarchy. The laws we establish will not perhaps be in force at once, but at any rate, having given back power to the people, they will resist for the sake of their liberty which they will believe they are preserving. We must caress their vanity, flatter their hopes, promise them happiness . . . . we must necessarily use them as a support, and render hateful to them everything we wish to destroy and sow illusions in their path; we must also buy all the mercenary pens [E.G., PAINE] which propagate our methods and which will instruct the people concerning their enemies whom we attack. The clergy, being the most powerful through public opinion, can only be destroyed by ridiculing religion, rendering its ministers odious, and only representing them as hypocritical monsters . . . . To exaggerate their riches, to make the sins of an individual appear to be common to all, to attribute to them all vices; calumny, murder, irreligion, sacrilege, all is permitted in times of revolution.¹⁷

As Robison explained more than two centuries ago, Continental Freemasons answered to the Illuminati, who were in turn controlled by Adam Weishaupt. And Weishaupt answered to the man with the money, Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

To comprehend the Rothschild mindset, we can learn much from The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Contrary to the widely propagated myth, the Protocols are not a mere “forgery,” as I discuss in Chapter 18 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior. Here are two excerpts from the Protocols I consider relevant to this post:

In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord’s Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets . . . . (Protocol 5:3)

In all corners of the earth the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goya states. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card – the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. (Protocol 1:26)

America’s “Christian” Revolution

Why is the Revolutionary War portrayed as “Christian,” despite its roots in Freemasonry and anti-Christians like Paine? And despite the fact that Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and taught a message of love and forgiveness, even toward one’s enemies? Much of the answer lies in current events.

For fifteen years, the United States has been exhausting is finances and military manpower on war after war in the Middle East, conflicts that had already been planned in 2001. This has been mainly on behalf of the Rothschild scheme of Greater Israel, as well as secondary motives such as oil and the Federal Reserve’s desire to prop up the petrodollar and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

The biggest dupes in all of this have been Christian Zionists, about whom I am preparing a major blog post. The insane wars would probably have been impossible without Christian support. Many American pastors have been persuaded to endorse constant war from the pulpit because they’ve been indoctrinated into the concept of “Christian nationalism”: America was founded by a “Christian war” fought by “Christians Founding Fathers.” Of course, the number-one promoter of this is David Barton, who is also undeniably a Christian Zionist:

See also Barton’s comments on Israel here (scroll down) and by WallBuilders (which Barton founded) here.

Conflating Christianity with war suits the Rothschild agenda well. It is noteworthy that the main public pretext for the Middle East wars (“to defend our liberties”) is identical to the Revolutionary War’s public pretext: “to defend our liberties.” But whether it was Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Thomas Paine, all grasped at straws to make a case for bloodshed.

NOTES

1. Thomas Paine, African Slave Trade in America, http://constitution.org/tp/afri.txt.
2. Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1775; reprint, Girard Kansas: Haldeman-Julius Co.), 49. https://archive.org/details/commonsense00painrich.
3. Daniel Edwin Wheeler, ed., Life and Writings of Thomas Paine (New York: Vincent Patke and Co., 1908), 79.
4. Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774), https://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/sumview.cfm.
5. Joseph Lewis, Thomas Paine: Author of the Declaration of Independence (New York: Freethought Press, 1947), 284-87.
6. Thom Hartmann, What Would Jefferson Do? A Return to Democracy (New York: Three River Press, 2004), 44.
7. Joyce Appleby and Terence Ball, ed., Jefferson: Political Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 95.
8. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794-95; reprint, London: Freethought Publishing, 1880), 115. https://archive.org/details/ageofreason00painiala.
9. Ibid., 147.
10. Ibid., 152.
11. Ibid., 2.
12. Thomas Paine, “Of the Word Religion,” The Theological Works of Thomas Paine (New York: William Carver, 1830), 337.
13. Paine, Age of Reason, 16.
14. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 1 (London: British and Foreign Public Library, 1818), xxxv-xxxvi.
15. Thomas Hutchinson, Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence (1776), http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1776-hutchinson-strictures-upon-the-declaration-of-independence.
16. William H. Hallahan, The Day the American Revolution Began: 19 April 1775 (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 254.
17. Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies & Subversive Movements (1924; reprint. Brooklyn, N.Y.: A & B Publishers Group, 1998), 241-42.

Picture credit: the incomparable David Dees www.ddees.com

Weather modification is widely discussed in alternative media. Even mainstream media acknowledge that we’ve been seeding clouds to make it rain since the end of World War II, and that during the Vietnam War, the U.S. military seeded clouds to extend the monsoon season. In his 1970 book Between Two Ages, Zbigniew Brzezinski quoted geophysicist Gordon J. F. MacDonald on the use of weaponized weather:

Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storms, thereby weakening a nation’s capacity and forcing it to accept the demands of the competitor.¹

Such possibilities were aggressively advanced in the Air Force’s 1996 research paper Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.

It is generally understood that weather control today represents a component of the population control program of the Illuminati, other elements including GMOs, chemtrails, vaccines, abortion, and of course the old stand-by of war. The Zionist PTB know that if they level a town with a bomb, people will ask “Who dropped the bomb?” But if they level it with a HAARP-energized, directed tornado, people will call it “Mother Nature” or “an act of God.”

It is not the purpose of this post to elaborate on the population-reduction facet of weather control, or the technologies involved, which are discussed abundantly at sites such as Geoengineering Watch. Rather, I wish to address other motives associated with it that garner less attention.

Saving for a Rainy Day

I have found that major Illuminati operations are usually undertaken for multi-dimensional reasons. Profit is often not the foremost motive, but what bankster will pass up an opportunity to cash in? World War I, for example, achieved numerous geopolitical objectives, including the restructuring of Europe, the League of Nations, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Balfour Declaration, and the liberty-reducing Espionage and Sedition Acts here in the U.S. But not to be forgotten: the war profiteering which looted billions of dollars from American taxpayers for war goods never manufactured or delivered. (I discuss all this in some detail at the close of my post False Flag at Sea.) Likewise, 9/11 produced the Middle East wars being fought to establish Greater Israel, and the justification for Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but who can overlook the billions in war profits, or the pre-9/11 shorting of airline stocks by parties still unidentified?

Weather control also offers attractive financial perks. Futures are a highly risky Wall Street investment, which can make or lose fortunes in a flash (just ask Hillary Clinton, who made $100,000 on a $1,000 initial futures investment in the late 1970s). It was my author friend Rachael McIntosh who first called my attention to the strange investment called “weather derivatives.” Not being a finance guy myself, I’ll let Bloomberg define these in this short clip:

However, Bloomberg’s elucidation is missing the keystone of this investment scene: weather control. For if, as some, say, every market is rigged, why should weather futures be an exception? The elite don’t bet on a horse race unless it’s fixed. Geoengineering gives those at the top the ability to see the future they control; they can know, with high probability, when and where disastrous weather will strike.

In fact, weather control has implications for other traded commodities as well. If one knows in advance that heatwaves will strike the Midwest, one could invest in corn futures accordingly; likewise, if one knows that a hurricane will devastate Florida, it will impact orange juice futures.

Investing in Meteorology

Speaking of Florida hurricanes, Rachael McIntosh relates a significant story regarding the 2012 GOP Convention in Tampa (she describes her experiences there as a Ron Paul delegate in her novel The Big Show, and I touch on them in my recent post on elections).

At the convention, Ron Paul was slated to speak on the first night (Monday, August 27). However, the convention was cancelled that evening due to the alleged threat of “Hurricane Isaac.” As it turned out, the “hurricane” was no more than a brisk rainstorm for Tampa. Nonetheless, it succeeded in cutting Ron Paul out of his speech, and also gave the Republican National Committee hacks time to devise a plan that would deny Paul the floor nomination he had legitimately earned: In a last-minute rules change at the Convention, the RNC increased the number of primary/caucus victories required to secure a nomination from 5 to 8, thus eliminating Ron Paul and creating a false façade of “unanimous” support for Mitt Romney.

Now here’s where it gets really interesting. The Weather Channel, whose hurricane prediction helped solidify Romney’s coronation, has been co-owned since 2008 by Bain Capital, whose founding president and CEO had been . . . Mitt Romney.

Furthermore, in 2011 the Rothschilds had acquired a 70 percent interest in Weather Central, “the world’s leading provider of interactive weather graphics and data services for television, web, and mobile.”

In this two-minute clip, Evelyn de Rothschild discussed his weather venture:

Subsequently, the Weather Channel acquired Weather Central, placing forecasting under a virtual monopoly. Along with Bain, another of the Weather Channel’s three corporate owners is the shadowy Blackstone Group², on whose International Advisory Board sits Evelyn’s powerful cousin Jacob Rothschild. Why are the PTB so interested in owning not only the weather but its forecasting? Well, besides ensuring that TV meteorologists won’t comment on chemtrails or geoengineering, it gives them aces up their sleeves in the relatively new weather derivatives market.

A general rule of investing is that, for everyone making money, there is conversely someone losing it. When you sell shares of a stock, it means someone else is buying those shares. If the stock then plummets, your decision to sell was fortunate, but unfortunate for the buyer. For those rigging markets, it has always been essential to have rubes who incorrectly buy or sell at strategic moments. Amateur investors, trying play the commodities game by relying on the long-term weather forecasts of controlled media, will guess wrong and get looted.

Despite all the advantages of modern technology, weather forecasting remains surprisingly inaccurate. Where I live, New England, on Thursday March 18 of this year (2016) the weather outlook for the weekend was sunny. On Friday, however, forecasters were suddenly predicting that Sunday would see a Northeaster that would drop a foot of snow. I distinctly remember one meteorologist saying, “Make no mistake, this storm will definitely hit us very hard, it’s just a matter of how much snow.” On Saturday morning, I tuned in to see how the storm would impact my weekend. To my delighted surprise, the embarrassed weather folk were eating crow: THERE WOULD BE NO SNOW AT ALL—just a dusting for the southern tip of New England.

That afternoon, my wife told me that her friends had just warned her about coming snow. “Oh,” I said, “your friends must not have heard the latest forecast.” But she insisted they had, so I turned on the TV again. Once more, the meteorologists recanted: now they again predicted a heavy snowstorm. The next day, around eight inches fell in my area.

Of course, I’m not a meteorologist, and I realize some storms can be tricky to predict, but over recent years, I have been stunned by the frequency with which weathermen have been quite wrong, even for relatively short-term forecasts. I suspect this is for at least two reasons: (1) HAARP rerouting weather from the normal patterns meteorologists expect; (2) skewed predictions from the weather platforms that high finance has bought control of.

Naturally, I don’t know how the Rothschilds allocate their market investments. But given their long history of fiscal manipulation, it would seem that weather control, combined with weather forecasting control, would make weather derivatives an irresistible item for any bankster’s portfolio.

Can an Election Be Geoengineered?

There is one other feature of weather control that was highlighted by the use of a faux hurricane to nullify Ron Paul at the 2012 GOP Convention. This wasn’t the first time Romney had benefited from an errant forecast. Concerning the 2012 primaries, I quote Jaret Glenn’s “How the Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul”:

Maine: Ben Swann reported on shenanigans in Maine. Even though only 84% of votes had been counted; State GOP Chairman, Charlie Webster, declared Romney the winner over Paul by less than 200 votes. Hancock and Washington Counties hadn’t voted yet because Webster cancelled the caucuses due to an impending snowstorm, promising they could vote later and their votes would be counted. The snowstorm never occurred and he later reneged on his promise, telling voters in those counties their votes would not be counted after all. Washington County was Paul’s strongest in the state in 2008. Though other states with close outcomes held recounts, this was never a consideration for Maine.³

So neither the Tampa hurricane nor the Maine snowstorm materialized, and the beneficiary both times was Mitt Romney, whose Bain Capital co-owned the Weather Channel.

Besides all the other means of vote-rigging available, one can easily foresee how weather control could be a factor in helping elect Hillary Clinton, who, as I have elaborated elsewhere (under “The 2016 Race”), is the Establishment’s clear preference.

Let’s say that, in a given “swing” state, polls show Hillary favored in eastern counties, but Trump in western counties. On election day, harsh geoengineered weather—flooding, perhaps even tornadoes—could sweep the western counties, paralyzing the electorate, while the eastern counties would enjoy weather mild enough to permit easy travel to the polls. Such a scenario could win the state for Hillary, and her supporters could even crow that “God must love Hillary.”

In fact, as Tampa and Maine proved, no real weather disaster would be necessary; just a prediction of one by the Weather Channel (e.g., “tornado watch”) might suffice to keep many voters pinned at home. When you own the weather industry, winning can be a breeze.

NOTES

1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1970), 57.
2. “The Weather Channel,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Channel.
3.  Jaret Glenn, “How the Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul,” Free Words, https://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/how-the-republican-party-stole-the-nomination-from-ron-paul/.
   Meme seen on the Web
   

(Picture credit unknown)

Foreword: This post is long. It is long because Christian Zionism is based on a multitude of lies. The bigger the onion, the more the layers we are forced to peel off. I should also note that my paternal ancestors were Russian Jews (see photo below, taken about 1900). My great-grandfather’s name was Abraham Perlovsky. People who criticize Zionism are frequently accused of being motivated by anti-Semitism. As I’m half-Jewish myself, let me be clear that no such feelings impel me. I am unequivocally opposed to racism in any form.

Part 1 of this series explored how the Rockefellers were instrumental in orchestrating the Modernist movement, assaulting every fundamental doctrine of Christianity, for the long-range ecumenical purpose of absorbing it into a one-world religion. The Fundamentalist movement rejected Modernism, intending to stand by the faith’s original tenets.

Unfortunately, as we will now see, Fundamentalism was itself infiltrated and hijacked, consistent with the Rothschild strategy of funding both sides of wars. Fundamentalist churches were targeted to enlist their support for the Zionist agenda. The two principal agents in this scheme were John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and Cyrus Scofield (1843-1921). What Darby planted, Scofield watered and disseminated. The theology they developed served the agenda by making several claims:

• God wanted the Jews to return to, and take over, Palestine.
• God has two plans of salvation—one through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the other a guarantee reserved for Jews, his “Chosen People.”
• Christians should not involve themselves in politics, education, business or the arts, as these are “worldly” matters that should be left in the hands of “worldly” people. (The consequences of this doctrine are very visible in American culture today.)
• God deals with mankind differently during different historical time frames or “dispensations,” of which there are seven. The current one, “Grace” under Jesus Christ, is merely the sixth of the seven dispensations.
• The Christian Church is doomed to inevitable failure, which will bring the Dispensation of Grace to a close.
• The end of this dispensational age will be marked by the Tribulation—worldwide persecution under the Antichrist for a period of seven years; however, Christians need not concern themselves with this, since Jesus will “Rapture” believers off the Earth and they won’t be around to experience it.
• Earth will then experience a Jewish era; Jewish ritualistic animal sacrifices will be reinstituted; Jesus will reign for a thousand years from Solomon’s rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

These doctrines, whose main outcome was “Christian Zionism,” might seem boring to atheists and agnostics, but they are nonetheless exceedingly relevant to the state of the world. They are espoused by celebrity-status theologians like Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, in the best-selling Left Behind book series, and are prevailing views in many conservative evangelical churches. Without these ideas being sweepingly disseminated, there might have been no Israeli state created in 1948, no 9/11, and no Middle East wars.

The Context

Before proceeding, I’m aware that some readers may be visiting this website for the first time, so I’ll take a moment to “begin at the beginning.” The United States, and much of the world itself, is run by an incalculably wealthy oligarchy known as, among other names, the Illuminati. The trappings of “democracy” are an illusion; the oligarchy operates behind the scenes, choosing presidents and prime ministers long before the public goes to the polls. It owns and controls the central banks, most of the ”Fortune 500” corporations, and the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, BBC, etc.), the latter being crucial to keeping the agenda, and the oligarchy itself, concealed from public awareness. It coordinates its global policies through international organizations such as the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and an upper, exclusive level of Freemasonry. The cabal’s highest identifiable human center is the Rothschild banking dynasty. But the oligarchy is not only about materialistic matters such as money and power; like the universe itself, it possesses a spiritual dimension: its outlook is satanic, which largely accounts for Western culture’s rapid moral descent.

I cannot document and prove these claims in one paragraph, but I can in a book, which is why I wrote Truth Is a Lonely Warrior. The ultimate goal of the Illuminati is a world government. Regional blocs like the European Union and NAFTA (intended to become a North American Union) are stepping stones toward this end. The world government will be ruled by a dark figure whom the Bible calls the “beast” or “Antichrist.” The book of Revelation says he will have “authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” The capital of this evil world government will be Jerusalem, a city revered by Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, to be centered in Greater Israel. It was for this purpose that:
• the Rothschilds committed their fortune to the Zionist movement, beginning no later than 1829;
• Theodor Herzl began hosting the World Zionist congresses in Basle, Switzerland in 1897;
• the British government was persuaded to issue the Balfour Declaration to Lord Walter Rothschild in 1917, promising the Zionists “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in exchange for the Zionists bringing America into World War I on Britain’s side.

However, Zionist seizure of Palestine could not have occurred without the consent and cooperation of the world’s Christian community. Given the centuries-old conflict between Jews and Christians, it was necessary to remold Christian theology to accommodate the Rothschild plan. Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible came on the scene for this express purpose.

Darby Plants the Seeds

Before examining Scofield’s life, we should note a little about John Nelson Darby, the principle figure from whom Scofield borrowed his Biblical analysis. Darby was a Satanist, Freemason and agent of the Rothschild-owned British East India Company,¹ the latter being the most powerful multinational corporation of its day and the supplier that turned millions of Chinese into opium addicts.

Darby became a leader of a Christian sect called the Plymouth Brethren (named for Plymouth, England, where its most popular gatherings were held). He is generally credited with originating the “Secret Rapture” doctrine and made several trips to America to spread his ideas.

Darby used many terms in common with occult Theosophists—he referred to Jesus as “the coming one” (same term New Agers use for the Antichrist); referred to God as the “architect” (same phrase employed by Freemasons, meaning “God” for the uninitiated, “Lucifer” to true adepts); and many other occult phrases, as summarized in this article.

Darby even penned his own satanic version of the Bible. The Illuminati have always known they could not perform a wholesale transformation of the Bible, because it would be recognized as such and rejected. Therefore the approach through the centuries has been to whittle it away: a word here, a phrase there—the universal strategy of boiling the frog.

Darby slyly introduced satanic wording into the Biblical text. For example, in the King James rendering of John 6:69, Peter told Jesus: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Darby rendered this: “And we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God.” “Holy one of God” is a title used for Jesus only by demons in the King James. For a comprehensive review of Darby’s satanic mistranslations, see the article John Nelson Darby Version: Doctrinal Changes to the Holy Bible.

Scofield Spreads Darby Like a Virus

In 1897, Theodore Herzl began hosting the Rothschild-backed Zionist congresses in Switzerland, developing the plan for Zionist takeover of Palestine. Knowing this scheme would require Christian approval, in 1904 Herzl approached Pope Pius X, who very politely told him what he could do with his plan. After Catholic rejection, the Rothschilds knew Protestant support would be essential. But this could only be achieved by tampering with the Bible to make it appear God himself had ordained that Jews retake Palestine. Such a Bible would have to come from a non-Jew, someone with credentials as a theologian. Thus emerged Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible.

Scofield started out as a crooked Kansas lawyer and politician, working under the auspices of John J. Ingalls, a major figure in corrupt Kansas politics. In 1881, the Atchison Globe reported:

C. I. Schofield [sic], who was appointed United States District Attorney for Kansas in 1873, and who turned out worse than any other Kansas official, is now a Campbellite preacher in Missouri. His wife and two children live in Atchison. He contributes nothing to their support except good advice.²

That same year, the Topeka Daily Capital picked up the story:

Cyrus I. Schofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past. The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.³

However, court cases against Scofield were inexplicably dropped. As Joseph M. Canfield, who is probably Scofield’s most thorough biographer, notes: “The very sudden dropping of the criminal charges without proper adjudication suggests that Scofield’s career was in the hands of someone who had clout . . .”⁴

According to Scofield, his conversion to Christ occurred in 1879 in his “St. Louis law office.” However, he was not a member of Missouri’s bar, and no record exists of his practicing law in that state⁵—in fact, he was habitually on the run from the law.

Scofield began immersing himself in Darby’s teachings. He was mentored by Rev. James H. Brookes, whose very pulpit Darby had preached from.⁶ He made rapid ecclesiastical progress: by 1881 he was already a pastor in St. Louis, despite having no seminary training or other formal religious education.

In 1882, Scofield moved to Dallas and began an extended term as pastor of the First Congregational Church. Possibly this move was necessitated because his criminal past and familial irresponsibility were too well-known in the Kansas-Missouri region. As Rev. John S. Torell writes:

There were a number of wealthy and political power brokers in the membership of the First Congregational Church in Dallas. . . I do know that most churches in the United States are heavily infested with Freemasons. George Bannerman Dealey was a member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the later part of his life. But he was also heavily involved in the occult, majoring in the Scottish Rite of Masonry with a 33rd degree and active as a Shriner, and was also a member of the Red Cross of Constantine. Most likely he had a hand in getting Cyrus into Masonic circles and particularly the Lotos Club in New York.⁷

Post-Conversion Issues

I am well aware that a person redeemed by Christ receives forgiveness of sins. I am also aware that those born again remain flawed individuals. Nevertheless, a high standard is held for pastors and elders of churches. In 1883, back in Kansas, Reverend Scofield’s wife Leontine was granted a divorce on the grounds that he had long since abandoned her and their two daughters, Abigail and Helene. The court ruled that Scofield “was not a fit person to have custody of the children.”⁸ Within six months of the divorce, Scofield married a new wife, Hettie.

Here is what the Bible says (1 Timothy 5:8): “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Scofield’s fans give him a free pass on this teaching, and not surprisingly, the Scofield Reference Bible makes no commentary on this verse.

Scofield’s defenders have argued that he had to divorce his wife because she was Catholic, but there is no Biblical grounds for that, and Scofield had deserted his family long before his professed conversion to Christ. However, if handlers were prepping him to fulfill the role of Zionist messenger to Protestant churches, it may well be that having a Catholic wife was deemed unsuitable.

Although Scofield became quite wealthy from his reference Bible, there is no evidence that he ever shared his riches with his abandoned family, or ever made restitution to people whom he had defrauded in Kansas and Missouri.

Truthfulness is another characteristic of genuine conversion. Here is how Scofield later described his military service in his Who’s Who in America entry:

Pvt. Co. H. 7th Tenn. Inf. May 1861 to close of Civil War; served in Army of Northern Va. under Gen. Lee, and awarded Cross of Honor for valor at battle of Antietam.⁹

Although Scofield was in the 7th Tennessee, this little entry is full of falsehoods. Scofield did not serve until “the close of the war.” He successfully begged out of the service in 1862 on grounds that he was a Northerner (he was Michigan-born). Also, Scofield was not decorated for valor at the battle of Antietam. Decorations were a frill the Confederate army could not afford. The Cross of Honor was a postwar decoration bestowed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, beginning in 1900, to any veteran who had provided “loyal, honorable service to the South.” As to having served “under Gen. Lee“—as Canfield notes, this was only in the same sense that “GIs in WW2 were under Eisenhower.”¹⁰

Perhaps more egregiously, by 1892 Cyrus began using the title “Dr. Scofield.” In the Scofield Reference Bible, he is “Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D.” (Doctor of Divinity). Conveying this landmark book as a scholar’s work was, of course, vital. However, there is no evidence Scofield ever received a doctorate. He never attended a college or seminary. Some suggest he could have received an honorary doctorate, but even this seems improbable: no institution has ever claimed credit for awarding it, Scofield made no allusion to the degree’s source in his Who’s Who biography, and since Dispensationalism was still viewed as highly unorthodox in 1892, no Christian institution would have likely bestowed such an honorary degree on Scofield.

Scofield Acquires Connections and Backers

Scofield met the distinguished theologian D. L. Moody during one of the latter’s evangelical campaigns. In 1886, Moody spoke in Dallas at Scofield’s invitation. A loose association continued between them, and in 1896 Scofield moved to New England, becoming pastor of Trinitarian Congregational, Moody’s home church. It is unclear if this occurred at Moody’s request, but association with Moody gave Scofield another credential that advanced his theologian resumé. In December 1899, Moody died at 62 from an undiagnosed illness.

In 1901, Scofield became a member of New York’s exclusive, invitation-only Lotos Club, a hangout for the financial and literary elite. Members have included Mark Twain, New York Times owner Arthur Hay Sulzberger, the atheist industrialist Andrew Carnegie, and sexual revolution advocate Margaret Mead. The Lotos Club was the sort a place a Fundamentalist preacher would ordinarily be ridiculed, yet somehow Scofield joined its rolls, even though the membership fee alone equaled one-fifth of his salary as a pastor.¹¹ He remained a member until his death in 1921.

Scofield’s Lotos Club admission was approved by the ultra-Zionist attorney on the club’s Literary Committee, Samuel Untermyer. During his lifetime, Untermyer served as President of Keren Hayesod (Zionism’s chief financial angel), played a major role in drafting the Federal Reserve Act, was notorious for blackmailing Woodrow Wilson into appointing Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, and spearheaded the Jewish “declaration of war” boycott against Germany in 1933. Is it surprising that someone who might be called America’s leading Zionist would sponsor, at the Lotos Club, the theologian who produced the book which birthed “Christian Zionism”?

Samuel Untermyer

According to some sources (e.g., this article), Untermyer introduced Scofield to other leading Zionist financiers, such as Jacob Schiff and Bernard Baruch. This is credible, since Untermyer was close to these individuals, and Scofield’s finances took a turn for the better—he was suddenly able to afford extended trips to Europe in pursuit of producing his reference Bible.

Scofield and his wife Hettie traveled to England in 1904. According to Charles Trumbull’s official, laudatory biography of Scofield, he told a London acquaintance, Robert Scott, that he planned writing a reference Bible, but had no idea who might publish it. As luck would have it, Scott was able to introduce him to Henry Frowde, head of Oxford University Press. Quoting Trumbull:

Mr. Frowde was interested. He said he would consult Mr. Armstrong, then head of the American branch of the Oxford University Press. Mr. Armstrong was immediately enthusiastic at the suggestion that this new Reference Bible be brought out by the Oxford Press, and a preliminary understanding was quickly reached. Mr. Frowde assured Dr. Scofield that, if he finally decided to place the Bible with them, they could readily arrange a proper contract for the publication, in the interests of each party. And so the publishing question was settled . . . . ¹²

This story is as preposterous as Scofield’s Lotos Club admission. Major publishing houses don’t assure publication of manuscripts they haven’t even seen yet, unless the author has a proven track record of bestsellers (e.g., a Stephen King). Scofield had never written a book before, with the exception of Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (which was actually self-described as a “pamphlet”). He had no academic background qualifying him to edit a reference Bible.

Furthermore, Oxford University Press was owned by Zionist Jews and run by Fabian Socialists. It was primarily devoted to publishing literary and scholarly books, not Bibles, and like the Lotos Club, was a venue normally hostile to evangelical Fundamentalists.

It is rather apparent that Scofield’s Zionist connections, who got him into the Lotos Club and provided travel funding, also arranged for Oxford’s up-front publication agreement. Is it only coincidence that Scofield’s trip to England came on the heels of the Pope’s rejection (January 26, 1904) of Herzl’s plea to support a Zionist state in Palestine? With the Catholics out, rallying Protestants had become imperative. Oxford University Press, with offices on both sides of the Atlantic, could ensure Scofield’s work would receive the publicity and distribution the Zionists desired.

When the Scofields left England, they moved to Switzerland, where, according to Trumbull, Scofield did nine months of “solid work” on his reference Bible. But why Switzerland? Although John Calvin’s library was there, it was not a very logical place to research and write a reference Bible. It was, however, a center of Freemasonic and covert banking activities, and, perhaps most importantly, where Theodor Herzl hosted the early Zionist congresses.

Scofield came back to America in 1905. In 1906 he returned to England (and according to some sources, Switzerland again). In 1907, Scofield signed his publishing contract at the New York City office of Oxford University Press, and his reference Bible was first published in January 1909.

One immediately notices the volume was produced with astonishing swiftness. For most men, a reference Bible would have required a lifetime’s work. All the more remarkable: Scofield had no seminary or university training, and was not formally schooled in the languages that ancient Biblical texts are written in—Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Scofield Bible’s Strategy

Were, then, some of Scofield’s notes dictated to him by other parties? Even if not, reviewing the Bible makes it evident that Scofield borrowed heavily from John Nelson Darby, James Brookes, and other early proponents of Plymouth Brethren-Dispensational theology. Scofield would undoubtedly have preferred to use Darby’s satanic Bible version, or a Hort-Westcott modernized translation. But since the Zionists wanted to reach the largest cross-section of Fundamentalists, the King James was employed. As James Whisler notes:

Cyrus wanted to use the bible of his heroes, Westcott and Hort, for this project. However, he knew that due to the prominence of the KJV and the meager results of the Revised Version sales, that his dispensationalist teachings would never get anywhere if coupled with the R.V. So he used the KJV, but he subtly showed his contempt for it and his reverence for the Revised Version. This is how he did it. Everywhere that the King James disagreed with the Revised Version in an area of doctrinal importance, Cyrus inserted a footnote stating the KJV was incorrect and he always offered a “more correct” rendering which was almost always identical to the RV.¹³

Although his reference Bible was first published in 1909, that edition is virtually impossible to find today. It was the revised 1917 edition that was hyper-marketed, with limitless advertising, by Oxford University Press, selling millions of copies. Is it only coincidence that 1917 was also the year of the Balfour Declaration, by which Britain’s government pledged to Lord Walter Rothschild and the Zionist Federation to establish a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine? The simultaneous mass-marketing of Scofield’s Bible would make it appear that God himself had cosigned the Declaration, and “prophecy was being fulfilled” before believers’ eyes.

Why was Scofield’s work so effectual at changing people’s understanding of the Bible? Before this, most commentaries were published separately from the Scriptures themselves. Earlier expositors had regarded the Bible as the sacred Word of God, and that its text should not be adulterated by their unworthy human words. Scofield scorned this tradition, placing his comments right on the Bible’s pages. While this was done under the pretext of reader convenience, its subliminal impact was to give Scofield’s views status competing with the Scriptures. When a reader recalled a specific Bible verse, he was apt to remember Scofield’s words along with it, or even in its place.

Some were not fooled. As Philip Mauro commented in 1927:

It is a matter of grief to me that a book should exist wherein the corrupt words of mortal man are printed on the same page with the holy Words of the living God; this mixture of the precious and the vile being made an article of sale, entitled a “Bible,” and distinguished by a man’s name. . . . For the fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a “Bible” of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God.¹⁴

With Oxford’s intense marketing, people who simply wanted a Bible often found themselves holding a Scofield Bible, and thus became unwitting recipients of “Scofieldism.” To help ensure the Bible sold well, Oxford produced it in beautifully printed cloth and leather editions. To the unsuspecting, this appeared “God-honoring.”

How Scofield Twisted the Bible to Accommodate Zionism

I know some will argue that Scofield’s notes include many theologically sound remarks. Of course they do, because lies are far more effective when mingled with truths. The Bible warns us that “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (Galatians 5:9) and to “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” (Matthew 16:6). Scofield’s foremost mission was to harmonize his Bible with Zionism. Central to this was distorting the promises God had made to Abraham (the ancestor of both the ancient Hebrews and Arabs) in Genesis 12:1-3:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Although the word “thee” is singular in the Hebrew,¹⁵ Scofield pulled a fast one, made it plural, and applied the blessing to modern Jews. He wrote in his notes:

“And curse him that curseth thee.” Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew—well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.¹⁶

The Scofield Reference Bible was copyrighted by Oxford University Press, not Scofield. This gave the publishing house license to change his words in subsequent printings. Oxford issued a revised edition in 1967 (coinciding with the Six Day War and Israel’s seizure of Jerusalem). That version put Scofield’s Zionism on steroids, adding, for example, this phrase to the above words: “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.” The Bible, of course, never refers to “the sin of anti-Semitism.”

In Genesis 15:18, God described the land He was giving Abraham and his seed:

In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.

At Herzl’s Zionist congresses, plans were made to claim all land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

This demarks “Greater Israel”; the Euphrates and Nile rivers are the two blue stripes displayed on the Israeli flag. They enclose a star traditionally used in Satanism, with six points, six triangles, and a hexagon (six-sided) in the middle—666.

To convince Christians that Zionists remained entitled to this land, Scofield made God’s promise “unconditional.” He wrote:

For Abraham and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing.¹⁷

But as any Bible student knows—or should know—God’s promises to the Hebrews were always conditional upon their faith. When Moses brought the Hebrews out of Egypt, God did not even permit them to enter the land due to lack of faith. Instead, they were compelled to first wander in the wilderness for forty years. Do you think today’s “Israelites” are more faithful to God than those of Moses’ days?

Tel Aviv’s 2016 Gay Pride Parade. Tel Aviv has been voted the world’s number one gay city. Look like Biblical holiness?

Anyone who believes God’s promises to Israel were “unconditional” should read Deuteronomy 28, which clearly enumerates blessings for obedience, counterbalanced by curses for disobedience. What did John the Baptist think about claims of “unconditional” heritage? He told the Pharisees: “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9). Jesus said: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

Scofield also made it appear that the Bible prophesied a future return of the Jews to Palestine, in order to give the Balfour Declaration, and Israel’s eventual statehood, the illusion of “fulfilled prophecies.” His notes proclaimed:

The gift of the land is modified by prophecies of three dispossessions and restorations . . . . Two dispossessions and restorations have been accomplished. Israel is now in the third dispersion, from which she will be restored at the return of the Lord as King under the Davidic Covenant.¹⁸

Scofield’s claim of three restorations is unscriptural. The Bible prophesies only two restorations: the Hebrews’ original journey from Egypt to the Promised Land under Moses; and the return from the exile in Babylon described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. To support his claim, Scofield used verses referring to the Ezra-Nehemiah return, or to the coming of Christ, but nowhere does the Bible forecast a third return of the Jews to Palestine, unless ones uses (as Scofield did) imaginative leaps of logic.

A cardinal rule of Scofield Dispensationalism: claim that if any Biblical prophecy was not fulfilled in the past, it still awaits future fulfillment. Of God’s promise to give Abraham’s seed the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, Scofield wrote: “It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land.”¹⁹

“Important,” Scofield? Important to whom? Only to your Zionist masters. Although it is claimed that the conquests described in the book of Joshua did not give the Hebrews the whole land, and thus left God’s promise to Abraham “unfulfilled” until the future, a careful reading of the Bible disproves this. Joshua 21:43-45 declares:

And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

Kings 4:21 testifies that the Israelites ruled the entire area Herzl envisioned as “Greater Israel”:

And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon’s subjects all his life.

Thus the Bible itself refutes Scofield’s claim that the promise was never fulfilled, allegedly justifying the modern Zionist takeover of Palestine.

Scofield’s Legacy: The Damage that Has Been Done

Scofield’s Bible birthed “Christian Zionism,” and with it, untold sorrows over the past century:

• Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. In the 1948 Nakba, the Zionists murderously drove 750,000 Palestinians from their homes at gunpoint. Quoting If Americans Knew:

Zionist forces committed 33 massacres and destroyed 531 Palestinian towns. Author Norman Finkelstein [himself Jewish} states: “According to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War… acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’”²⁰

Victims of 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre

The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has continued to this day.

Israeli settlers abuse a Palestinian 

For those Christians who think the book of Joshua somehow still justifies this, I wish to point out that the Canaanites whom Joshua and the Hebrews fought against were giants; satanically transhumanized beings and worshippers of Satan. (See my article “Making Sense of the Supernatural.”) Today’s Palestinians do not equate to the ancient Canaanites, and contrary to what “Christian Zionists” typically believe, many Palestinians are Christians.

Israel destroys a Gaza town, 2014:

Israelis celebrate their bombs:

Christian Zionists have bought into the myth that Israel is only “defending its right to exist” and that Palestinians are “terrorists.” The Israelis have over 4,000 tanks and over 400 combat aircraft, thanks to a steady flow of about $3 billion annually from American taxpayers. The unarmed Palestinians have not one tank or plane; they fight their illegal occupiers primarily with stones.

George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 on the pretext that it was avoiding UN inspections of weapons of mass destruction (which, it turned out, didn’t even exist). Israel, on the other hand, has hundreds of nuclear weapons which it refuses to let the UN inspect; the United States grants it a free pass, and has even given Israel the hydrogen bomb.

• False-flag Terrorism and War for the Rest of the World. Contrary to the Zionist media’s spin, Israel has been the world’s number-one sponsor of terrorism, implemented “by way of deception”—the motto of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service. This has included, for example, the 1946 King David Hotel bombing, the 1954 Lavon Affair, the vicious 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, the 1986 “Trojan” deception that led Reagan to bomb Libya (scroll down a little if clicking link), and of course, the mother of them all, 9/11, covered with Zionist-Israeli fingerprints. 9/11 led to the countless and unnecessary Middle East wars which were already foreknown in 2001. Those wars in turn produced the refugee crisis ravaging Europe today.

• Provoking Hostility of Muslims toward Christianity. Christian Aid is a leading Christian charity and missionary organization, founded in 1945. Here is an informative 2003 quote from Bob Finley, Christian Aid’s founder and CEO:

Christian support for the Zionist movement began in England a century ago when a few Bible teachers began to interpret certain Old Testament prophecies regarding the ancient Hebrews as being applicable to the present day Jewish people. Apparently those teachers did not know that (according to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia) the Ashkenazi, or Yiddish, majority of Jewish people originally came from the empire of Khazaria in Southern Russia and are not biologically related to Abraham. So when a few Ashkenazi Zionists began trying to take over parts of Palestine through acts of terrorism about 70 years ago, some Christians started saying it signified the fulfillment of some obscure Old Testament prophecies.

Christians today fail to realize how such statements have had a destructive effect on our fellow believers in many parts of the world, so Christian Aid has begun to call attention to these facts. Since 1940 the Zionists have killed, driven out or displaced over two million of the original residents of Palestine. Their lands, houses and businesses have all been stolen, and most of their personal property as well. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled to refugee camps in surrounding countries over a 20-year period. Yet all the while, unbelievably, some Christians in America were cheering for the Zionists, and proclaiming their atrocities as being blessed of God. . . . Our thoughtless expressions of approval have been destructive in three ways.

1. What we have done to our fellow Christians in Islamic Lands.

When Americans speak favorably about Zionist aggression in Palestine, we bring needless persecution on multiplied thousands of our fellow believers now living in Islamic countries. Christian citizens of those countries are suspected of being in agreement with what the Americans are saying, though not one in a thousand of them are. When Muslims hear of Baptists in America praising Zionist atrocities, what are they to think of the Baptist churches in their countries? Or the Pentecostals? Or Presbyterians? How can we expect them not to retaliate against those who favor killing their fellow Muslims?

2. What we have done to missionary work among the Muslims.

Fifty years ago millions of Muslims were open to the gospel. There was a great missionary opportunity for reaching them for Christ. Muslims make up the largest segment of unreached peoples on earth, and they were very open until American Christians began to praise Zionist conquests in Palestine. Since most of the violence has been against Muslims, it is to be expected that Muslims in other countries would be sympathetic toward the victims and resentful toward the Christians who support Zionist expansion. This political development has served to cut off millions of Muslims from their previous receptivity to the gospel. . . . Our missionary opportunity among them has been ruined.

3. What Zionism has done to our churches. 

Until 50 years ago most Christians accepted events recorded in the book of Joshua as something special for that particular time. We believed that the coming of the Saviour brought a New Covenant under which we no longer resort to violence to advance the kingdom of God. But when the Zionist movement began in Palestine around 1920, some Christians started to disregard New Testament principles. We would say it’s wrong for us to kill our neighbor and steal his property, but if Jewish people did it in Palestine, then it was O.K. First it was thousands, then tens of thousands, and eventually hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were driven from their homes. All of their property was stolen by the Zionists. Forty percent of the victims were professing Christians, many of whom were born again believers. Yet, to our everlasting shame, many Christians in America have stood on the sidelines and cheered for the murderers. It’s all O.K., we say, because Zionism is a fulfillment of prophecy. It is hard to imagine how any Bible believer with reasonable intelligence could endorse such things, particularly when so many thousands of conscientious Jews the world over have objected strenuously to Zionist aggression in Palestine.

Some of our faithful friends in Christ have told us that if we dare to say anything about the tragedies that have resulted from Christians endorsing Zionist atrocities we may lose some financial support as a result. That doesn’t bother me. My Bible says, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Faithfully yours in Him,
Bob Finley
Chairman and CEO²¹

I do wish to point out: the great majority of Christian Zionists have endorsed Zionism without conscious knowledge of the atrocities in Palestine, which the U.S. media has suppressed. Most American evangelicals and dispensationalists are good-hearted people, who have unfortunately been led astray about Israel.

Why So Many Christians Buy the Nonsense

Besides Scofield’s distortion of the Abrahamic covenant to mean an “unconditional” real-estate promise to the Jews, and his invention of a third prophesied homecoming, the following reasons stand out:

• The “chosen people” myth. In keeping with Zionist preferences, Scofield ignored the New Testament’s clear explanation: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29). Scofield instead reverted the promise to an Old Testament context, a misinterpreted one at that.

Moreover, we now know that most people identifying as Jews are probably (as Finley noted above) not descendants of Abraham, but of the Khazars, a Turkic people who made Judaism their state religion in the eighth century AD. Jewish author Arthur Koestler pioneered historical evidence for this in his 1976 book The Thirteenth Tribe, research since affirmed by DNA evidence. The significance? If most “Jewish” occupiers of Palestine aren’t Abraham’s descendants, then they are not his seed, and thus not entitled to the land, even under the terms of Scofield’s twisted theology.

• The “Judeo-Christian” myth. Most evangelical Christians harbor the illusion that religious Jews today are adherents of the Old Testament. They believe they as Christians live in “Judeo-Christian” harmony with Jews who share the same essential values.

Of course, one cannot stereotype Jews, many of whom (like my late father) are non-religious, have no interest in Zionism, and assimilate into other cultures. However, when referring to organized Judaism, it is important to understand that religious Jews follow the Talmud, which rabbis consider senior to the Tanakh (Old Testament of the Christian Bible). Jesus consistently directed his most severe censures against the Pharisees, the teachers of the oral law, which they used to nullify the laws of God. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, dispersed Jews continued teaching the oral law, eventually written down as the Talmud. Over the centuries it evolved, becoming many times more evil than in Jesus’s day.

The Talmud decrees that:

—Jesus is in hell, being boiled in feces; Gittin 57a.²²
—Jesus’s mother Mary was a whore; Babylonian Talmud (BT), Sanhedrin 106a.²³
—Gentiles are donkeys; BT Berakoth 58a.²⁴
—All gentile children are animals; Yebamoth 98a.²⁵
—If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed; BT Sanhedrin 58b.²⁶
—Gentiles who study the Law deserve death; BT Sanhedrin 59a.²⁷
—A Jew may lie to a gentile; Tractate Baba Kamma 113a.²⁸
—A Jew need not pay a gentile wages owed for work; BT Sanhedrin 57A.²⁹
—It is permissible to cheat a gentile in court; BT Baba Kamma.³⁰
—If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile, it does not have to be returned; BT Baba Kamma 113b.³¹
—When the Messiah comes, he will destroy the Christians; BT Sanhedrin 99a.³²

It is not just ancient texts that disdain non-Jews, but modern rabbis as well.

—Rabbi Kook the Elder, first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the British Mandatory Palestine, said: “The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”³³

—Israeli Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in 1994: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”³⁴

—In his 2003 book Jewish Superiority and the Question of Exile, Rabbi Saadya Grama of Beth Medrash Govoha wrote: “The Jew by his source and his very essence is entirely good. The goy, by his source and in his very essence, is completely evil. This is not simply a matter of religious distinction, but rather of two completely different species.”³⁵

—Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said in a 2010 sermon:

Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. . . . With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.³⁶

Talmudic Judaism is inherently racist, not rooted in Biblical values. The behavior of Jews, not some sort of universal “anti-Semitism,” caused them to be expelled from more than 100 countries over the past two millennia. Martin Luther, well aware of their views and activities, denounced them.

Judaism regards non-Jews as animals. This is why Israel’s heavily-armed IDF soldiers regularly abuse Palestinians as though they were not humans. A booklet, written by the IDF’s chief rabbi and published by its Central Regional Command, indoctrinated soldiers with Talmudic outlook in proclaiming:

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah [Jewish law] they may and even should be killed.³⁷

The IDF’s new chief rabbi, Eyal Karim, has even said IDF soldiers may rape Arab women to boost their morale.

Judaism regards Christians with contempt, and only tolerates them for the time being because they represent a powerful pro-Israel voting bloc. The Jerusalem Post observed in 1983:

The real Zionists in the U.S. are not the American Jews but the Christian evangelicals since these Christians feel that we are coming closer to a critical period in history and they want the Jews to fulfill prophecies and thus hasten the Second Coming of the Messiah. The evangelicals affect 20 million people a day in America. They are a great asset and must be used as such.³⁸ [emphasis added]

Many Christians are duped into the illusion of “Judeo-Christianity” because Israel permits American church groups to visit ancient holy sites in Israel. But as Jack Bernstein, an American Jew who lived in Israel, wrote:

Tourism is one of Israel’s main sources of income. The largest group of visitors are American Jews. But, there are also many American Christians who want to visit the holy shrines and to see the land of “God’s Chosen People.” These Christians come away very impressed and filled with religious fervor.

While in Israel, Jews and Gentiles alike are carefully watched so that they do not stray and happen to see the sordid side of Israel—the true Israel. Like in Soviet Russia and other communist countries, visitors to Israel are taken on carefully planned guided tours. They are shown the religious sites, the universities, the lush orchards, the technical accomplishments, the arts, and to stir sympathy, they are taken to visit the Holocaust Museum.

But, kept from the eyes of the tourists are the ghettos, the prisons where political prisoners, mostly Arabs and Sephardic Jews, are subjected to the most inhumane forms of torture. The tourists do not see the widespread crime activities and the corruption and cooperation between organized crime bosses and government and police officials. The tourists do not learn of the true inner workings of Israel’s Marxist/Fascist government; nor do they see Israel’s racism.    

I met one American tourist who couldn’t help telling me about the wonderful religious feeling she had from being in Israel—the Holy Land. I remarked to her, “Just try giving a Bible to a local Jew and you will see how much religion and religious freedom there is in Israel. If seen by the police, you will be arrested.”³⁹

Check out Israeli television mocking Christianity:

Christian Zionism Degenerates into Complete Idiocy

Today’s Christian Zionists do not just fail to discern the Luciferian nature of Judaism; they treat Jews and Israel with veneration bordering on idolatry. Texe Marrs highlights an example caught on film:

[F]ive or six young Christians, some eighteen to twenty years of age, attending a national evangelical youth conference were asked, “How many of you love Israel?” All of their hands shot straight up. “How many of you would fight and die for the nation of Israel?,” they were asked. Again, every hand quickly went up. “And if Israel got into a war with the United States, how many would choose to go and fight with Israel against your home country, the United States?” Once again, all (except one) raised their hand, though not with quite so much enthusiasm.⁴⁰

A church I once attended invited a “Messianic Jew” to deliver a Sunday sermon. He told us it was very important for our church to show solidarity with the Jewish community. He announced that, to express this solidarity, we would pretend we were a synagogue today, and celebrate Purim (the holiday on which Jews celebrate being saved from their enemies—and slaughtering them). He distributed noisemakers to the congregation. As the rest of the church played along, noisily acting out Purim, I stood in silence. I looked across the aisle at another parishioner who felt as I did, and we shook our heads.

At the time, I was not yet schooled in Christian Zionism’s deplorable history. But I knew from the Bible’s clear instructions (book of Hebrews) that we, as Christians, are not to engage in Jewish ceremonies. Furthermore, the alleged purpose of the “pretend we’re a synagogue” service—to show solidarity to the Jewish community—made no sense, as no synagogue Jews were present to witness the event. In retrospect, I believe the “Messianic Jew” was simply trying to Judaize Christians, and for I all know, was snickering under his breath at the sight of us observing Purim; for given the Talmud’s remarks about Christians, the church was ghoulishly celebrating what was tantamount to its own funeral.

Brother Nathanael Kapner, who was Jewish-born-and-raised, and is now an Orthodox Christian, says this about Christian Zionists:

While some of Brother Nathanael’s remarks may bore agnostics, and anger Christians with differing theological views, his comments on the Rapture and “Messianic age” bring us to Zionism’s ultimate deception:

The Final Insult: Persuading Christians to Worship the Antichrist

There is nothing the Rothschilds would savor more than seeing the Christian church bow down and worship the beast, or Antichrist, whom they wish to rule their coming world government. This necessitates that when the Antichrist appears, he initially presents himself as the Second Coming of Christ.

When I was a young Christian, I was struck by a particular distinction in Bible translations. Older versions, such as the King James and Geneva Bibles, always said Jesus would return at the end of the “world” (e.g., Matthew 24:3). But modern versions (NIV, West-Horcott, Darby, etc.) said He would return at the end of the “age.” In the Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield begrudgingly used the King James Version, but always added notes clarifying that “world” was properly translated “age.”

This may seem only a nuance, but is vital to the Zionists. Dispensationalism says history divides into seven “ages,” and that we are currently only in the sixth. (These ages are artificial constructs; for a refutation, see this post by a former dispensational minister.)

By claiming Jesus shall return at the end of the current age, instead of the end of the world, Scofield and his cohorts created a scenario by which the Antichrist could proclaim himself Christ,  then rule the Earth during the next “age,” through the very world government the Illuminati have been building.

Scofield wrote in his reference Bible: “Upon His return the King will restore the Davidic monarchy in His own person, re-gather dispersed Israel, establish His power over all the earth, and reign one thousand years.”⁴¹

But could Lucifer really arrive in a way that would persuade Christians he was Jesus? Certainly. The apostle Paul, when describing false apostles, wrote: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14). Can he appear to do miracles? The Bible says, “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). This would be especially easy with the high tech now available, such as the capacity to project holograms, which can fashioned in the image of angels as easily as anything else.

As Emma Moore Weston notes:

This Scofield teaching is concerned with a literal Jewish kingdom to last for a millennium. . . . The Bible does not teach it . . . We must ask ourselves if Jesus ever offered or announced himself as an earthly King or claimed David’s throne? Had he ever in any way suggested he was going to set up an earthly kingdom? He said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence.”⁴²

The Israelites of Jesus’s day wanted a political Messiah, a king who would liberate them from Rome. Jesus rejected it:

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. (John 6:15)

Scofield and “Christian Zionists” reject both the character of Jesus and the Bible’s clear teaching by anticipating Him as an earthly king. They repeat the exact same error people in Israel made two thousand years ago.

Most Christians today believe that when they die, they will dwell in heaven with Jesus forever. But if Jesus is to rule on Earth for a thousand years, while they were in heaven they would be separated from their Savior all that time. Yes, Scofieldism=confusion.

Many churches today affirm, in their “what we believe” statements, that Jesus will return to rule Earth for a millennium. Yet only one passage in the entire Bible refers to Jesus reigning a thousand years: Revelation 20:1-6. I think it dangerous for any church to base a core doctrine on a single scripture passage, especially given the general consensus that the book of Revelation contains considerable symbolic language. As this post is already very long, I won’t elaborate here on Revelation 20, but I refer the reader to Appendix IV, “The Millennium,” of my book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.

The Temple Trick

For a number of years, I attended a fundamentalist church. One day, the associate pastor was teaching from the Old-Testament book of Ezekiel (in which God gave the prophet Ezekiel instructions on the building of a temple). The teacher told us that, since Ezekiel’s temple was never built, it must be constructed in the future, and that Jewish animal sacrifices would be restored. He said that after Jesus returned, he would reign from this temple for 1,000 years.

I was amazed at this teaching, because the New Testament unequivocally declares that the Cross of Christ did away with the temple and sacrifices. Much of the book of Hebrews is devoted to this point, telling us that “Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant,” and that “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” (Hebrews 7:22, 27)

The Book of Ezekiel, however, prescribed animal sacrifices:

Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the sovereign Lord. (Ezekiel 45:15)

Jesus will not require us to make such offerings; the Cross eliminated them. The Book of Ezekiel further proclaims:

This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites. (Ezekiel 44:9)

Would Jesus exclude foreigners? The Bible says the Gospel is for all peoples. Would he reinstitute the Jewish custom of physical circumcision? The Apostle Paul said:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4)

How had my church’s teacher become so blind to the Bible’s clear message? I later found the answer when he proudly displayed his Scofield Reference Bible.

Although Christian Zionists say the Jewish temple must be rebuilt, Jesus prophesied only its destruction:

“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Mark 13:2)

Never did Jesus ordain the Temple’s rebuilding, or state that He would rule from it. Here is what Jesus said about His return:

So if anyone tells you, “There he is, out in the desert,” do not go out; or, “Here he is, in the inner rooms,” do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from east is visible in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:26-27)           

Who will rule from a temple in Jerusalem? The Antichrist. Jesus warned the End Times would occur “when you see the standing in the holy temple the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel.” (Matt 24:15). Paul, speaking of the End Times, wrote:

Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thess 2:3-4)

Thus, Christian Zionists teach the opposite of Scripture and prepare their congregations to worship the Antichrist himself. And make no mistake, Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple, and to pay the costs gullible Christian congregations are being milked for donations, by some estimates up to $100 million annually.⁴³

Why the Rapture Had to Be Taught

I now broach a subject guaranteed to incite fury, because it is so widely believed among evangelical churches. Darby and Scofield expounded that Christians would not face the Antichrist’s persecution because the Rapture would remove them from the planet. They thus asserted that Jesus would return twice: once for the Rapture, and later again for His Second Coming. Here is the verse dispensationalists most heavily rely on for Rapture doctrine:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

I will let Carl E. Olson elucidate:

There are three problems with claiming this passage refers to the Rapture. First, neither it nor the entire book of 1 Thessalonians mentions Christ returning two more times, or makes any reference to such a distinction. Second, dispensationalists believe the Rapture will be a secret and silent event, yet this passage describes a very loud and public event. This is all the more problematic because dispensationalists insist that they interpret Scripture “plainly” and “literally,” allowing for symbolism only when such is the obvious intent of the author. Finally, dispensationalists teach that all other New Testament references to Christ coming in the clouds (Matthew 24:30 and 26:64; Mark 14:62; Revelation 1:7) refer to His Second Coming but inexplicably deny that that is the case here.⁴⁴

Furthermore, Scripture plainly teaches that believers will not be “gathered unto the Lord” until after the Antichrist has been revealed (excuse the following redundant quotation):

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him . . . . Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thess 2:1-4)

By believing they will be spared persecution, Christians are preparing themselves for disappointment and even shattered faith. Fritz Springmeier relates:

Chinese believers in China prior to the Mao’s Red Chinese takeover were told that they would be raptured before they suffered any tribulation. The communists took over and tortured and martyred millions of Chinese Christians who mistakenly thought the Bible taught that they would be raptured before any suffering. The Bible was widely discredited, because it had been mistaught.⁴⁵ 

Why did the Illuminati want the Rapture doctrine introduced? It emasculated the church as an opponent of the New World Order. Why fight something you won’t be around to experience?

Conclusion

Today, many Christians are perplexed as to why their congregations are shrinking. The reasons, of course, are multidimensional, and include numerous factors outside the church itself, such as inculcation of Darwinism in public schools, and Hollywood’s stereotyping of Christians as repugnant.

But much of the problem lies within the churches. Today, many truths about world events are freely available through alternative media. When informed newcomers come to a Sunday service, and see that a pastor, whose brain is hardwired to mainstream media, knows less about geopolitical truths than they do, will they trust that pastor to edify them about eternal truths? When they hear a pastor praising Israel despite decades of atrocities, and that the pastor thus excuses murder and theft, unable to distinguish fundamental right from wrong, will they trust this pastor to lead them toward righteousness? And when see that a pastor cannot understand clear Bible lessons, but instead teaches their opposite, based on regurgitation of Scofield’s Orwellian Scripture-twisting, will they want to return for another sermon?

I think not.

Picture credit: David Dees, http://ddees.com/.

For Further Reading and Viewing

Videos:

Marching to Zion

The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy

Blog Posts:

“Seven Biblical Answers to Christian Zionism,” by Rev. Stephen Sizer

“Truth about the Talmud”

“Why I Left Scofieldism,” by Rev. William E. Cox

“The Folly of Dispensationalism,” by Dr. Allen M. Barber (former Dispensational minister)

Books available on Amazon:

The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield

Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael Hoffman (excellent resource for Christians on the Talmud)

Christian Zionism and the Scofield Reference Bible: A Critical Evaluation of Dispensational Theology by David Lance Dean

Holy Serpent of the Jews by Texe Marrs

Zion’s Christian Soldiers? by Rev. Stephen Sizer

Notes

1. John Coleman, How Conspirators Misuse Christian Fundamentalists (white paper) (Carson City, Nev.: World in Review, 2003), 4.
2. As quoted, “C. I. Scofield: Scoundrel, Shyster, and Scalawag,” Heresy in the Heartland, January 13, 2014, http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2014/01/c-i-scofield-scoundrel-shyster-and.html.
3. “Cyrus I. Schofield in the Role of a Congregational Minister,” Topeka Daily Capital, August 27, 1881, as quoted, Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book (Vallecito, Calif.: Ross House Books, 2004), 99-100.
4. Canfield, 80.
5. Ibid., 83.
6. Ibid., 94.
7. John S. Torell, “Dancing around the Golden Calf, Part 5,” European-American Evangelistic Crusades, January-March 2007, http://www.eaec.org/newsletters/2007/Jan-Mar/NL2007Jan-Mar2.htm.
8. Canfield, 114.
9. Who’s Who in America (1912-1913), 1856, as quoted in Canfield, 290.
10. Canfield, 290.
11. Ibid., 218.
12. Charles Trumbull, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), 89-90.
13. James Whisler, “Dispensationalism Timeline,” http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/history/Timeline.htm.
14. Philip Mauro, The Gospel of the Kingdom (1927), http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1927_mauro_gospel-kingdom.html.
15. Thomas Williamson, “Zionism Verses the Bible,” http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Zionism/zionism.htm.
16. C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), 25.
17. Ibid., 20.
18. Ibid., 25.
19. Ibid., 250.
20. “The Catastrophe, Al Nakba: How Palestine Became Israel,“ If Americans Knew (April 2013), http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/ref-nakba.html.
21. Bob Finley, “Why Christian Aid Is Speaking Out about Zionism and Islam,” Christian News, May 5, 2003, 13.
22. Michael Hoffman, “Jesus and the Talmud,” The Hoffman Wire (2003), http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire1.html.
23. Michael Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods (Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History and Research, 2011), 240.
24. Ibid., 184.
25. Ibid., 196.
26. Ibid., 182.
27. Ibid., 185.
28. Hoffman, “Jesus and the Talmud.”
29. Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods, 182.
30. Ibid., 185.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 239.
33. Ibid., 189-90.
34. Clyde Haberman, “West Bank Massacre,” New York Times, Feb. 28, 1994, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/28/world/west-bank-massacre-israel-orders-tough-measures-against-militant-settlers.html?pagewanted=all.
35. Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods, 188.
36. Marcy Oster, “Sephardi Leader Yosef: Non-Jews Exist to Serve Jews,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, October 18, 2010, http://www.jta.org/2010/10/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews.
37. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994), 76.
38. Jerusalem Post, March 6, 1983, as quoted in Coleman, How Conspirators Misuse Christian Fundamentalists, 7.
39. Jack Bernstein, The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1985) (online edition), http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/israel.htm.
40. Texe Marrs, DNA Science and the Jewish Bloodline (Austin, Texas: RiverCrest Publishing, 2015), 165-66.
41. Scofield, 1227.
42. Emma Moore Weston, “Origin of Scofield Heresies,” Analyzing Scofield, http://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm.
43. Stephen Sizer, “Will the Jewish Temple Be Rebuilt?” (February 27, 2014), http://stephensizer.com/2014/02/will-the-jewish-temple-be-rebuilt/#more-4966.
44. Carl E. Olson, “Five Myths about the Rapture,” November 2003, http://web.archive.org/web/20041217140003/http:/www.originaldissent.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-11538.html.
45. Fritz Springmeier,” The Armageddon Plot,” http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/armageddon_plot.htm.

Books are periodically sent to me, or recommended by readers—more, unfortunately, than I’ve been able to keep up with. I just finished one, however, that cried “book review”:

The U.S. government long claimed it dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because only this would convince Japan to end the Second World War, and that it “spared millions of lives” which allegedly would have been lost had America been forced to invade the islands.

I’ve known this was a lie ever since reading Dr. Anthony Kubek’s 1963 classic How the Far East Was Lost. Japan had, in fact, already offered to surrender on virtually the same terms we approved at war’s end.¹ America demanded “unconditional surrender.” The Japanese were willing to accept this, but wanted to salvage one condition—to retain their emperor. Since we wound up granting that condition anyway, the dropping of A-bombs does not square with the public justification at all.

Establishment historians have tried offering an alternative explanation: President Harry Truman, aware of an impending cold war with Russia, wanted to demonstrate the A-bomb’s power in order to frighten Stalin.

However, this is equally bogus. In 1952, Major George Racey Jordan, a Lend-Lease expediter during the war, revealed that the Roosevelt-Truman administration had shipped the Soviet Union both the blueprints and materials for making the atomic bomb. This high-level treason, done on express orders from Harry Hopkins (White House front man for Zionist bankster Bernard Baruch), was detailed in Jordan’s book From Major Jordan’s Diaries.

It made no sense that these people, who were gifting Stalin the A-bomb on a silver platter, would also try to “frighten” him with it. Establishment media’s image of Truman as “Cold War warrior” is myth. As documented in Kubek’s book noted above, the Truman State Department went into overdrive helping put Mao Tse-tung and the communists into power in China, so much so that even Capitol Hill Democrats condemned the President for it, including young Congressman John F. Kennedy.² Truman did not send over 30,000 American soldiers to their deaths in the Korean War in order to “fight Communism,” but to validate the UN as a “peacekeeper” and to set a permanent precedent for by-passing Congress’s Constitutional authority to declare war. A 33rd degree Freemason who was the 33rd U.S. President, Truman also served Zionism with servility, recognizing Israel within minutes of its declaration of statehood, after AIPAC founder Abraham Feinberg gave him $2 million in a suitcase, discussed in another post on this site.

So why did Truman’s controllers order Japan’s nuclear bombing? As I have grown increasingly aware of the ruthless Talmudic psychopathology of the Powers that Be, I cynically confided to friends, “I think they enjoyed it.” But after discovering David Dionisi’s Atomic Bomb Secrets, we can be much more specific. This well-written, 217-page gem, documented with 496 end-notes, blows the lid off the sordid episode.

A ground-breaking detail I learned from Dionisi is the A-bomb’s role in Korea’s division into North and South. I’ve discussed the artificial justification for this division elsewhere, but Dionisi elaborates that Japanese scientists were developing their own atomic bomb. After initial research in Japan, the project was transferred to the Konan region of northern Korea (then a Japanese protectorate). This area was selected for multiple reasons: availability of uranium, the power the Chosin dams could generate, and (perhaps most importantly) keeping away from American bombers.

Giving the Soviet Union postwar control of North Korea (allegedly its reward for a mere five-days’ participation in the Pacific War) now makes far more sense. Not only was the cabal handing Stalin the plans and materials for the atomic bomb, they were giving him Japan’s installations for making one.

But Dionisi solves much more, especially the mystery of why Nagasaki was targeted.

After Christianity first reached Japan in the 16th century, it faced growing pains, including times of severe persecution, but gradually became established, centered in Nagasaki, which became nicknamed the “Japanese Vatican.” According to Dionisi’s research, in 1945 some 50,000 Nagasaki residents were Christians.

After the Enola Gay dropped the “Little Boy” bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, the plane named Bock’s Car (also written bockscar) carried the “Fat Man” bomb to Japan on August 9. Most of the 12-man crew believed their objective was Kokura, and a secondary target was only to be selected if weather interfered. Dionisi does much to debunk the “poor visibility” claim long used to justify the plane’s rerouting to Nagasaki.

The “Fat Man” bomb from Bock’s Car detonated directly over Urakami Cathedral, the largest cathedral in the entire Orient. At Nagasaki (250,000 residents), 73,844 were killed, 74,909 injured, and more than 120,000 suffered radiation effects.

Urakami Cathedral

Worshippers at Urakami Cathedral

Atomic cloud over Nagasaki

Remains of the cathedral

1946 photo of Nagasaki child injured more than a mile from Ground Zero

Truman and other U.S. officials later claimed the target in Nagasaki was a military one: the Mitsubishi shipyard. But Bock’s Car flew three miles past the shipyard before dropping its payload. The cathedral was obliterated; the shipyard left virtually unscathed. Its famous hammerhead crane (below), built in 1909, still stands today.

We shouldn’t overlook that Nagasaki expelled the Freemasons in 1926; by the 1930s Japan banned them entirely. Did this add “payback” to the Nagasaki bomb?

Harry Truman in Freemasonic garb

Dionisi insightfully notes: when Satanists conduct a human sacrifice, they believe they draw power from the victim’s death. At Nagasaki, over 70,000 lives, many of them Christians, were incinerated on a satanic altar.

(The Nagasaki bombing’s ritualism cogently reminds us that events like 9/11 are not necessarily purely geopolitical false flags, but often have spiritual dimensions as well. Is Nagasaki perhaps a clue as to why geo-engineered disasters keep striking America’s Bible Belt, but not the “Establishment” Northeast? Dionisi has written a book on 9/11, The Occult Religion of the 9/11 Attackers, which I haven’t read but have ordered.)

When people contemplate Japan’s nuclear bombing, most think: “Hiroshima.” Dionisi considers this a psychological ploy by the PTB (whom he calls “the Brotherhood of Death”). The first bombing would stand out in the public’s mind, while the principal target (Christian Nagasaki) would get largely overlooked.

In another macabre deception, a Catholic priest and Protestant minister were persuaded to bless Bock’s Car before it departed on its mission. Later, both men greatly regretted it.

Another compelling fact I learned from Dionisi: the horrifically bloody battle of Okinawa (over 150,000 casualties) was completely unnecessary to win the war; it was fought to convince Americans that A-bombs were needed.

But no one should think that, because they’ve read this review, they don’t need Dionisi’s book. It’s packed with other information I’d never heard before: about, e.g., Stalin, and Freemasonry. From his book you’ll learn why Pyongyang became capital of communist North Korea, why spying allegations were leveled against Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer (the Manhattan Project’s scientific leader), and about the American POWs who died at Nagasaki. And be sure to read his end-notes. Unlike most end-notes, which are dull recitations of publisher names and dates, Dionisi’s are loaded with collateral information; they constitute a “book within a book.”

Atomic Bomb Secrets rates a spot on any truth-seeker’s bookshelf. Thank you, David J. Dionisi.

Update, September 10, 2016. Since posting this review yesterday, I have exchanged emails with Mr. Dionisi for the first time. I learned some details worth adding. When Japan surrendered, the emperor was compelled to tell the people he was not divine. The Nagasaki bombing ensured Christianity would not fill the spiritual void this announcement created. Also, when I wrote this review, and linked to Atomic Bomb Secrets on Amazon, I was surprised to find only two customer reviews there, because I recalled that several more had been there when I first purchased the book. Mr. Dionisi tells me there has been a long ongoing problem with his Amazon reviews being removed. I consider this a tribute to the book’s merit.

NOTES

1. Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963), 91-92.
2. Kennedy remarked, “Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition of government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government. . . . This is the tragic story of China, whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.” Comments made on January 25 and 30, 1949, as quoted in James MacGregor Burns, John Kennedy: A Political Profile (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961), 80.

(1) Why did Lester Holt confront Trump with accusations and disagreements, while never once displaying even a hint of negativity toward Hillary? The following 7-minute video, containing all of Holt’s remarks, lets the double standard speak for itself:

Holt attacked Trump on the issues of his taxes and being a “Birther,” but managed to neglect the following about Hillary:
Health issues
Clinton Foundation corruption
Evidence of rigging the 2016 primaries
The Clintons taking a “charity deduction” on their own tax return by giving $1 million to the Clinton Foundation (i.e., themselves)
Hillary perjuring herself before Congress about privately sending classified emails
The approximately 30,000 deleted emails
The Benghazi disaster and its role in creating ISIS
Goldman Sachs “speaker fees”
Lying about “landing under sniper fire”
Voting for the Iraq War (no link needed)
Claiming she was “dead broke” when she left the White House
The Clinton Body Count
Covering up for Bill’s many sexual misdeeds
Filegate
Chinagate
Travelgate
Whitewater
Hillary’s incredible cattle futures profits
Being dismissed during the Watergate hearings for unethical behavior

If Holt is an “unbiased” moderator, why did he zero in on Trump’s taxes, but not mention even one of Hillary’s scandals? If Lester pleads that he is “unaware” of the above issues, is he qualified to be a journalist?

(2) Was Hillary giving Holt hand signals whenever she was ready to make a pre-packaged remark?

It certainly seems so. This video tell the story:

(Note: the above video frequently gets scrubbed from Internet, so search for it if the link becomes disabled.)

(3) Why was Hillary’s podium outfitted with a bright light that Trump’s did not have? Was this perhaps a teleprompter?

Again, we’ll let video do the talking. As you can see, there was mechanical toying with Hillary’s podium before the debate began.

(4) Who is the strange go-fer between Hillary and Holt?

First he meets Hillary on her way in, holding something.

After the debate, he hurriedly cleans up Hillary’s podium.

Got that folder!

Now he waits, holding the folder.

Finally, he appears to give the folder to LESTER HOLT.

Here’s the entire video:

Question: Did Holt, via this individual, give Hillary his questions in advance? If one wishes to argue that this was just some benign program flyer, such as “rules of the debate,” then why wasn’t it collected from both podiums, and why be so clandestine about it?

(5) Was Hillary “wired”? She has been accused of wearing an earpiece during previous debates, so she can receive “tips” on what to say. This was evidently no less the case during the Trump debate:

In fact, for the Trump debate, she was “loaded for bear”: wired heavy-duty. There appears to be some sort of box under her clothing with a cable-like cord running up to her head.

Is this part of a woman’s normal wardrobe?

Do I think the next Presidential debate will be fairer? No. Having been caught in the act, I think they’ll just be more discreet about how they cheat. And next time they’ll ask Hillary a “tough” question, but one that she’ll be fully pre-warned about, so she can respond with a carefully rehearsed, rote “rebuttal.” Then the moderators will crow about how “impartial” they were.

I THANK THE MANY ALERT OBSERVERS AND YOUTUBERS WHOSE WORK THIS POST UTILIZES AND LINKS TO.

UPDATE 10-1-2016:

After the debate, mainstream media claimed Trump’s breathing was marked by strange “sniffling,” and it was even insinuated he was a cocaine user. It has now been acknowledged that there were issues with Trump’s microphone. So I suppose I could have entitled this post “SIX questions,” but I’ll just add this addendum from Mark Dice:

UPDATE 10-4-2016:

Not only did HILLARY have an ear piece during debate, we now know that LESTER HOLT did also, in violation of Federal Election Commission rules.

One can only imagine the potential for collusion this created, with Hillary and Holt both receiving cues, very possibly from the same person. Watch Gary Franchi’s video:

So let’s make that SEVEN questions.

Ever since writing a cover story on the Kennedy assassination for the November 21, 1988 New American, I have avoided addressing that topic. Kennedy assassination theories form a labyrinth littered with rabbit holes and red herrings.

However, the Internet has turned a computer into a Millennium Falcon that can access information at lightspeed.

It is increasingly clear that the Rothschilds have long been the world’s foremost “Power that Be,” and that Israel, the Rothschilds’ proxy state, has been the world’s leading generator of terrorism, despite mainstream media’s interminable parroting of Israel’s self-portrayal as “victim.”

If anyone would have had the power to assassinate the President of the United States, it was the Rothschild Zionist Establishment. Michael Collins Piper’s book Final Judgment, linking Israel to the Kennedy assassination, got a strong boost in 2004 when Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu stated that Kennedy was assassinated over his opposition to Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Long before the Internet, one of the best resources in alternative media was Hilaire du Berrier’s intelligence newsletter, which he published out of Paris and Monaco from 1958 until his death in 2001. In his September 1963 newsletter du Berrier wrote:

Israel tested her first A-bomb in September, 1962, a product of the Beersheba plant in the Negev Desert. But the halting of this Beersheba plant was part of the package America agreed to deliver on the Test Ban Treaty’s signing. In late July American planes flew over the Israel reactor site at Dimona, as a reminder. The new government under Levi Eshkol did not push its protest. For actually, though Cairo, London, Paris and Brussels knew the details behind Ben-Gurion’s recent resignation, the American and Israeli publics are still in the dark. HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED: On the eve of the Harriman, Gromyko, Hailsham talks in Moscow, President Kennedy wrote a letter to Premier Ben-Gurion telling him to halt his atomic research and dismantle his plants. If he refused, a revision of America’s relations with Israel would be necessary. Literally, it was an ultimatum. Ben-Gurion looked over America’s financial aid and special laws favoring gifts and bequests to Israel and called it blackmail.¹

It is noteworthy that this description of Ben-Gurion’s fury with Kennedy was not written in hindsight, but two months before the assassination.

The Zionist New World Order has long been obsessed with nuclear weapons. I learned much about this from reading David Dionisi’s book Atomic Bomb Secrets, which I have previously reviewed on this website. Dionisi’s focus is the 1945 atomic bombing of Nagaski, a criminally unnecessary act, since Japan had already asked to surrender on the very terms the United States subsequently accepted. Nagasaki was targeted because it was Japan’s Christian center, home to some 50,000 Christians. The “Fat Man” bomb that decimated Nagasaki was dropped directly over Urakami Cathedral, the largest Christian Cathedral in the Far East.

In ancient Canaan, child sacrifices were made to the satanic god Moloch:

Dionisi notes that satanists believe: when they conduct a human sacrifice, they draw power from the victim’s death. The bomb that killed over 70,000 at Nagasaki would be deemed empowering on a colossal scale. The same could be said of the fire-bombing of Dresden, which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives (the exact number has never been possible to determine); an atomic bomb would probably have been preferred, but was not yet ready.

The dead of Dresden

While alternative media correctly regards 9/11 as a false flag intended to generate the domestic police state and never-ending Middle East wars, Dionisi notes the event had an additional dimension usually overlooked: the Twin Towers’ destruction constituted a ritual sacrifice, a burnt offering on a mass scale.

The New World Order’s upper levels are Luciferian, as has been described by intelligence analysts such as William Guy Carr (Canadian Intelligence Service), Ted Gunderson (FBI), and John Coleman (MI6). It is very evident in the Bohemian Grove “cremation of Care” ceremony taped by Alex Jones, in which the global elite engage in a mock human sacrifice (some say it is not mock) before a 40-foot statue of Moloch:

Luciferianism is on parade in the photos that have surfaced of a 1972 Rothschild-hosted ball:

(More pictures here)

Before the 2016 Presidential election, Wikileaks revealed the satanic ties of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, to Marina Abramović, spirit cooking, and pedophilia.

Aside from its military public pretexts, the atomic bomb created the potential for human-sacrifice burnt offerings on an unprecedented scale. During World War II, the Zionist Establishment took great pains to transfer the new technology to the Soviet Union, which was the Rothschilds’ first proxy state; the nation of Israel did not yet exist.

In 1952, George Racey Jordan, a Lend-Lease expediter during the war, revealed the Roosevelt-Truman administration had shipped the Soviet Union both the blueprints and materials for making the atomic bomb. This high-level treason, done on express orders from Harry Hopkins (White House front man for Zionist bankster Bernard Baruch), was detailed in Jordan’s book From Major Jordan’s Diaries.

In his ignored 1994 book The Fifth Man, Roland Perry identified Victor Rothschild, one of Britain’s most powerful bankers, as the long-sought “Fifth Man” of the notorious Burgess-MacLean-Philby-Blunt spy ring. Former KGB officials confirmed Perry’s identification of Rothschild. As an inspector for MI5 (Britain’s equivalent of the FBI), Victor Rothschild had complete authority over state security during World War II. He passed Britain’s own atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union.

In 1948 the Israeli state was proclaimed, and by 1949 it had already initiated plans for developing atomic bombs.² Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, said: “What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people.”³ Today many analysts estimate that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, but no one knows the true number, because Israel keeps its nuclear program an ironclad secret. The U.S. government doesn’t complain, which is ironic, since it demands that other Middle East nations maintain complete transparency about weapons, even starting the Iraq war in 2003 on the discredited pretext that Saddam Hussein was concealing WMDs.

Victor Rothschild was Jacob Rothschild’s father. Jacob and his cousin, Evelyn de Rothschild, are regarded by some as the two most influential men in the world today.

Popular Internet meme of Prince Charles with Evelyn de Rothschild    

Evelyn de Rothschild is so powerful that he and his wife, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, honeymooned at the White House when Bill Clinton was President.⁴ Rumors have persisted in alternative media (as in this clip) that the pair had a “front-row” penthouse view of the World Trade Center’s destruction on 9/11.

Which brings us to this post’s heart, a matter that has begun gaining wider acceptance in alternative media: that 9/11 was a nuclear event.

Nuclear 9/11

If anyone doesn’t understand that Israel, along with cooperative American Zionists, were 9/11’s architects, I recommend reading this article.

Two days after 9/11, NBC’s Tom Brokaw interviewed Benjamin Netanyahu, who remarked:

In 1995 I wrote a book called Fighting Terrorism, and I said that if we don’t arrest the tide of militant Islamic terrorism, then the next thing that will be is not a car bomb in the World Trade Center, but a nuclear bomb.

Netanyahu, perhaps realizing he’d disclosed too much, elaborated:

Now it wasn’t a nuclear bomb, it was a 350-ton conventional bomb.

Here is the clip. The remarks begin at the 1:21 mark:

Even though Netanyahu revised “nuclear” to “conventional,” one must ask how he knew the bomb’s specific yield. In fact, how did he know it was a bomb at all? Supposedly plane crashes had brought the Towers down.

The solution to the Towers’ destruction was pioneered in a 2006 book entitled Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre by William Tahil. He demonstrated, for example, that WTC dust samples contained inexplicably high concentrations of elements produced by nuclear fission, such as strontium and barium. He also documented that seismology recordings displayed two enormous off-the-chart spikes consistent with explosion, not mere collapse.

(See Tahil, p. 77, for full graphic.)

Tahil’s conclusions are being corroborated, not only by the high cancer rates among 9/11 survivors, but through the fact that, by 2008, thyroid cancer was occurring at above-average frequency in first responders more than any other type of cancer (if clicking the link, see the SIR—Standardized Incidence Ratio—in Table 2). And by 2013, the number of first responders with thyroid cancer had nearly quadrupled from 26 to 97. Why is this significant? Because nuclear bombs emit iodine-131, which collects in the thyroid, often causing cancer. This is why some people keep potassium iodide tablets on hand—to protect their thyroid glands in case of a nuclear attack.

Many phenomena were consistent with nuclear explosion on 9/11. Tremendous explosive force was needed to hurl chunks of the World Trade Center, weighing multiple tons, hundreds of feet, such as this piece which impaled itself In the American Express building across the street:
.
Multi-ton sections flew some 600 feet, demolishing the Winter Garden Atrium:

The collapsed Winter Garden Atrium

Then there was the virtually complete vaporization of the Towers’ inner contents: no furniture, filing cabinets (except one), computers, or toilets survived. All turned into dust. Even the buildings’ concrete became dust, instead of falling as chunks of debris. The vaporization, of course, included the humans inside (whole bodies that were found belonged to people who jumped before the Towers exploded):

Not only is a nuclear bomb the most powerful explosive known, its blast—unlike conventional explosives—endures for several seconds, enabling it to inflict considerably more damage.

A common objection to the nuclear hypothesis is: “Where are the post-9/11 Geiger counter readings showing lots of radiation in New York City?” The answer: not all nuclear bombs discharge large amounts of radiation. Most use a combination of nuclear fission and fusion; if the fission is high, fallout (radiation) will be high; but if fission is low compared to fusion, fallout will be low.

The Free Dictionary defines a “clean bomb” as “an atom bomb leaving little or no radioactive contamination.” During the Cold War, the United States began developing tactical nuclear weapons, also known as “battlefield nukes.” Obviously, in a battlefield situation, a low-radiation weapon is desired; otherwise it could harm one’s own army.

The Davy Crockett recoilless gun fired an M388 atomic round:

The nuclear warheads the Davy Crockett fired had a yield of only 10 to 20 tons,⁵ far less than the 350 tons mentioned by Netanyahu. A modern suitcase nuke is small enough to carry in a backpack.

What types of nuclear warheads would Israel stockpile? Although this is a state secret, it should be obvious that Israel would emphasize “battlefield” nukes. In war with its neighbors, it wouldn’t want radiation blowback to Tel Aviv.

It is interesting that the site of the Towers’ destruction was called “Ground Zero,” which my 1994 Webster’s New World Dictionary defines as “the land or water surface area directly below or above the point of detonation of a nuclear bomb.”

The Towers’ “collapses” were clearly explosions. Here is a shot of the South Tower showing a huge single upward burst of energy:

The North Tower explodes:

Tactical nuke exploding:

Here the same bomb creates an expanding ground-level cloud, similar to what New Yorkers fled from on 9/11:

For a full view of the explosion, watch from 2:36 to 3:02 of the following clip posted by ZiG ZAG (the entire video is of explosions of tactical nukes of various types and strength):

For comparison, here is a clip of the 9/11 dust cloud. Is this simply from “a building falling down”?

On 9/11, much of a nuclear blast, hitting mass above the “airplane strike” damage, would have begun dispersing through the Tower’s gashes. This is probably why it made no classic mushroom cloud that is a signature of atomic bombs. Nonetheless, as Tahil noted, the remaining plume was quite like that left by nuclear detonation:

If, as Netanyahu implied, there was one bomb per Tower, a logical place for suitcase nukes would have been the buildings’ deepest points: the service pits beneath Elevator 50, the only elevator that (1) ran the entire length of either Tower, and (2) went to the Towers’ lowest level, Sublevel B6. It was also close to each building’s center. Elevator 50 is colored blue in the schematic below; reference https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts.

(resource for last image: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Elevators)

This position would have created a virtual “launching pad” for a nuke; surrounding bedrock would have largely contained the blast’s sideways/downward force. The main force would have followed the path of least resistance­—upwards through the hole in the bedrock, its expanding energy surging fastest through the elevator shaft until hitting mass above the “airplane strike” zone.

This scenario might also resolve the mysterious damage to other World Trade Center buildings.

The Rest of the WTC: Nuclear Residual through Underground Pipes?

Building 5 was set ablaze (video clip here):

Here is Building 6 from overhead, with a huge crater that went to the lowest basement level:

Then there is the notorious Building 7, whose raging fires are seen in this clip:

When did these fires start? It could not have been before the Towers’ destruction. Otherwise, video of the burning Towers would have shown additional smoke plumes, cameras would have panned to the blazes, and news announcers would have said, “We seem to have yet another building on fire.” Some have suggested these fires resulted from bombs set off simultaneously as the Towers exploded. Yet given the terrorists’ success in bringing down the Towers, why would they fail to collapse the smaller WTC buildings (except for Building 7 at 5:20 PM, in an obvious controlled demolition)?

Nuclear blasts originating at the Twin Towers’ lowest levels may provide the answer. Underneath the World Trade Center, the buildings were interconnected by pipes, not only for sewage, but a storm water drainage system. Reading the World Trade Center Property Risk Report prepared for owner Larry Silverstein:

Storm Water
Roof drains and leaders convey the storm water by gravity to the various building drains, located on level B-1, which connect to the 36-inch storm watch drain that discharges into the Hudson River. The subsurface water and the machinery drips are drained into the various sump pits located in level B-6. The sump pumps discharge the clear water into two 36-inch storm water drains on level B-1.⁶

Any building’s place at greatest risk for flooding is its lowest point. For the Twin Towers, this would have been Elevator 50’s service pits, which, as we’ve seen, were carved into the bedrock beneath the lowest basement level, B-6. From here flood water would be pumped through pipes to the 36-inch storm drain. Thus atomic blasts here would not only follow the path of least resistance up through Elevator 50’s shaft, but up into the 36-inch storm water drain system. Starting at the following video’s 13-second mark, one can see overpressure bursting up in two geysers at the northern garage ramp, first as steam, then as smoke, before becoming engulfed in dust from the Tower:

The WTC’s storm water apparently drained through two systems, one linked to each Tower. Quoting Eric Darton’s 1999 book Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York’s World Trade Center:

Port Authority engineers ended up designing a dual sewerage system for the trade center . . . . Storm sewage from the west side of the complex—the Vista Hotel, Tower One, and the Customs building [WTC 6]—drains into the Hudson, as does the trade center’s air conditioning runoff. A pipeline was eventually built that channels the remainder of the waste water to the Newton Creek plant, on the border of Brooklyn and Queens.⁷

Thus the secondary force of a nuclear blast from the first (South) Tower could have propagated through the underground pipes and shot up through buildings 5 and 7, igniting them, and from the North Tower to Building 6. Building 7’s fires were less devastating—it was more distant and taller.

Falling debris could not have caused the raging internal fires seen in the smaller buildings. Earlier in this post we saw edifices outside the World Trade Center (American Express Building, Winter Garden Atrium) that were heavily impacted by debris, but they did not catch fire. THEY WERE NOT CONNECTED TO THE WTC’S UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

Lucky Larry

As is well known in the 9/11 Truth community, less than two months before the attacks, the World Trade Center came under new management for the first time in its history. Larry Silverstein and his partners purchased a 99-year lease for $124 million. After the tragedy he received an insurance payout of nearly $5 billion. Lucky Larry also managed to avoid being at the World Trade Center on 9/11 due to a fortuitous doctor’s appointment.

Silverstein is also great friends with Benjamin Netanyahu who, as we have seen, had predicted a nuclear bomb would be placed in the World Trade Center. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported in November 2001:

The two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu’s stint as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. For years they kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call, Silverstein told an Israeli acquaintance. Their ties continued after Netanyahu became prime minister.⁸

As the World Trade Center’s brand-new owner, Silverstein could easily have given Israeli agents with suitcase nukes access to the Twin Tower basements.

Silverstein is famous for his “pull it” remark regarding Building 7, the “smoking gun” of 9/11. But might Larry have had an even bigger smoking gun had he not pulled it? According to Building 7 survivor Barry Jennings (an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority), an enormous explosion in 7 destroyed the lower part of the stairs he and a colleague were descending in a stairwell. They retreated upstairs and were eventually rescued by the fire department. Jennings described intense heat, and stepping over dead bodies on the way out of the building’s blown-out lobby.⁹ Perhaps for Silverstein, pulling the building was better than having to explain all those mysterious office fires and corpses, which did not fit the official narrative.

Hollywood Hints

Much has been discussed about the entertainment industry’s innumerable pre-9/11 predictions.

No film reeks of 9/11 symbolism more than Back to the Future, from Marty’s DeLorean leaving a glowing “911,” to Biff watching a simulated Twin Towers collapse in Back to the Future 2. Director Robert Zemeckis later made a movie about the Twin Towers called The Walk, released in October 2015, the same year and month Marty traveled ahead to in the future. I won’t embed it here, but this 12-minute clip nicely summarizes Back to the Future’s 9/11 predictions.

However, a widely overlooked feature of its foreshadowing is the nuclear element. Here’s Doc explaining to Marty how he powers the flux capacitor:

Doc: Unfortunately no, it requires something with a little more kick, plutonium.

Marty: Uh, plutonium, wait a minute, are you telling me that this sucker’s nuclear?

Then there’s the bumper sticker on Doc’s car:

I acknowledge that this brief Hollywood digression in no way “proves” the Twin Towers were nuked. It’s supplemental, for whatever it may be worth.

Implications for the Truth Movement?

Might Tahil’s work on nuclear demolition have alarmed the 9/11 perpetrators, resulting in alternative theories of the WTC collapse, for the purpose of creating cognitive dissonance? I don’t know when in 2006 Tahil’s book was published, but in late 2006 Dr. Judy Wood proposed Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth was established (proposing nano-thermite). (In making this remark, I intend no insult to followers of either camp, who include many sincere and intelligent individuals.)

This summer, during his book tour, I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Bollyn, one of 9/11’s best researchers. In this interview, starting at about the 42-minute mark, Chris states a Mossad agent approached him in Germany and tried to sell him on the “beam weapons” thesis, long before Judy Wood got on board with it. Dr. Woods’ DEWs, which she initially called “Star Wars Beam Weapons,” took Israelis off the hook for 9/11, since they wouldn’t have had a space-based weapon.

Kevin Ryan, who, along with Dr. Steven Jones, is a leading nano-thermite proponent, exonerates Israel as well, in his book Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. After 312 pages, he writes:

Israel has also been discussed in terms of the possibility that elements of its government were involved. Unfortunately, such claims are often made without supporting evidence and coherent reasoning. Although there is evidence that Israeli intelligence knew details about the attacks in advance—the story of the “Dancing Israelis” verified this foreknowledge—many governments had advance knowledge of the attacks as indicated by the warnings received.¹⁰

Looking at Ryan’s suspect list in his chapter headings—Cheney, Rumsfeld, Freeh, Tenet, Clarke, Canavan, Sliney, Eberhart, Truscott, Jenkins, Walker, McDaniel, Giuliani, etc.—he somehow missed the innumerable Israeli/Zionist links to 9/11. There is virtually no overlap. His book never once mentions Dov “missing 2.3 trillion” Zakheim, comptroller of the Pentagon. Larry Silverstein is noted only in passing—no discussion of Lucky Larry’s $5 billion insurance payout or doctor’s appointment on 9/11.

The “plane strikes”

Although this post has primarily addressed the use of nukes of 9/11, its conclusions necessitate briefly discussing what actually struck the Twin Towers as “airplanes” that day.

Lack of physical evidence at the Pentagon and Shanksville has long left doubt that any planes hit them at all. Many people are beginning to realize that the Twin Towers weren’t struck by jetliners either. Whatever hit the South Tower was traveling at 590 miles per hour,¹¹ speed impossible for a Boeing 767 to attain at ground level; even if it did, it would have been uncontrollable, as demonstrated by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in this 6-minute clip.

Then, of course, are the impossible physics displayed in news footage of Flight 175 vanishing into the South Tower, its fragile aluminum wings and tail slicing through the 14-inch steel columns “like a hot knife through butter.” For those new to 9/11 Truth, there are innumerable posts and videos about this; I’ll embed a quick clip here:

Many believe the images of aircraft hitting the Towers were CGI (computer-generated imagery) made after the fact. However, Richard Hall has produced a compelling video demonstrating that, in all South Tower strike footage, filmed from many angles, the object followed the precise same trajectory. This indicates a real object hit the Tower. Hall concludes it was a missile shrouded in a plane’s image. I won’t embed the 30-minute video, but click here if you wish to view.

The declassified 1987 Defense Department paper Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations noted that the Israeli firm El-Op was then already developing holographic technology with “stealth applications.”

Hologram tech is real. It can make deceased performers “come to life” on stage:

Military implications are obvious. When Chris Bollyn was on his 9/11 speaking tour this summer, I asked his opinion of the “no planes” theory. Chris said that on images of Flight 175’s underside, you can see a missile; its nose lights up when it meets the building. (This is much discussed in the 9/11 movement.) Chris asked: if it was only a hologram, why would they bother including a missile image? Chris’s conclusion was that missile-carrying drones hit the Towers.

However, I didn’t understand how a drone could fly through steel any more than a jetliner. Although I am not wedded to the idea, Hall’s conclusion may resolve the dilemma: perhaps the missile was real, but the “airplane” was not. Unlike jetliner noses, which are so soft they have been crumpled by bird collisions, a missile’s nose is hardened and designed for penetration. With advanced holographic technology, a missile could easily project a plane image around itself. The sound people heard may have been a cruise missile instead of a Boeing 767. I have no idea where the missiles would have been launched, but it’s interesting that Israel began commissioning her first Dolphin-class submarines in 1999.

9/11 may actually have been a comparatively simple operation: four cruise missiles cloaked as aircraft, one of which had to be ditched in Shanksville; and two suitcase nukes in the Twin Towers’ deepest shafts.

We haven’t discussed many other aspects of 9/11 here: fates of the original passengers and planes, which I probed in an earlier post; the basement explosions heard in the Twin Towers during “plane” impact; and evidence for pre-planted explosives and thermite at the impact levels. But we can only address so much in an article.

What about the Future?

The goal of the Rothschild “Powers that Be” has long been an all-powerful one-world government. It was for this purpose that the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission were established. Regional consolidations such as the EU and NAFTA were designed as stepping stones to an ultimate world government.

Zionism has always been enmeshed with world government. This should surprise no one, since the Rothschilds have been the driving financial force behind both. Here is Israel’s first prime minister, Ben-Gurion, calling for a “New World Order” at the 1945 World Zionist Congress:

The world government’s center would be Jerusalem. Ben-Gurion predicted this in Look magazine in 1962 (below). A larger-font transcript can be read here.

Ben Gurion’s reference to a “Supreme Court of Mankind” in Jerusalem would startle no one familiar with “The Roots of Evil in Jersualem,” a description of the Luciferian architecture of the Rothschild-funded Israeli Supreme Court.

We should make no mistake—world government would be cruel, totalitarian, and ruled by a figure the Bible calls the “beast” or “Antichrist.” Revelation 13:7 says “he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” To govern the world, the Antichrist would need a world government. The Bible likewise warns he will rule from a (rebuilt) temple in Jerusalem; e.g.:

Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)

World Wars have been the primary catalysts of the Rothschild plan. World War I generated the first try at world government, the League of Nations, as well as the Balfour declaration, which the British government issued to Lord Walter Rothschild, pledging a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. World War II produced a stronger framework for world government—the UN—and the Israeli state. But the plan’s culmination (total world government, seated in Jerusalem) would probably require a World War III.

How do you start wars? Usually through false flags. The events which brought America into World War I (Lusitania) and World War II (Pearl Harbor), were orchestrated through deception.

What sort of false flag might trigger World War III? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that another World War would inevitably involve nuclear weapons. And here Israel’s secrecy concerning the number and size of her nukes becomes extremely troubling. According to the declassified 1987 Defense Department report, the United States assisted Israel in developing hydrogen bombs. Why would Israel need H-bombs?

Israel’s very identity seems intertwined with nuclear weapons. Even Wikipedia says Ben-Gurion was “nearly obsessed” with them.¹² What is the purpose of these weapons? 9/11 demonstrated offensive use. They obviously aren’t for defense because, after 9/11, the U.S. military squandered its resources eliminating Israel’s viable enemies in the region—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. Only Iran remains.

If, in fact, missiles were cloaked as jetliners for the 9/11 false flag, it raises a disturbing possibility. To instigate World War III, perhaps Israel would launch a high-yield nuclear missile against America, this time cloaked as a Russian bomber. Or a nuclear missile against Russia, cloaked as a U.S. bomber. Either way, the Zionists might get their Third World War.

The question would then become: How far would this World War go? While I realize Hollywood has limited predictive value, I will reference it here, only because it has modeled the possibilities. In 1964, two major films depicted nuclear war between America and Russia: Fail Safe (drama) and Dr. Strangelove (dark comedy). Their endings were very different, but equally bizarre. Columbia pictures produced both films, which even shared screenwriter Peter George (died 1966).

In Fail Safe, a computer glitch causes a U.S. bomber squadron to nuke Moscow, despite all efforts by the President and Pentagon to recall it. To appease Russia and ensure no all-out war destroys humanity, the President orders the U.S. Air Force to nuke New York City; as Ground Zero they use the Empire State Building, the city’s tallest building before the Twin Towers, whose design plan was publicly revealed that same year, 1964. (Makes one think twice about the original A-bomb program being named “The Manhattan Project.”)

In Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, a rogue American general launches a first strike on Russia, and here again, the Pentagon and President cannot stop it. In this film’s ending, the entire world is nuked; the audience watches a gallery of nuclear explosions while the song “We’ll Meet Again” plays. Dr. Strangelove has told us, however, that the world’s leaders and elite will escape the disaster by going underground, reminiscent of the DUMBs (deep underground military bases) discussed in alternative media.

Many believe that the German-accented character Dr. Strangelove was based on Henry Kissinger.

Dr. Strangelove was played by Peter Sellers, who had three roles in the film. Sellers had previously played three roles in another film about nuclear weapons—the Mouse that Roared (1959), in which a tiny country rules the world after stealing a powerful American weapon (the “Q bomb”) from . . . New York City. That film’s thesis seems like a parable for Israel. For just as the gun was called “the great equalizer,” the atomic bomb is an equalizer making small countries as formidable as the large.

Which are the Rothschild elite planning? The Strangelove option (nuke the planet) or Fail Safe option (limited nuclear war)? I believe it is probably the latter. If they intended all-out nuclear war, why bother with police-state surveillance, chemtrails, vaccines, false-flag shootings, and the host of other ills inflicted upon us? Why not just nuke the planet and be done with it? And how can you have a world government without a world?

While either scenario would produce a burnt offering to Satan on an unprecedented scale, a Fail Safe limited war could frighten humanity into accepting world government from fear of a Dr. Strangelove outcome.

When might this happen? Trying to predict the future is a great way to end up with egg on your face. However, I am concerned about 2017.

The Rothschild-owned magazine The Economist is notorious for its annual predictive cover. “The World in 2017” cover displays Tarot cards including a “death” card with a nuclear bomb exploding.

2017 has many anniversaries for the Rothschild elite to celebrate. Here’s a graphic I occasionally Tweet:

If I was Rothschild, and was sentimental, my ideal date in 2017 might be March 11, Purim, the holiday when Jews celebrate being delivered from their enemies—and celebrate slaughtering them.

What would be the best way to prevent an atomic holocaust? One thing Israel and its Rothschild patrons fear is military might. Neither American nor Russian generals want a nuclear nightmare. I believe Vladimir Putin would do well to warn Netanyahu that, in the event of an Israeli-schemed nuclear false flag, Tel Aviv would be first on the hit list.

Along with strategic hopes, we need to turn to God, and do a lot of praying. As a chaplain famously said at Pearl Harbor that Sunday morning, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.”

NOTES

1. H. du B Reports, September, 1963, pp. 5-6.
2. “Nuclear Weapons and Israel,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel.
3. Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Point of No Return,” The Atlantic, September, 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/308186/.
4. Nicole Goodkind, “Donald Trump Has Gamed the System His Whole Life: Lady Rothschild,” Yahoo! Finance, October 5, 2016, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-has-gamed-the-system-his-whole-life-lady-rothschild-183745584.html.
5. “Little Shots—The Cold War’s Smallest Nukes,” Military History Now, October 21, 2013, http://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/10/21/little-shots-the-cold-wars-smallest-nukes/.
6. World Trade Center Property Risk Report, Prepared for Silverstein Properties, Inc., (New York: Alternative Insurance Works, September 19, 2000), p. 11, https://info.publicintelligence.net/wtcinsurancerisk.pdf.
7. Eric Darton, Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York’s World Trade Center (New York: Basic Books, 1999; 2011 edition), p. 158.
8. Sara Leibovich-Dar, “Up in Smoke,” Haaretz, November 21, 2001, http://www.haaretz.com/up-in-smoke-1.75334.
9. Aaron Dykes, “Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53,” Infowars, September 16, 2008, http://www.infowars.com/key-witness-to-wtc-7-explosions-on-911-dead-at-53/.
10. Kevin Robert Ryan, Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects (Microbloom, 2013), p. 312.
11. “United Airlines Flight 175,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175.
12. Nuclear Weapons and Israel,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel.

Note: This article is being published during the final month of Barack Obama’s administration; the impact of a Trump Presidency remains to be seen.

In 1985, I began my journalistic career writing for The New American magazine, house organ of The John Birch Society. (I am not a spokesperson for either entity, so my remarks here are my own.) The magazine was, and still is, a defender of the U.S. Constitution, an opponent of globalism, and a critic of the Federal Reserve and Council on Foreign Relations. In the pre-Internet era, it was one of those few journals to use the word “conspiracy” in connection with the U.S. government.

If anyone doubts this, check this 1983 clip of Georgia Congressman Lawrence McDonald, who had recently become the Birch Society’s chairman, as he fends off “conspiracy” ridicule by Tom Braden (CIA/CFR) on Crossfire, co-hosted by Pat Buchanan:

Dr. McDonald, of course, was lost later that year in the still-controversial Soviet shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007.

Indeed, both the Birch Society and the magazine were perhaps best known as opponents of communism. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and communism were correctly viewed as a police-state institutions birthed with the Bolshevik Revolution. They were the builders of gulags and the Berlin Wall, suppressors of freedom of speech and religion, the architects of Ukraine’s Holodomor, crushers of the 1956 Hungarian revolt. Even The Black Book of Communism, published by the very liberal Harvard University Press, put the number of people murdered by the communists at about 100 million worldwide¹, although other sources put it much higher. And we perceived our America, with its Bill of Rights and middle-class prosperity, as the world’s beacon of freedom.

In an iconic 1961 photo, Conrad Schumann, a 19-year-old East German soldier, jumps over barbed wire to freedom in the West.

When Mikail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and subsequently introduced glasnost, we at the magazine viewed it with due skepticism. To us, it was just another Soviet ruse, temporary liberalization intended to deceive the West into disarming. Indeed, that was precisely the view which KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had expressed in his 1984 book New Lies for Old, which foretold communism’s future with astonishing accuracy—everything from the rise of a Gorbachev-like leader to the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

Giving further credence to Golitsyn’s work: its being totally disregarded by mainstream media (although his defection had inspired the opening scenes of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1969 film Topaz).

Golitsyn predicted that, in the end, communism would vigorously return, and that “all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear.”²

For a long time, I awaited that rebirth of Russian communism. I initially viewed Vladimir Putin with strong suspicion. The persistent question on my mind has been: “Is he the real deal?” Many of us in alternative media have become cynical to the point of believing that no major world leader can ever emerge without being a lackey for the Rothschild-run New World Order.

Instead, a very different scenario has unfolded. It is the United States that is descending into communism (via creeping socialism), the police state (via the Patriot Act, NSA spying, etc.), and anti-Christianity, as nativity scenes are prohibited at Christmas, gay marriage and transgenderism carry the force of law, and the entertainment industry has gone full Lucifer.

Madonna as Baphomet at the 2012 Superbowl halftime show.

Lucifer now enjoys his own TV show on Fox.

Over five years ago, the popular YouTuber Brother Nathanael, a Jewish convert to Orthodox Christianity, summarized the distinctions between Obama and Putin, and the different paths their nations were taking:

Unlike so many U.S. officials who, indoctrinated by the Council on Foreign Relations, place global interests above America’s, Putin is a nationalist who looks out for his own citizens. While America continually adds trillions to its staggering debt, Putin has actively worked to eliminate debt; he paid off all his country owed to the IMF and Rothschild creditors from the Yeltsin years.³ Putin has signed into law a ban on ads for abortions, while calls for ending abortion altogether in Russia grow. Whereas Russia has prohibited genetically modified foods (GMOs), the United States even outlaws GMO labeling requirements, preventing our people from knowing what they’re eating. Among the Russian people, Putin enjoys unsurpassed popularity.

Putin also makes refreshing sense in his foreign policy. Since the Zionist-perpetrated 9/11, America has become the world’s bully, destabilizing nation after nation in the Middle East, in wars that were already planned in 2001, for the sake of creating the Luciferian Greater Israel. Those wars have in turn sent millions of refugees into Europe, ensnarling that continent in chaos. After the brutal deaths of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, the Zionists next envisioned Bashar al-Assad’s bloody body being dragged through the streets of Damascus, and so the U.S.-created ISIS forces struck Syria. (Incredibly, a number of Americans remain so brainwashed that they still think these wars are all about “freedom and democracy,” a slogan that should have been relegated to oblivion after Woodrow Wilson said fighting World War I would make the world “safe for democracy.”)

But Putin had seen enough Middle East madness, and put a halt to it, climaxed by the recent victory of the Syrian army in Aleppo.

Perhaps most important is the spiritual dimension, which is the root of the Russian transformation under Putin. I again turn to Brother Nathanael:

Putin’s faith is not new. Father Tikhon Shevkunov, a Russian Orthodox monk very close to him, said in 2001 that Putin “really is an Orthodox Christian, and not just nominally, but a person who makes confession, takes communion and understands his responsibility before God for the high service entrusted to him and for his immortal soul.”⁴

Father Tikhon Shevkunov

In this two-minute clip, Putin criticizes Western countries for abandoning their own Christian roots and moral values, banishing Christian holidays, and embracing political correctness, pedophilia, and globalism. How I wish to see an American President speak like this:

Since the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, over 26,000 new churches have opened in Russia.⁵ Public schools have become so Christian that some parents have complained about it. In November 2016, accompanied by Patriarch Kirill, Putin dedicated a statue of Vladimir the Great, who Christianized Russia in 988 AD:

For those who still harbor doubts about the authenticity of Putin’s faith or the Russian revival, and have time for a 14-minute video, I recommend watching this:

Incredibly, at an evangelical church I used to attend, which was mentally incarcerated by Christian Zionism, the Bible teacher told us that today’s Russia is the evil Gog and Magog mentioned in the Bible, and confided to us his belief that Putin is the Antichrist. This individual was so bottled up in Hal Lindsey’s warped theology and the Left Behind series, that he was blinded to the obvious truths occurring in our world. While Obama was lighting up the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate gay marriage, this Bible teacher continued to proclaim how America is a “Christian nation” standing against “evil” Russia.

Many American Christians pray that the world will experience a spiritual revival. What most of them don’t know: revival is occurring now, within Russia.

As a veteran anti-communist from the late Cold War era, and bitter critic of the USSR, I never dreamed I’d see the day that America and Russia traded places. But it has progressively happened. Is Vladimir Putin the real deal? I believe he is. The corporate media’s continual demonizing of him (most recently with totally unproven claims that he hacked the 2016 election) greatly supports that. Some will say that Putin is only acting; if so, I say give us more such actors.

The spirit of the czar and of Christ, which the Rothschild-backed Zionists thought they had forever destroyed in Russia, is rising from the ashes.

NOTES

1. Stéphanie Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), 4.
2. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), 347.
3. “Putin’s Purge of the Rothschild Money Changers from Russia,” Political Vel Craft, March 23, 2013, https://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/03/23/putins-purge-of-the-rothschild-money-changers-from-russia-another-rothschild-goon-found-dead-another-flees-to-u-k/.
4. Charles Clover, “Putin and the Monk,” Financial Times, January 25, 2013, https://www.ft.com/content/f2fcba3e-65be-11e2-a3db-00144feab49a.
5. “How Russia Came to Be a Christian Nation,” Koinonia House, April 6, 2015, https://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2015/2379/.

Most of the posts I’ve written lately have been quite serious, as is the major one I’m working on now. In the meantime, I’ve decided to post something strictly for fun, because laughter is good for the body and (usually) for the soul. Sorry, ladies, this post’s not for you (except the ending). It’s a guys’-only view of the “battle of the sexes,” one of the few battles that crosses political, cultural and ethnic lines. In fact, I think it’s healthy to reaffirm that battle in this insane age of transgenderism and transhumanism. My thanks to all the memers, cartoonists and other creative people who provided this post’s content—some of whom are unidentifiable. If anyone sees content they created, and wishes it removed or an acknowledgement added, let me know.

In the old days, you could make sexist jokes about women. It hadn’t yet become politically incorrect.

“deposits and withdrawals,” Richard Decker, The New Yorker, 11/4/1950

Things are different today. We guys are supposed to be sympathetic to a woman’s feelings:

But they don’t reciprocate by sympathizing with us, do they?

Now, guys, If you want tips on how to treat women sensitively, follow the example set by doctors. They have tactfully developed something called “bedside manner.”

Women especially appreciate your listening to them instead of doing “guy” things like watching sports. However, Miller Lite has this little problem totally solved:

COURTING STAGE

Courting a woman has always been challenging, as the Three Stooges long ago demonstrated:

In fact, The Big Bopper’s 1958 song might make you think twice about going through that ceremony:

It’s even tougher courting these days, especially with hair-trigger feminism on the rise:

 

However, there are ways to make yourself attractive to women:

MARRIAGE STAGE

If you’re going to get married, be prepared. This scene encapsulates the wife-husband relationship in a typical American marriage:

(from The Nutty Professor, 1963)

Remember, marriage is hard work:

If you do wed, your bride may insist on certain conditions.

And be prepared for . . . arguments.


New Yorker cartoon by Paul Noth

Speaking of NFL refs . . .

Women being talkative is quite universal . . .

. . . even in the animal world. . .

. . . and in the age of advanced technology.

Women always win arguments. Well, almost always.

However, there’s one thing even worse than a woman who over-talks.

You can try getting revenge, of course . . .

But you’ll still lose in the end. And if you give up, don’t expect any sympathy.

Charles Addams, The New Yorker, 3/12/1949

DIVORCE STAGE

And if you’re thinking of divorce, fellas, Daffy Duck already showed back in 1941 (The Henpecked Duck) that, even in divorce court, a man can’t get a word in edge-wise:

And for you guys who have gone through divorce, does this scene from Throw Momma from the Train pretty accurately depict your ex?

OK, LADIES. SORRY ABOUT ALL THAT! My intent here was NOT to insult women, or stir up painful memories for guys, but to help some guys discharge relationship stress through laughter. We all know the kinds of sacrifices women truly make for their men.

In fact, I don’t know if anything has summarized the truth about women better than this quote attributed to author Sir William Golding:

I have wanted to write a post called something like “Is Trump the Real Deal?” That is a controversy right now in alternative media: some are faithful Trump advocates; others take the view that in the jaded world of realpolitik, no true outsider can win, that the Trump-Clinton rivalry was only for show, and that the Powers That Be wanted Trump to win anyway.

I do believe, categorically, that Hillary Clinton was the Deep State’s first choice. This was demonstrated by mainstream media’s ruthless daily pummeling of Trump, while kid-gloving Clinton despite her innumerable scandals; the rigging of debates; and even trotting out George H. W. Bush to announce he would vote for Hillary. The election was followed by unprecedented efforts to overturn it, including street riots, recounts, death threats to electors, and the unsupported “Russian hacking” claim.

But though the Establishment favored Clinton, is Trump a true populist outsider?

On the negative side, after pledging to “drain the swamp,” Trump has appointed a number  of swamp creatures, including neocons, Establishment Republicans, and Goldman Sachs bankers; there are those who feel he is moving too slowly on his promises, some of which—such as investigating Hillary—look abandoned. Most concerning to me is Trump’s long history of Zionist connections, now crystallizing in his administration, which I may elaborate on in an upcoming post.

On the “real” side, he has axed the TPP, is keeping his pledge to halt illegal immigration, is moving to repeal Obamacare, wants to work with Putin, has spoken to Robert F. Kennedy about leading a vaccine task force, and has reversed Obama’s insane transgender policies.

Although it is reasonable to say “the jury is still out” on Trump, I’m going to focus on two things that are definite: (1) mainstream media’s continuing relentless attacks on him; and (2) the orchestrated nationwide protests.

During the 2016 campaign, a study by the Media Research Center found 91 percent of broadcast media coverage was hostile to Trump. There has been no let-up since the election. Any mistake the President makes in his remarks, however trivial, is inflated and often distorted, whereas by contrast, the media chronically overlooked Obama’s many gaffes. On February 17, the New York Times published an op-ed entitled “Is It Time to Call Trump Mentally Ill?” On February 18, it published one called “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”  With efforts to overturn the election having flopped, the plan has switched to impeachment.

The barrage of anti-Trump headlines feeds the rage of “not my President” protesters, who also feed on cash from the likes of billionaire George Soros, America’s financial angel of civil disorder. He helped fund the Ferguson riots, the post-election November riots, the January Women’s March, and the violent February Berkeley protests.

As a one-time hippie, it appears to me that Soros is using the playbook from the Vietnam War era. This necessitates digressing to that period, after which we’ll return to Trump.

Vietnam Revisited

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am ANTI-WAR. A war, like a gun, should only be used as an absolute last resort. The “Arab Spring” wars inflicted on the Middle East over the past fifteen years, which were already planned in 2001, are abominations. But as we’ll see, the Vietnam War was undertaken for complex purposes, and was in several ways unlike America’s other conflicts.

As is still widely unknown, the hippie/antiwar movement of the sixties, like today’s Soros rioters, was billionaire-funded, in this case by the Rockefellers.

In The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, student radical James Kunen described the 1968 annual meeting of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which spearheaded the war protests:

Also at the convention, men from Business International Round Tables—the meetings sponsored by Business International—tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. They are the left wing of the ruling class. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.¹

Jerry Kirk, one-time member of SDS and the Communist Party, testified before the House and Senate Internal Security Panels:

Young people have no conception of the conspiracy strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below. . . . They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they are fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don’t realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes.²

In 1970, I hawked the Phoenix (Boston’s new left-wing counterculture newspaper) on the streets (they gave hawkers a really good deal). Eventually, after the Phoenix went too commercial, some of its former staff started a spin-off called The Real Paper. (The idea was that this paper would give you the real hippie news.) But who was owner and publisher of The Real Paper? David Rockefeller, Jr. His name was right on the masthead. To resolve this “cognitive dissonance,” I think most of us assumed David Jr. was “rebelling” against his capitalist father.

Me in the hippie days

Vito Paulekas was considered one of the prime founders of the hippie movement (Wikipedia even credits him with coining the phrase “freak out”). Ironically, Vito’s uncle was the father-in-law of Winthrop Rockefeller (David Sr.’s brother).³

Clearly, the Rockefellers were not adverse to the hippie movement, but embraced it.

Timothy Leary (“Turn on, tune in, drop out”), the guru of LSD and the counterculture, is suspected of working for the CIA, and eventually credited the CIA with directing the whole movement:

Just as stunning are the close links between the hippie music scene and Deep State (especially the military and intelligence communities), detailed by David McGowan in his landmark book Weird Scenes inside the Canyon. Many of the famed rock bands resided in the Laurel Canyon neighborhood of Los Angeles, a short distance from each other, and from the Lookout Mountain Laboratory, a top-secret military installation.

Jim Morrison of the Doors (whose songs I often listened to in the day) was the son of Admiral George Morrison, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Tonkin Gulf at the time of the notorious 1964 “incident” used to launch the disastrous war.

Like many sixties Laurel Canyon bands, the Doors were created suddenly. Morrison had no previous music or singing experience; none of the Doors had even been in a band before.⁴ Yet unlike most musicians, who must undergo years of development and struggle before success, the Doors swiftly had an array of hit songs and a recording contract. Their producer, Paul Rothchild, had served in the Army Intelligence Corps.⁵ Morrison’s career ended as abruptly as it began, when he died under controversial circumstances in 1971.

The defining hit of the hippie generation was probably “San Francisco,” composed by John Phillips (The Mommas & the Poppas) for his friend Scott McKenzie:

Yet like so many of the Laurel Canyon crowd, Phillips had a military background: the son of a Marine Corps captain; his sister Rosie worked at the Pentagon, as did his first wife Susie; and John himself attended elite military prep schools before going to Annapolis, from which he dropped out.⁶

The number-one protest song of that era may have been “For What It’s Worth” by Buffalo Springfield, who morphed into Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young:

According to rock lore, Stephen Stills and Neil Young first met on the Sunset Strip in April 1966, and formed their band. Like the Doors, they had meteoric success; within three months, they were opening for the Rolling Stones at the Hollywood Bowl and released their first single. McGowan notes that Stills was “educated primarily at schools on military bases and at elite military academies,” while Crosby was the son of a major in U.S. military intelligence.⁷

The most hardcore counterculture figure in the music scene was probably Frank Zappa. His father was a chemical warfare specialist assigned to the Edgewood Arsenal, in whose military facilities the family lived for a number of years. Frank Zappa’s wife Gail was the daughter of a Navy nuclear weapons research specialist, and she herself had worked as a secretary in the Office of Naval Research and Development.⁸

Frank Zappa

Read McGowan’s book for similar details on the various other Laurel Canyon bands. And while there may have been exceptions, I don’t believe all these rockers were simply “rebelling against their parents” any more than David Rockefeller, Jr. was when he published The Real Paper.

As McGowan observes, if the Establishment (“the Man”) had really opposed these bands, how did they land recording contracts with major labels, and why were their performances showcased on mainstream radio and TV stations across the country? Why weren’t they marginalized, and forced to languish performing as unknowns in coffee houses? When Edwin Starr’s “War” hit the top of the charts in the summer of 1970, I used to blast it out the windows of our hippie house on Franklin Street in Cambridge, Mass. No way these songs made it onto mainstream airwaves without “the Man’s” consent.

The same held true for Hollywood and even Broadway. Anti-war, counterculture productions, from Easy Rider to Hair, were featured in theaters. Yet during the entire course of the Vietnam War (1961-1975), just one major film was made sympathetic to the war effort: John Wayne’s furiously protested Green Berets, which only got produced because of Wayne’s personal determination, coupled with the pull he still maintained in Hollywood. Compare that to World War II, during which Hollywood produced scores of pro-war films over a span of four years. Indeed, pro-war movies about World War II continued unabated throughout the Vietnam period, without a peep of protest. No one seemed to notice the contradiction. Sixties movies portrayed the military of the forties as valorous and virtuous, but the current U.S. military as autocratic and paranoid—Seven Days in May, The Bedford Incident, and who could forget General Jack Ripper launching a first strike on the Soviet Union in Dr. Strangelove?

Television got in on the act, debuting All in the Family in 1971, typecasting Archie Bunker as a bigoted, knuckleheaded patriot. Watch “hawk” Archie rail against gun control while his “dove” son-in-law—and canned laughter—cue the audience on how to react:

The same pattern held for the mainstream news media, which portrayed the war in Vietnam as negatively as possible, from inventing Vietcong victories to hyper-publicizing American atrocities such as the My Lai massacre. On the home front, their cameras were always focused on the protests. In 1984-85, Accuracy in Media produced a documentary, Television’s Vietnam, which—especially in Part II—busted the MSM’s misrepresentations of the war. Since the film has been flushed down one of Orwell’s memory holes, I sent a VHS copy this week to my friend at Federal Expression for a YouTube upload. It’s long, and watching is not essential to this post, but I have embedded Part II below for reference.

None of the attacks bothered the Deep State in Washington. They had no intention of winning the war, for, as Orwell has been paraphrased, “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.” As I detailed in the first post I ever wrote for this blog, the Vietnam War was orchestrated by an elite inner circle of globalists who were not interested in defeating communism. They guaranteed that U.S. victory in Vietnam would be unachievable by imposing severe limitations on the military (“the Rules of Engagement”) that were without historical precedent. (Note: General Ripper was actually right—war should be left to generals, not politicians; his ridiculous character was put on display in 1964—same year as Tonkin Gulf—to help ensure the public would approve CFR bureaucrats running the Vietnam War instead of West Point graduates.) The Talmudic Zionists at the top of the Illuminati pyramid had funded communism from the beginning, which is why the Korean War (intended to validate the UN as peace-keeper) and Vietnam were the first wars America fought where victory was forbidden.

And what was their purpose in Vietnam? Aside from lesser motives (such as elimination of the draft, a move necessary to transform the military into an international police force—difficult to do with scruples-minded draftees in the ranks—and the usual weapons profiteering), the war was used to create a national divide. Americans faced a catch-22: they could either be “doves” and join the Rockefeller-backed, drugged-up hippies; or they could be scorned as “hawks” in the ranks of Nixon’s “Silent Majority,” favoring a war rigged to be lost.

In reality, the Deep State was deceiving both sides, though few people knew the Deep State even existed. But in the great national struggle over Vietnam, one side would wind up on top. The winner was predictable from who was universally favored by Hollywood, the music industry, and the rest of mainstream media: the “doves.” When all will power to continue the war had been inevitably exhausted, and the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, the doves could shout: “We told you so!”

While communism was allowed to win militarily in Vietnam, in America cultural Marxism won. We were changed from a Leave It to Beaver society to a Woodstock society. It hadn’t been just about Vietnam; a sweeping assault had been launched on the nation’s core Christian values, as sexual liberation—previously known as “immorality”—infected American youth, along with getting high on drugs. And having been defeated by “invincible” communism, many of my generation became political leftists, in a variation on Stockholm Syndrome.

This opened a Pandora’s Box, as a host of other counterculture agendas were piggybacked onto the antiwar movement: feminism (feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA), the gay movement, the pro-abortion movement, finally morphing into today’s transgenderism, pedophilia, and open Satanism.

Fast-Forward to Today

America is now in a huge and emotional national divide for the first time since the Vietnam War. Once again, it is funded by billionaires and inflamed by the media. As I have watched rioters fill the streets, I’m reminded of my youth. And I ask: Where were all the protesters when Bush and Obama were bombing Iraq, Libya and Syria? At least the hippies of the sixties had something of substance to protest: a war. Today’s demonstrators rail against shadows: the fact that their candidate lost (“not my President”); a comment Trump made about women in a locker room twelve years ago (while Bill Clinton’s rapes remain ignored); and a faux label of “racist.”

1986: Trump stands alongside Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali after they received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, an award given in “celebration of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity.”

As in the hippie era, Hollywood and the music industry are partaking, with Meryl Streep bashing Trump at the Golden Globe Awards, Madonna saying she’s thought about blowing up the White House, and Sarah Silverman calling for military overthrow of the government. It wouldn’t surprise me if we soon saw a television remake of All in the Family, with a new Archie Bunker as a Trump “deplorable.”

Former CIA case officer Robert David Steele, a major whistleblower on the Deep State, has told Infowars that massive riots are planned for Washington this spring:

Steele warns that the riots might include “staged shootings by white paramilitary operatives.”⁹ Such a scenario could be guided into full-blown nationwide race riots, and advance the already overgrown police state.

The Federal Reserve, a congenital organ of the Deep State, could pour gasoline on the flames. The Fed, which has been holding off a dollar collapse for years through quantitative easing, could tighten the money supply and crash the markets. Such a collapse would of course be blamed on Trump. Like the doves at the close of the Vietnam War, Hillary supporters would bark: “We told you so!”

With the nation in political and economic chaos, CNN’s pundits would proclaim that Trump must abdicate “for the good of the country”—a call that would be echoed by the usual GOP sellouts like John McCain and Paul Ryan. All this could happen without Trump doing one thing to provoke it. And if he didn’t step down, impeachment would be called for, as some Democrats are already discussing, including initiation of an “Impeach Trump Leadership PAC.”

Think it couldn’t happen? Let’s remember the crescendo that capped the hippie era: Richard Nixon’s resignation over erasing a lousy 18 minutes of tape. (Gerald Ford then became unelected President, and named as his Vice President—lo and behold—Nelson Rockefeller. If Gerald hadn’t dodged the assassination attempts of Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, a Rockefeller would have become President without receiving a single vote.)

The 2016 election represented an unprecedented David-Goliath victory of alternative media over mainstream media; let’s keep that victory going. What we are witnessing now, in the scathng attacks on Trump and “fake news,” is payback. But as the Bible says of the devil, “He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” (Revelation 12:12)

NOTES
1. James Kunen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary (New York: Random House, 1969), 112.
2. William Norman Grigg, “Behind the Environmental Lobby,” The New American (April 4, 2005): 19.
3. David McGowan, Weird Scenes inside the Canyon (Headpress: 2014), 65-66.
4. Ibid., 130-31.
5. Ibid., 101.
6. Ibid., 16.
7. Ibid., 17-18.
8. Ibid., 14-15.
9. Robert David Steele, Donald Trump, the Accidental President—Under Siege! (Kindle edition; Earth Intelligence Network, 2016), location 108.

The MacMillan Dictionary defines a “perfect storm” as “a very unpleasant situation in which several bad things happen at once.” Trying to predict the future is one of the easiest ways to end up with egg on one’s face. However, enough matters will converge on March 15 that I think prudence commends our at least being aware of them.

• Federal debt ceiling deadline. Recently the following comments from David Stockman, who was Ronald Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, caught my attention:

I think what people are missing is this date, March 15th, 2017. That’s the day that this debt ceiling holiday that Obama and Boehner put together right before the last election in October of 2015. That holiday expires. The debt ceiling will freeze in at $20 trillion. It will then be law. It will be a hard stop. The Treasury will have roughly $200 billion in cash. We are burning cash at a $75 billion a month rate. By summer, they will be out of cash. Then we will be in the mother of all debt ceiling crises. Everything will grind to a halt. I think we will have a government shutdown. There will not be Obama Care repeal and replace. There will be no tax cut. There will be no infrastructure stimulus. There will be just one giant fiscal bloodbath over a debt ceiling that has to be increased and no one wants to vote for.¹

It’s easy to see how President Trump’s visions of a wall, improved infrastructure, and a $54 billion increase in defense spending (not that much less than Russia’s entire defense budget) could evaporate in the weeks following March 15. Of course, Congress could do what it has before—raise the debt ceiling yet again. But in addition to the common-sense urgency of balancing the budget, Trump has enough enemies in the Establishment—Democrat and Republican alike, to say nothing of the media—who wouldn’t mind seeing turmoil that could be blamed on him. The U.S. government did experience a two-week shutdown in October 2013.

• FOMC meeting. Stockman also notes something else scheduled for March 15: the Federal Open Market Committee’s next meeting. He says: “They are going to raise interest rates on March 15. They have to. I’m talking about the Fed.”²

 Of course, Stockman’s prediction may be wrong. But if the Federal Reserve raises rates, such a move, coinciding with a government shutdown, could send markets reeling.

• Anti-Trump activities. Trump opponents have organized a campaign to deluge the White House with mail on March 15. According to the official site:

We will show the man, the media, and the politicians how vast our numbers are and we will bury the White House post office in pink slips, all informing the President that he’s fired!

Each of us—every protester from every march, each Congress calling citizen, every boycotter, volunteer, donor, and petition signer—will write a single postcard and put them all in the mail on the same day, March 15th, 2017. 

This might be the first salvo in what former CIA case officer Robert David Steele has warned will become a violent “American Spring” as soon as the weather warms enough, climaxing with massive riots in Washington on May Day, May 1st. (This is a credible date; May Day is a traditional communist holiday, but actually commemorates the founding of the Illuminati in Bavaria on May 1st, 1776. I myself participated in the 1971 May Day demonstrations in Washington during my hippie days). Steele writes:

George Soros is leading a massively funded effort to put a mix of paid and uninformed protestors into the streets beginning around 20 March—tens of thousands across the country, augmented by agitators dressed in black and causing property damage, as well as mercenaries who will shoot police officers dead and strive to blame it on Black Lives Matters and other innocents. This will culminate in a massive 3 million person march on Washington that will trash the city and seek to drive Donald Trump from office if he cannot be successfully impeached.³

A fiscal shutdown of the government could impair Washington’s ability to contain riots, and a collapsing economy—blamed on the President—would embolden the protestors, who are already pumped up by mainstream media’s relentless vilifications of Trump. (During the 2016 campaign, 91 percent of broadcast media coverage was hostile to Trump, and there has been no let-up since.)

If the President neither resigns nor is impeached, and the Soros-funded riots intensify into a bloodbath, Trump might invoke martial law. This could put many of his faithful supporters into the awkward position of consenting to a police state—the very endgame which so many of us in alternative media have striven to prevent.

• An important anniversary. For those who don’t know, the Rothschilds have long been the human center of the Deep State (if clicking link, scroll down to timeline). For the Rothschilds, March 15, 2017 will be exactly the 100th anniversary of the day when their most hated enemy, the Tsar of Russia, abdicated. This paved the way for the Bolshevik Revolution, which they financed, followed by the slaughter of millions of Russians. For the Rothschilds and their Zionist colleagues, 2017 actually represents many significant anniversaries:

• March 15 is also the “Ides of March,” the day on which Julius Caesar was assassinated, the date Shakespeare’s soothsayer famously said to “beware” of. Between Caesar and Tsar, is March 15 the ideal date for a coup against Trump, or at least the beginnings of one?

• Coup in Iran? This requires much greater elaboration. The weekend before March 15, Jews will observe Purim, the festival when they celebrate deliverance from their enemies (and slaughtering them) in ancient Persia (now Iran).

Last year, before any Internet discussion of March 15 had begun, I was contacted by a credible source who has had a very long, high-level association with Iranian affairs (he no longer lives there). At that time, he told me a coup will take place in Iran on March 15. He said that some individuals in the Iranian government will be complicit in it. While I certainly cannot vouch that this prediction is accurate, it squares with two other pieces of information:

(1) Although many in alternative media view Iran as a beacon of anti-Zionism, I have known for years that the 1979 Iranian revolution, which overthrew the Shah, was undertaken with the West’s backing, in what I consider perhaps the primordial blow of the “Arab Spring” (see my 2009 article for The New American). The article summarizes reasons for deposing the Shah (just as Mohammad Mosaddegh was deposed before him), but my source told me this Mike Wallace interview was the “last straw” that did him in.

He also told me that while many Iranians are true believers in the 1979 Revolution, there are also those in the government who maintain covert but strong ties with the West. This may explain why the anti-Zionist Brendan O’Connell wrote recent posts on Henry Makow’s website (here and here) about his surprise and disappointment at his warm/cold treatment in Iran.

(2) Because Iran poses the last major obstacle to the Rothschild-Zionist dream of Greater Israel, a coup makes sense to me. Iran is more than three times the size of Iraq, and would be too formidable for the United States or Israel to launch a frontal assault on. A coup would pit Iranians against Iranians, and start a “divide and conquer” process that has always been the Zionist modus operandi in the Middle East; the U.S. and Israel would probably back yet another group of “moderate rebels” with the goal of Balkanizing Iran.

[[Update, March 9: My source tells me the Iranian coup will more probably be launched during the Persian New Year, which begins March 21, when everything shuts down. He also says that Iran is the real target of the Trump travel ban, and that we should be alert for an event in the Persian Gulf. A near-incident between U.S. and Iranian vessels did occur in the Gulf on March 4.]]

In the meantime, Israel might attack Syria to try and salvage the failed ISIS operation, whose objective has always been removal of Bashar al-Assad. Since Trump became President, the Israeli military has been emboldened, launching air strikes on Syria.

If Washington experiences a financial crisis beginning March 15, coupled with Soros-funded riots, it might suitably serve to distract the American public’s attention from major events in the Middle East.

On that note, although Donald Trump has many undertaken many positive steps since becoming President—from axing the TPP to reversing Obama’s transgender policies—one of the most troubling aspects about him is his devotion to Zionism. Some things to consider:

—Trump is the only American celebrity to make an election commercial for Benjamin Netanyahu for Israeli television (click here to view), and he received Netanyahu at the White House less than a month after the inauguration.
—Trump repeatedly said during his campaign that America’s allies should pay for their own defense costs, yet he exempted Israel from this standard.
—It is worth watching the short video “Trump’s Deck of Jewish Cards,” made more than a year before the election by New York Jewish-born-and-raised Brother Nathanael.
—Two of the individuals Brother Nathanael then warned about, Jared Kushner and corporate raider Carl Icahn, are now “senior advisor” and “special advisor” to Trump respectively.
—Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism to marry into the billionaire Kushner family; Jared has raised money for the IDF, fired Phillip Weiss from the New York Observer for criticizing Israeli occupations in Palestine, and Kushner’s “special assistant” Avrahm Berkowitz is first cousin to Howard Friedman, former President of AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobbying group.
—Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is a pro-occupation hardliner.
—Trump has surrounded himself with numerous other Zionist Jews (enumerated beginning about 9:30 of this video).
—Trump has stated he will move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major step in the Rothschild-Luciferian scheme of “building the Third Temple.” Trump’s and Kushner’s mutual background in real estate might be relevant here.
—Trump sent a clear Zionist message at his inauguration, when he was introduced by Jewish Senator Chuck Schumer, and Trump’s speech was immediately followed by the first-ever inaugural benediction by an Orthodox Rabbi, Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who quoted Psalm 137: “By the rivers of Babylon, we wept as we remembered Zion. If I forget thee, Oh Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.”
—On Inauguration Day, Trump announced he would build a missile shield to protect Americans from Iran, which makes no sense, as Iran has no nuclear weapons, nor any conventional missiles that can reach the United States. Even if it did, Iranians would not be so stupid as to initiate a ballistic war with America, which could only end in their own destruction. One is immediately reminded of George Bush’s spurious allegations about Saddam Hussein’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” a claim that produced an interminable war costing trillions of dollars and over half a million lives. On February 3, President Trump imposed new sanctions on Iran.

• Wild card. There is also the possibility that March 15 could be “perfect stormed” by adding a singular event that is not on the calendar, something that would take America by surprise as much as the Kennedy assassination or 9/11. It might be a staged terrorist attack, such as a Gladio false-flag mass shooting, a bomb going off in a major city, or an assassination, any of which might be blamed on Iran. It is hard not to be disturbed by “The World in 2017” cover of The Economist (half-owned by the Rothschilds), which displays a series of Tarot cards, with a nuclear bomb featured on the “death” card.

[[Update, March 11: A reader just pointed out to me: Teresa May might trigger Brexit on approximately March 15. Quoting the March 11 Express article “BREXIT BEGINS: Article 50 could be triggered by Theresa May THIS TUESDAY”: “And Irish prime minister Enda Kenny added an early April meeting would be likely if ‘the Prime Minister moves Article 50, I think, by the March 15,’adding that Mrs. May had not yet revealed to him the trigger date.”]]

• And finally, there is another possibility: that March 15, and the days that follow, will remain relatively peaceful and uneventful. That is the outcome we pray for, while remembering that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

NOTES.
1. Greg Hunter, “Giant Fiscal Bloodbath Coming Soon—David Stockman,” USAWatchdog, February 26, 2017, http://usawatchdog.com/giant-fiscal-bloodbath-coming-soon-david-stockman/.
2. James Bailey, “David Stockman: Two Big Events Coming March 15, 2017,” Z3 News, February 26, 2017, https://z3news.com/w/david-stockman-big-events-coming-march-15-2017/.
3. Robert David Steele, “Four-Track Program to Destroy Trump,” Public Intelligence Blog, February 21, 2017, http://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/special-three-track-program-to-destroy-trump/.

Picture credit: David Dees

My book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior has an extensive chapter on vaccines. No pictures in that chapter, though. So for this blog post, I’m going visual-intensive, because we’re in a visual age.

This article includes many videos. I have tried to select ones of limited lengths (ranging from 30 seconds to 15 minutes) to keep busy readers from getting tied down. And YouTube videos, of course, can be speeded up by clicking “settings” and “speed.” However, the post is still not a quickie read and will more likely serve as a reference.

We in alternative media don’t have the billion-dollar marketing resources that Big Pharma does. I want to thank all the creators of memes, charts, banners, cartoons and videos utilized in this post. I especially credit Whale, VAXXED TV, Hear This Well, and My Incredible Opinion. I encourage you to visit their websites and YouTube channels for further information, and especially to watch the movie Vaxxed.

DOCTORS SPEAK OUT

Dr. Kenneth Stoller, pediatrician:

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, pediatrician:

Dr. Alvin Moss is interviewed by Polly Tommey, co-producer of Vaxxed, and herself the mother of an autistic son:

Dr. Boyd Haley, former chairman of the Chemistry Department, University of Kentucky:

Dr. Hale explains her views on vaccines here.

Dr. Humphries interviewed on vaccines:

Here’s Dr. Rachael Ross:

You can read Dr. Ross’s views on vaccines on her website.

FURTHER READING ON DOCTORS WHO SUPPORT VACCINE CHOICE:

http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/medical-doctors-opposed-to-forced-vaccinations-should-their-views-be-silenced/

http://complete-health-and-happiness.com/doctors-against-vaccines/?t=HHL

OTHER MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS SPEAK OUT

Former Merck sales rep Brandy Vaughan:

Former Merck salesman Scott Cooper:

Research nurse:

Calgary nurses:

Nurse Julie Sterns:

Personal anecdote: I (this post’s author) am a retired registered nurse. In the early 1990s, I was working at a major Boston-area hospital. One day, an announcement was made that an urgent all-staff meeting was to be held in the auditorium; we were to attend in staggered groups. I thought some sort of emergency had occurred.

As it turned out, the big news was that the CDC was mandating that all health-care workers receive, for our protection, three injections of hepatitis B vaccine. This made no sense to me. The only real way we could contract hepatitis B in the hospital environment was by accidentally sticking ourselves with a contaminated needle. Now it was true that, in the old days, we re-sheathed used needles, and if you were careless, you could prick yourself. However, needles were being phased out; we no longer piggybacked medications into IV lines using needles; instead we used adaptors. Furthermore, if we did use needles, we never re-sheathed them; every patient room had a red drop-box for them. Chances of accidentally sticking yourself with a dirty needle were nearly zero; and if you did, what were the odds of its being contaminated with hepatitis B?

What especially startled me was that even the hospital’s housekeepers were instructed to get the injections. I asked why this was so, since they had no contact with patients. The answer: “Well, some careless nurse might leave an uncapped syringe lying on a bed. And when the housekeeper makes the bed, she might not notice it and stick herself.”

I said that the odds of getting hepatitis B that way must be billions to one. I was told, “Even so, as long as it’s possible, they should get the shots.” I thought to myself, “Well, it’s possible that, while I’m walking down the streets of Boston, a piano might fall on my head. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to buy anti-piano insurance, or wear special equipment to protect myself from falling pianos.”

I refused those hepatitis B shots and signed a waiver. At that time, by the way, I had never doubted the efficacy or safety of vaccines. But we were being told to do something that made no sense, and in medicine, we were supposed to act rationally. I made a mental note to myself that something strange was going on, and that I should explore it in the future.

AND NOW, MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL:  THE PARENTS

First, take a minute as Bernard Rimland, PhD, founder of the Autism Society of America and the Autism Research Institute, asks parents in his audience a question:

(Dr. Rimland was investigating autism when it was still a little-known phenomenon, half a century ago, as this this 1968 documentary shows.)

Sheila Ealey:

Nicolas LaHood, Criminal District Attorney, Bexar County, Texas:

Eric, a single father:

Australian mom Tasha David:

Cindy, a mom in Beaumont, Texas:

For those who prefer to trust celebrities, here is film star Aidan Quinn:

And here’s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of President John F. Kennedy:

(Here is an article Kennedy wrote on metals found in vaccines)

Back to “regular” folks. A dad:

Brenda and David McDowell, parents of vaccine-damaged triplets:

A mom speaks out:

Another mom:

Another mom:

Muslims also understand:

FURTHER READING ON PARENTS:
Former NBC boss asserts his grandson damaged by vaccines: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/former-nbc-boss-asserts-his-grandson-damaged-by-vaccines/

A summary of numerous parents with vaccine-damaged children: http://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/vaccine-dangers/vaccine-injury-stories/

WHY IS AUTISM (AND NUMEROUS OTHER AUTO-IMMUNE AND NEUROTOXIC DISEASES) ON THE RISE? These Graphics May Be Helpful.

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at MIT, has her own insights into the biochemistry of the vaccine-autism connection, but leaves no doubt that vaccines are the culprit:

There is, in fact, a very obvious and rational way to determine if vaccines are making us healthier or sicker, but it isn’t being done, as Dr. Philip Incao explains:

I find the Congressional testimony of author Mark Blaxill, father of an autistic child, particularly edifying about the autism epidemic:

BIG PHARMA, THE GOVERNMENT, AND “VACCINE COURT”

But don’t pharmaceutical companies have doctors who say vaccines are safe and effective? Sure they do. Just as cigarette companies once had doctors who assured us that . . .

Unfortunately, as Mark Blaxill noted in the preceding video, there is very inadequate oversight on the part of government (CDC, FDA). This often stems from cozy relationships between the agencies and the vaccine manufacturers.

Because the U.S. government has ruled that vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued, they never owe even one penny for damage they inflict. When compensation is paid in “vaccine court”—a rare occurrence—all costs are borne by American taxpayers. Rob Schneider’s excellent animation summarizes the situation:

Since the drug companies don’t have to pay for vaccine injuries, they have little incentive to ensure that their products are safe. Furthermore, each time a new vaccine is added to the schedule, the millions of mandatory doses represent billions of dollars in additional profits. This naturally motivates Big Pharma to push for “no limit” on the number of vaccines given babies. More profits are padded on by all the drugs used to counteract the vaccines’ side effects:

Congressman Dan Burton grills an FDA representative:

BUT DIDN’T VACCINES ERADICATE POLIO?

Boyd Haley. PhD, on the polio myth:

By the way, when I was five, I was a poster boy for polio shots in our town of Wellesley, Massachusetts:

FURTHER READING ON POLIO:
“The Salk Polio Vaccine Tragedy”
“The Polio Vaccine Cancer Cover-up”

WHAT ABOUT THE DISNEY MEASLES PANIC?

In December 2014, media hysteria erupted over a measles outbreak said to have originated at Disneyland. Mainstream media nearly behaved as if bubonic plague had struck America. The outbreak was blamed on the “unvaccinated” and used as a pretext to push for legislation forcing mandatory vaccinations.

However, less than 200 measles cases occurred in 2015, and only one measles-related death, and that was a woman who had been vaccinated for measles. Yet the media treated these events as if far more significant than the rise in the rate of autism—a usually lifelong affliction— to 1 in 45 in 2015.

I would suggest that the “Disneyland scare” was prompted by the August 2014 revelation by William Thompson, a Senior Scientist at the Center for Disease Control, that the CDC had deliberately suppressed findings linking the MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccine to autism.

This made it imperative to distract the public from the genuine scandal and refocus attention on the “dread” measles, whose supposed remedy was the tarnished vaccine. This in spite of these statistics:

Those my age can still remember when measles was regarded as a normal, expected, and relatively benign childhood ailment, as is confirmed by these old TV comedy clips:

There is also evidence that vaccines were responsible for the microcephaly that another recent media circus blamed on bites from Zika-bearing mosquitoes, which was then used to justify airplane-spraying of populated areas with insecticides.

SIDS (SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME)

Here is one of many SIDS stories you will read at http://www.thinktwice.com/sids.htm:

Our beautiful daughter was born on February 14 and died on April 17. What was unusual was that earlier on the day she died I had taken her to the Military Base hospital for her two month checkup. The doctor told me that she was just perfect. Then the doctor said that she needed four shots. I replied Four!? She assured me that it was completely normal and that it was better to give her all at such an early age (because she wouldn’t remember the shots). That evening after feeding [our daughter] we laid her down to sleep and checked on her 45 minutes later and discovered her dead. I told the police, coroner and investigators that I thought it was the shots because she was perfectly fine that day and before the shots. But after 3 weeks we finally got the answer from the autopsy that it was indeed SIDS. To this day I believe that it was the shots and no one can convince me otherwise.

The Bundys of Indianapolis recount their experience with SIDS:

Here is the account of Dr. Brandon Perry, MD, who lost his son to SIDS:
https://truthkings.com/doctors-son-dies-sids-vaccines/

THE HPV VACCINE—ANOTHER GROWING DISASTER

Big Pharma and the government continue to push for mandatory HPV vaccination (Gardasil), regardless of whether children are engaged in sexual activity.

Dr. Brian S. Hooker on Gardasil:

A 16-year-old Irish girl, confined to a wheelchair by Gardasil, confronts a virologist at an event promoting the vaccine. 

AND LET’S NOT FORGET ALZHEIMER’S

Another personal note here: My mother, Dorothy Perloff, faithfully received a flu shot every year from her doctor, well into her eighties. Although she was otherwise healthy, she developed Alzheimer’s so severe that she could not finish a sentence she began, because she forgot what she had said only seconds earlier. If I was in a room with her for an hour, and excused myself for a minute, when I returned she had no idea I had been with her. She was that way for the last four years of her life.

On the other hand, my father, John Perloff, who died in 2013, one month short of his 100th birthday, never got a flu short. His memory was crystal-clear; even at 99 he could remember and describe Charles Lindbergh flying overhead in 1927.

I realize that this is anecdotal, and that my parents were genetically different. Nevertheless, if the aluminum found accumulated in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients is not coming from shots, then where does it originate? It should also be obvious that the older an individual becomes, the less his or her body is able to tolerate the toxicity of the mercury still being used in flu shots.

In the following clip, although his context is dental fillings, Boyd Haley, PhD, discusses the relationship of mercury to Alzheimer’s:

WEBSITES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

http://www.thinktwice.com/
https://vactruth.com/
http://vaccinetruth.org/
http://vaxxedthemovie.com/
http://vaccineimpact.com/
http://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com
http://whale.to/
http://vaxxter.com/
VAXXED TV https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwZDSEpPvE398OLazdituKQ
My Incredible Opinion https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwc0nUV55sTXXwS2E8UchmA/videos
Hear This Well https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFCrfK5rP_B6huriP1hLApw

A FINAL THOUGHT: IS IT ONLY ABOUT MONEY?

While I have no doubt that money drives most of the pharmaceutical industry, many of us are aware that a larger issue is at hand, one that is both political and spiritual in nature. If corporations only wanted to make profits, they could certainly do so by making products that are truly safe and beneficial. Those of us who study the “Deep State” know it has a population reduction agenda. I don’t intend to take this post political. However, some of you who are unfamiliar with Deep State politics may have sensed that our governments are not truly representative of our interests, and that there is often disparity between reality and the perspective of the news media. If you are interested in understanding these matters more deeply, my 2013 book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior can shed light on them in an introductory way. It includes a chapter on vaccines, and an appendix on my own struggle with vaccine injury.

Let me start by saying that I voted for Donald Trump, and anyone familiar with my website or Twitter feed knows how vigorously I opposed a Hillary Clinton Presidency. However:

Regarding the Syria airstrikes:

1. Trump contradicted himself 100 Percent. His Tweets following the 2013 alleged “sarin gas attack” reveal a different man, the non-interventionist we hoped we were voting for:

I am grateful to Middle East Eye for posting 13 of Trump’s Tweets, five of which I’ve screen shot.

2. Trump skirted the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to uphold in his inaugural oath.
Here’s what Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, Tweeted in response to Trump’s missile assault:

Trump cannot plead ignorance about this matter, since he said the same thing as Paul in his first Tweet above.

The Constitution designates the President “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy”; it is somewhat ambiguous about what independent actions he may take. In any event, Article 1, Section 8 clearly vests all war-making power in Congress. While I never thought I’d have anything good to say about Barack Obama, at least he asked Congressional approval for the airstrikes he first sought after the 2013 sarin gas allegations. Trump did not; he behaved as a rogue autocrat.

For those who argue that Trump was acting legally because he didn’t really “make war,” I would ask: If another country rained 59 missiles on America, would we not consider that an act of war?

If anyone truly believes Trump had the right to launch cruise missiles on Syria, without consent of the People or Congress, then by that same logic Trump has the right to launch a nuclear first strike on Russia, start World War III, and incinerate the planet. The Founding Fathers did not intend Presidents to be invested with such power; they consistently emphasized the principle of checks and balances.

3. Trump acted with impetuous haste, not waiting for adjudication of the facts.
If a person is accused of a heinous crime, do we simply lynch him on the spot? Or do we give him a fair trial, so that facts can be weighed, all sides of the story heard, and the accusation’s truthfulness determined?

If Trump was genuinely concerned about the sarin gas allegation, what he should have done: request an investigation by an impartial delegation, composed of members from several foreign countries with no vested interests in Syria. Such a delegation could have interviewed witnesses, examined forensic evidence, and submitted a report.

Instead, Trump received an intelligence briefing and reacted to some victim photos taken by jihadists. I know there are die-hard Trump supporters who will argue this was “good enough.” NO, IT WASN’T. COLIN POWELL HAD FAR MORE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS ON SADDAM HUSSEIN’S “WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION” AND SHOWED PICTURES TO THE UN. WE WERE THEN LIED INTO AN UNNECESSARY WAR THAT COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS. POWELL ULTIMATELY ADMITTED HE ACTED ON FAULTY INTELLIGENCE.

To this day, the Trump administration has supplied no proof whatsoever that Assad’s forces released the chemical agents. Syria’s air force did strike an opposition target, but there is no evidence they dropped chemical weapons. Rather, the chemicals evidently belonged to the terrorists on the ground. Peter Ford, former British ambassador to Syria, explains this important distinction:

British journalist Tom Duggan, who lives in Damascus, confirms that view:

Why didn’t Trump wait to get his facts straight before committing an act of war?

4. The United States was not attacked.
The U.S. military’s purpose is to defend America. Its mission is not to go around the planet, “kick ass,” punish people the President doesn’t like, or right other countries’ wrongs, real or imagined. We have enough problems to handle here at home; Trump knows this well—his campaign was largely based on that message.


5. The chemical agents could not have been sarin gas.
Patrick Lang, a former colonel in the Defense Intelligence Agency, says the U.S. missile strikes were “based on a lie.” Among many other points he makes, he observes:

We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

(meme posted on Twitter by Truther Monkey)

6. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh had already determined that when Assad was previously accused of using sarin gas, it was a false flag orchestrated by anti-Assad forces to provoke U.S. intervention.

You can read about Hersh’s findings here.

7. In 2013, Britain’s Daily Mail reported:

The full story is archived here.

8. Assad had no motive to use chemical weapons on his people.
The Syrian military, with Russia’s help, had recently won a major victory in Aleppo over the terrorists. This war has been going on for years, and during that time Assad never once deployed chemical weapons on the battlefield. Why, then, on the brink of final victory, would he suddenly decide to wantonly use them against civilians, knowing full well this would invite military intervention from the West? When determining the perpetrator of a crime, a critical question is: Who benefitted? ISIS and Al Qaida benefitted.

(posted on Twitter by Sal the Agorist).

9. Immediately after the U.S. strike on Shayrat Air Base, ISIS launched a new offensive in the neighboring region. Thus, for all practical purposes, Trump launched a flank attack in support of Islamic extremists—the very forces he came to power vowing to oppose.

10. If Syria was really storing chemical weapons at the targeted airbase, then attacking it with missiles made absolutely no sense.
Think about it. Supposedly Trump was reacting to reports that civilians were killed by chemical weapons. Yet if the airbase stockpiled such weapons, then U.S. missiles striking those depots would release the chemicals into the atmosphere, killing more civilians. One does not dismantle WMDs by exploding them. This means one of two things; either: (1) Trump’s military advisors are remarkably inept; or (2) (more likely) his advisors were fully aware the airbase housed no chemical weapons. Shout-out to Daniel Margrain at Global Research for making this point.

11. Trump is now keeping bad company.
Hours before the airstrikes, Hillary Clinton said the U.S should “take out” Syrian airfields. Trump is suddenly sounding like America’s most hated necons, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Some think it not coincidental that McCain had recently visited Syria. Most of us who voted for Trump hoped he would end the non-stop Middle East wars carried on by Bush and Obama. Instead, he has put his foot on the accelerator.

Furthermore, mainstream media, which had been attacking Trump daily like pit bulls, before and after the election, suddenly transformed. On April 9, I watched CNN’s anchor and commentators speaking with hushed reverence about Trump. I thought: “Do I have the right channel? Is this really CNN?” They declared how Trump’s airstrikes had restored America’s respect throughout the world. I don’t have that specific footage, but this clip is typical:

I don’t know if MSM’s honeymoon with Trump will last, but clearly the Powers that Be flipped a switch. I tentatively conclude that one of the motives for the completely unproven “Russia hacked the election” claims was to pressure Trump until he acted in a way that decisively clashed with Russia.

12. Trump displayed a hypocritical double standard on human rights.
The President said he was motivated to attack because “beautiful babies” had been murdered. Yet for two years, America’s ally, Saudi Arabia, has been bombing the civilian population of its neighbor Yemen. It has even rained down bombs (provided by the U.S. and other Western nations) on hospitals, airports, weddings and funerals.

Searching for survivors in the rubble of houses destroyed by a Saudi airstrike, March 26, 2015

Even tactical nuclear weapons are apparently being dropped on Yemen:

Even CNN has acknowledged that millions in Yemen are in danger of starvation.

And what about the ruthless bombing of Gaza by our “ally” Israel?

Watch Israel level a Gaza town:

Where is Trump’s compassion for victims like these?

Israel also drops white phosphorus (a chemical weapon) on densely populated civilian areas, a war crime and violation of international law. Here is footage of Israel’s white phosphorous over Gaza:

Palestinian victim of Israel’s phosphorous bombs (which are supplied by the U.S.)

Phosphorus victim tells his story:

Is Trump going to bomb Saudi Arabia or Israel for their atrocities against civilians? Is he going to punish them in any way? Is he going to aid the victims? NO. Furthermore, unlike the alleged “sarin gas attack,” the atrocities in Yemen and Gaza are well-documented and have been going on for years.

Trump’s glaring double standard on human rights make it clear the April 6 missile strikes were not motivated by humanitarianism.

13. The attack has drawn us toward World War III.
Syria, of course, is Russia’s ally. The more deeply Trump involves the U.S. in Syria, the greater the possibility of an incident involving a clash between American and Russian forces. Many times in history, an incident has hurtled America into full-scale war (sinking of the Maine, sinking of the Lusitania, the “Tonkin Gulf incident,” etc.). Do I have to explain that nuclear war has no “winners”? Trump should heed his own advice from 2013: stay out of Syria, and fix the broken USA.

14. The attack’s timing
As I have noted in previous posts, the year 2017 includes a number of anniversaries with significance to the Zionist Deep State.

Trump’s April 6th airstrikes occurred exactly—to the day—on the 100th anniversary of America entering World War I.

Summing up: what does this mean about the Trump Presidency?

As this blog’s followers know, I’ve taken a “wait and see” approach on Trump. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, hoping he might bring positive change. Certainly, I was encouraged when he axed the TPP, reversed Obama’s insane transgender policies, and spoke to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., about leading a vaccine task force. Perhaps Trump’s main plus was mainstream media’s relentless attacks on him.

But there were red flags too, such as his appointing “swamp creatures” like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (who spent 24 years at the New York City office of N M Rothschild & Sons), and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (formerly with Goldman Sachs and Soros Fund Management). But most troubling was his long ties to Zionism:

—Trump is the only American celebrity to make an election commercial for Benjamin Netanyahu for Israeli television (click here to view), and he received Netanyahu at the White House less than a month after the inauguration.
—Trump repeatedly said during his campaign that America’s allies should pay their own defense costs, yet he exempted Israel from this standard.
—It is worth watching the short video “Trump’s Deck of Jewish Cards,” made more than a year before the election by Jewish-born-and-raised Brother Nathanael. Two of the individuals Brother Nathanael then warned about, Jared Kushner and corporate raider Carl Icahn, are now “senior advisor” and “special advisor” to Trump.
—Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism to marry into the billionaire Kushner family; Jared has raised money for the IDF, fired Phillip Weiss from the New York Observer for criticizing Israeli occupations in Palestine, and Kushner’s “special assistant” Avrahm Berkowitz is first cousin to Howard Friedman, former President of AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobbying group.
—Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is a pro-occupation hardliner.
—Trump has surrounded himself with numerous other Zionist Jews.
—Trump has stated he will move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major step in the Rothschild-Luciferian scheme of “building the Third Temple.”
—Trump sent a clear Zionist message at his inauguration, when his speech was immediately followed by the first-ever inaugural benediction by an Orthodox Rabbi, Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who quoted Psalm 137: “By the rivers of Babylon, we wept as we remembered Zion. If I forget thee, Oh Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.”

In the lead-up to the bombing of Syria, we saw indications that Trump was “going neocon”: imposing new sanctions on Iran; the resumption of drone strikes; and sending 400 troops to Syria.

But when Trump launched those 59 cruise missiles—a very bad idea for the reasons listed above­—he crossed the Rubicon. His mask is off. There is now no question that he is collaborating with the Zionist Rothschild Establishment. Yes, he said a lot of good things during the campaign. But as all we know, “talk is cheap,” and “actions speak louder than words.” It look him less than three months to turn from a “Let’s fix America” populist to a full-fledged globalist neocon.

Some will argue that Trump has simply been receiving bad advice, but this explanation is refuted by Trump’s own Tweets. He knew what the right things to do were; instead, he did the opposite.

At this point, I’m going to conjecture that the Rothschild elite opted for Trump over Clinton—not because they disliked Clinton, but because they calculated Trump would be better able to garner assent, especially from the military and from American patriots, for continuing the unpopular Middle East wars that are aimed at the Luciferian goal of Greater Israel. Syria stands in the way of “Greater Israel,” and is also despised by the Deep State for other reasons enumerated by Syrian Girl (aka Partisan Girl):

I have heard, anecdotally, that since the attack on Syria, Trump has lost about half his support in alternative media. This probably reflects the fact that, speaking very generally, Trump supporters have always been in two camps. There were those of us who understand there is a Deep State, that the Federal Reserve runs/ruins our economy, that most terrorist incidents are false flags, that the key architect of 9/11 was Israel (who has been playing the West and Islam against each other), and that no refugee crisis would exist if we hadn’t destabilized the Middle East through endless war. The other Trump camp consists of good people; they are sincere patriots and many are Christians, but—again speaking very generally—they are unaware of the Deep State, believe America is a true democracy, accept what the mainstream media and government tell them about terrorist events, think our Middle East Wars are fought for “freedom and democracy,” and believe Israel is America’s great ally. Many of these people will continue to support and make excuses for Trump’s belligerent foreign policy.

I want to warn such individuals that if Trump continues pushing the Clinton-McCain-Graham agenda of “Assad must go,” it will mean the destruction of Christianity in Syria. Assad protects the churches, and is loved by Syrian Christians.

Thanks to the Syrian army’s recent victory in Allepo, hundreds of Christians were able to attend their first Good Friday mass in five years at St. Elijah Cathedral:

The “brutal dictator” and his wife on Christmas, 2016:

Let me send a clear message to Trump supporters who are Christians. The Trump administration, just like Obama’s, is supporting the Al-Nusra Front, an offshoot of Al Qaida. The White Helmets are also part of Al Qaida.  Al-Nusra, Al Qaida, the White Helmets—whichever one calls them—are working to overthrow Assad. This is a major Zionist objective, and is the reason the propaganda documentary The White Helmets was awarded an Oscar at the 2017 Academy Awards. This is why Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, recently repeated the “Assad must go” mantra. Thus in the irony of ironies, Trump, who proclaimed himself an opponent of Islamic extremism, is supporting Al Qaida in Syria. And if Al Qaida seizes power there, Syria’s Christians will be ruthlessly slaughtered.

Zionists and Luciferians have long regarded the Eastern Orthodox Church as an archenemy. This is why the Bolsheviks tried to eradicate it in Russia, destroying 60,000 churches and murdering 300,000 priests. To comprehend the Zionist media’s feverish hostility toward Syria and her ally Russia, one has only to look at the Orthodox revival now occurring in Russia, and recognize that Syria has been a Christian bastion since the days of the Apostles.

“The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”—Acts 11:26