War Profiteers and the Roots of the "War on Terror"

A Primer

This is a story about economics, politics, and conflict. While some of its prominent people are Jews, this is NOT a story about all Jews, or Judaism, or religion. Examples are given from several cultures and ethnic groups. Ultimately it is a story about an aspect of human nature that crosses all ethnic distinctions, that continues to create major conflicts, and that needs to be treated by law.

The "War on Terror" came into being as a war to protect Israel from "terrorists". Israel's supporters claim that Israel was established out of compassion, specifically, compassion for a victimized people. But if other innocent people were unjustly brutalized and slaughtered in the process, is it rational to conclude compassion was truly the motive? It is not.

The standard movie the mainstream media presents about Israel has a few key parts.

1. The U.N. partitioned Palestine, and the Jews accepted the U.N.'s decision. They were civilized and compromised.

2. The Arabs were not willing to share the land, and instead were anti-Semitic and uncivilized.

3. An overwhelming Arab military force attacked the infant country in its cradle, but the plucky little nation beat them all back, as if by a miracle.

4. And ever since, the Arabs have been threatening the very existence of God's favorite people, who are a beacon of morality to the planet.

But there is another movie. It differs by including many relevant historical facts that the standard movie leaves out.

It's key parts are these.

1. Jewish supremacists from Eastern Europe, mainly Russia and Poland, started a religious war in Palestine.

2. They were funded by war profiteering bankers from Western Europe and America, creating a point of continuing religious conflict.

3. Expensive, but affordable, control over key political institutions was obtained to start the war, and over key media to black out many facts, redacting them from public discussion.

When the British controlled Palestine they promised its residents that they would leave those residents with a NON-SECTARIAN (i.e. non-religious) democracy, with a clear separation between church and state, and NO state preference for any religion. A British White Paper was issued in 1922 to make this clear. "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

That promise was torpedoed by politically powerful bankers. They acted extensively behind the scenes to manipulate political decisions in Britain and then America. This included manipulating the reports and analyses that voters of Britain and America got from the news media. They also armed and imported staunchly segregationist Jews from Eastern Europe to drive unarmed Muslims out of their homes and lands in Palestine. These Jewish supremacist troops believed they were obeying their holy book.

At the beginning of the Zionist movement, most Jews in Western Europe and America strongly opposed the idea of setting up a Jewish state in Palestine, mainly for two reasons. First, they were assimilating into their various countries, and doing so quite successfully. They had no interest in abandoning their jobs, friends, cities, etc. to go live in the desert and re-create ancient Israel.

Second, there were people already living in Palestine, and they would resist having their homes and lands taken, and this would lead to serious, on-going conflict. And starting this conflict, and taking their lands, would put the Zionists on the wrong side of justice. These points were made clearly in 1917 by Lord Edwin Montagu, a Jewish member of the British cabinet, who considered himself a Jewish Englishman.

In 1896 Theodor Herzl proposed a Jewish state in his book "The Jewish State". There he wrote:

"Wherever we remain politically secure for any length of time, we assimilate. I think this is not praiseworthy..." Here he established his fundamental goal of maintaining the segregation of Jews from people of other ethnicities. And this segregation was being threatened by the political security that Jews were feeling in Western Europe and America.

He estimates, "The plan would seem mad enough if a single individual were to undertake it; but if many Jews simultaneously agree on it, it is entirely reasonable, and its achievement presents no difficulties worth mentioning."

In 1896 some Western European bankers sent Theodor Herzl as their emissary to buy Palestine from Turkey, but it was not for sale. "Herzl presented his proposal to the Grand Vizier: the Jews would pay the Turkish foreign debt and attempt to help regulate Turkish finances if they were given Palestine as a Jewish homeland under Turkish rule."

Herzl also connected with the segregationist Eastern European Jews in London. "In London's East End, a community of primarily Yiddish speaking recent Eastern European Jewish immigrants, Herzl addressed a mass rally of thousands on July 12, 1896 and was received with acclaim. They granted Herzl the mandate of leadership for Zionism."

In his more private diary Herzl wrote:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..." Here he describes the public relations aspects of how the land theft will be carried out.

Opposing Herzl's idea of a Jewish state was Ahad Ha'am, an advocate of "cultural Zionism", who thought a Jewish spiritual center in Palestine would be sufficient. He forsaw that war would come from Herzl's plan. In 1891 he wrote:

"We who live abroad are accustomed to believe that almost all Eretz Yisrael is now uninhabited desert and whoever wishes can buy land there as he pleases. But this is not true. It is very difficult to find in the land cultivated fields that are not used for planting. ... And not only peasants, but also rich landowners, are not selling good land so easily."

"But, if the time comes that our people's life in Eretz Yisrael will develop to a point where we are taking their place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily."

"We can't ignore the fact that ahead of us is a great war and this war is going to need significant preparation."

Certainly the bankers who funded the takeover of Palestine also saw that war would come from this plan. The bankers were well experienced with war, with financing war, arranging for the supplies of war, and profiting from both sides of a war. They had already been profiting from European wars for several centuries.

Did the Western European bankers share the Eastern European Jewish supremacists' belief that Jews were God's chosen people, destined to re-conquer the land of ancient Israel? They certainly did not share their strictly segregated lifestyle. This raises the question: Were they using these people's extreme religious beliefs for another end?

Whichever their reason, some bankers, including the powerful Rothschild bank, joined with a segregationist, Jewish supremacist sect from Eastern Europe in a plan that included attacking Muslims in Palestine, effectively starting a religious war. This sect was ready to carry guns and be shipped to Palestine. The bankers were experienced at supplying and moving troops, and had the political influence to smuggle them across Europe without being stopped. Here's an account by a reporter who was there at the time.

The bankers wanted (1) a legal toe-hold in Palestine. That led to long and detailed manipulations of the British government to obtain some statement in writing that could be interpreted as a legal basis for taking over Palestine. They also wanted (2) a preliminary British military takeover of Palestine (World War I was in process), after which Zionist armed forces would proceed to a Zionist takeover.

The written statement was in a letter from British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour to British financier James de Rothschild, often called the "Balfour Declaration". The Balfour letter was the result of prolonged, secret negotiations in Britain and America. It settled on the term "home", a carefully crafted ambiguity, to describe a Jewish community in Palestine. The British interpreted this as a cultural enclave, while the Zionists would ultimately interpret it to mean a Jewish state. Thus, it let some politicians get banker support for their ends, while not committing to a war in Palestine, and let the bankers claim a legal toe-hold from which they could take step (2) toward a Jewish state. The declaration in the Balfour letter says,

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The entire letter and an account of the long campaign of secret political manpulations and money behind it in England and America is given here.

Further details of events behind the scenes are in the following pages.

Along with the Balfour declaration, step (1) of the plan included an initial British takeover of Palestine. This was accomplished with political influence despite the fact that it diverted military resources from the European front (WWI), against the advice of Britain's senior military men.

Divergent interpretations of the 1917 Balfour letter led to a British white paper in June of 1922 clarifying the meaning of the term "national home". The white paper said, "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

In August of 1922 the League of Nations issued a "Mandate for Palestine" that gave "Principal Allied Powers" a mandate to temporarily govern Palestine until an arrangement for a permanent government could be established. Wording from the Balfour letter about a "national home" for Jews was included in defining this Mandate. Also taken from the Balfour letter, the Preamble said "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB

But the Zionists were determined. William Yale was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. He talked with the bankers' emissary Chaim Weizmann in 1919, and "asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, 'If they don't,' he said, 'we'll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.'"

As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had previously said, “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”.

Since Britain had promised a non-sectarian democracy to the people living in Palestine, it required extensive activity behind the scenes to break that promise. It required buying control of major newspapers as well as politicians.

The capture of the London Times is described here.

At the end of World War I the Zionists had the Balfour Declaration in hand, and the British army controlled Palestine. The plan continued into World War II. Reporting during World War II was distorted to minimize the non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, although more numerous, and to highlight the Jewish victims.

The suppression of information in America is described here.

President Franklin Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saoud during February of 1945, shortly after the Yalta meeting. He later noted that he had learned more about Palestine from King Saoud in five minutes than he had previously learned in a lifetime. Initially he asked Saoud to admit more Jews into Palestine. Saoud refused, saying “there was a Palestine army of Jews all armed to the teeth and … they did not seem to be fighting the Germans but were aiming at the Arabs.”

On April 5 Roosevelt sent a letter to Saoud reaffirming a verbal pledge, which said, “I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government which might prove hostile to the Arab people.” On April 12 Roosevelt died.

Roosevelt was followed in the presidency by Harry Truman, who had a deep interest in the Bible since childhood. In the biography Plain Speaking by Merle Miller, Truman relates that on April 20, 1945, he was to meet with Rabbi Stephen Wise, chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council, and he was "looking forward to it because I knew he wanted to talk about Palestine, and that is one part of the world that has always interested me, partly because of its Biblical background, of course." (p. 230)

Rabbi Wise wanted to talk about "the reasons underlying the wish of the Jewish people for a homeland." Truman assured Wise he knew all about it, and "the United States would do all that it could to help the Jewish people set up a homeland." (p. 232) Truman also assured Wise that he would ignore any objections from the "striped pants boys" in the State Department, and belittled their expertise. (p. 233)

All Truman's state department experts opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, including his Secretary of State George C. Marshall, after whom was named the Marshall Plan. "General Marshall told the American Cabinet that such a British withdrawal 'would be followed by a bloody struggle between the Arabs and Jews' (August 8, 1947), and his Under Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lovett, pointed to the danger of 'solidifying sentiment among all the Arabian and Mohammedan peoples' against the United States (August 15, 1947)."

In March of 1948 the conflict over Palestine had not yet been settled, and was before the United Nations. Zionist pressure on the White House was intense. As Truman told Merle Miller, "Well, there's never been anything like it before, and there wasn't after. Not even when I fired MacArthur there wasn't." (p. 234)

On March 13, 1948 Truman received his friend and business partner from Missouri, Eddie Jacobson, after making him promise not to talk about the Middle East. But Jacobson broke his promise, and Truman recounts him saying, "Mr. President, I haven't said a word, but every time I think of the homeless Jews, homeless for thousands of years, and I think about Dr. Weizmann, I start crying. I can't help it. He's an old man, and he's spent his whole life working for a homeland for the Jews, and now he's sick, and he's in New York and wants to see you. And every time I think about it I can't help crying." (Plain Speaking, p. 235) On March 18 Weizmann visited Truman, entering through the east gate to avoid normal protocol and publicity.

The Zionists played the Republicans and Democrats against each other for "very large sums" of money and votes in the upcoming presidential election. Mr. James Forrestal, Secretary for Defense, was concerned about the potential negative consequences for America's national security. "It is doubtful if there is any segment of our foreign relations of greater importance or of greater danger … to the security of the United States than our relations in the Middle East." Forrestal tried to get the presidential candidates to take the Palestine issue out of politics. To the Republican candidate, Governor Dewey, "I said the Palestine matter was a matter of the deepest concern to me in terms of the security of the nation, and asked, once more, if the parties could not agree to take this question out of their electoral campaigning." Dewey replied that it would be "a difficult matter to get results because of the intemperate attitude of the Jewish people who had taken Palestine as their emotional symbol", and also "because the Democratic party would not be willing to relinquish the advantages of the Jewish vote."

On the Democratic side Secretary Forrestal talked with the Democratic party-manager, Mr. J. Howard McGrath, and was told, "There were two or three pivotal states [New York, Pennsylvania, and California] which could not be carried without the support of people who were deeply interested in the Palestine question." Forrestal's Diary notes that "a substantial part of the Democratic funds come from Zionist sources inclined to ask in return for a lien upon this part of our national policy." At that point both parties became financially locked into the bankers' plan.

The price for campaign money also kept rising. "At the start only United States support for the partition proposal had been 'expected.' Within a few weeks this 'expectation' had risen to the demand that the United States should 'solicit' the votes of other countries in support of partition and should use American troops to enforce partition, and the party-manager was quite accustomed to such notions (if American troops in the 1950's or 1960's find themselves in the Near East, any of them who have read Mr. Forrestal's Diaries should know how they came to be there)."

Forrestal also pointed out that many Jews "hold the view that the present zeal of the Zionists can have most dangerous consequences, not merely in their divisive effects in American life, but in the long run on the position of Jews throughout the the world." Forrestal was taken out by a campaign of character assassination.

The U.N. General Assembly voted to recommend partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states on November 29, 1947, with Jerusalem to be an international city. The new status was recommended to begin when the British mandate expired on August l, 1948. This was not a final decision by the U.N. All the Arab countries voted against the recommendation, on the grounds that "it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny".

Financial and political pressure behind the vote was intense. Truman later said, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed and annoyed me."

"Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless 'she voted right'. Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries."

"Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as the United States' ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might cause planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit, not to materialise. Previously, in order to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands."

Arab leaders echoed the warnings of U.S. Secretary of State Marshall and Secretary of Defense Forrestal. "In a speech at the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Friday, 28 November 1947, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall, included the following statement: 'Partition imposed against the will of the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems, Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred.'"

Britain didn't vote for the religious partition because it directly contradicted their promise of a non-sectarian democracy for the people of Palestine. But they didn't vote against it either. They abstained. They didn't want to oppose the powerful backers of the religious partition.

But the U.N. never took the final step to actually create the partition. "The General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine." Consequently, "[T]he partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence."

The bankers decided the time to take over the land was now, or wait until the next big war. They acted unilaterally to make it a "fact on the ground". Their Jewish supremacist troops started clearing out the Muslims. A Palestinian town almost unknown in America, but famous in the Arab world, is Deir Yassin. In order to terrify the unarmed Muslim population into fleeing their homes and lands, on April 9, 1948 the Irgun attacked Deir Yassin, assisted by Haganah, and men, women, and children were slaughtered.

Precisely what happened at Deir Yassin is somewhat controversial, since both sides claim ulterior motives for the other's account. According to Mr. Menachem Begin, leader of the attack on Deir Yassin, "The other part of the Irgun's contribution was Deir Yassin, which has caused the Arabs to leave the country and make room for the newcomers." This is from an account that gathers information from many witnesses and reports, including that of Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Palestine, and his assistant Dr. Alfred Engel. Theirs is a chilling report.

The consequence was that the unarmed population from nearby towns, villages, and farms fled in terror. Begin's assessment was confirmed by writer Arthur Koestler. "Probably Deir Yasin remained an isolated incident only because its meaning was so clear that the Arabs left the country. Mr. Arthur Koestler is definite about this cause-and-effect. He was in Palestine and says the Arab civilian population, after Deir Yasin, at once fled from Haifa, Tiberia, Jaffa and all other cities and then from the entire country, so that 'by May 14 all had gone save for a few thousand.' All impartial authorities agree about the intention and effect of Deir Yasin."

Deir Yassin was followed by other operations, to which resistence was negligible, and the territory was essentially emptied. Here's a documentary of interviews with people from both sides of operations clearing out the Muslim residents.

And once people left their homes, they were never allowed back, despite possessing keys and deeds, and in clear violation of international law. The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

Ben Gurion stated that Israel's plan was to continue taking more land after the partition. "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state - we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."

How could anyone think that importing armed, staunch segregationist Jewish supremacists into Palestine, and having them at gunpoint drive out massive numbers of unarmed Muslims, BECAUSE THEY'RE MUSLIMS rather than Jews, while being surrounded by a sea of Muslims, would create a safe haven for Jews? It would be more rational to expect exactly the conflict predicted by the majority of Jews in Western Europe and America, who initially opposed the establishment of Israel partly for exactly that reason. They were correct in those predictions, and that predicted conflict has existed continuously ever since.

Bankers are well-known for their rationality, especially about money. And wars have been very profitable for bankers over hundreds of years. They discovered they could make money from both sides of a war. War is also highly profitable for corporations in which the bankers own interests. By one rough estimate, more is consumed in a day of war than a year of peace. All the expensive ammunition and weapon stockpiles need to be replenished. And all the destroyed infrastructure needs to be rebuilt.

When the bankers made their move, they had finally garnered support for a Jewish state from most Jews in Western Europe and America due to the Nazi holocaust. This turn of events made more plausible the case for Israel as a "safe haven" for Jews, even though it was a war zone. Amira Hass, an Israeli writer and ha'aretz columnist, has said that if it were not for the Holocaust, Israel would never have been established.

Before World War II began the Zionist movement actively collaborated with the Nazis. This was because they were both promoting the idea that a Jew could never be a loyal citizen of any country other than a Jewish state. That idea was anathema to most Jews in Western Europe and America, because it threatened their ongoing, successful assimilation into those societies.

The bankers also cooperated with the Nazis by funding their military build-up. This enabled Germany to go from an economic basket case to having the most technologically advanced military in Europe in a few short years. In his book examining this period, Why England Slept, John F. Kennedy gives the comparative numbers of military forces and equipment, showing Germany racing ahead of England and France. Germany's equipment build-up was so massive and so costly that the British assumed Germany's credit would soon collapse.

"Englishmen, with their emphasis on balanced budgets and sound economy, had watched the German financial hocus-pocus with amazement. Accustomed to the automatic laws of capitalism, they yearly prophesied inflation of the mark and the ruin of Germany's credit system." (pp. 171,172)

But Hitler's credit did not collapse. How did the bankers who were loaning all that money to Hitler think they would see a return on their investment? Did they think all those Panzer tanks, Luftwaffe fighter planes, bombers, V2 rockets, and U-Boats would be converted to a booming civilian economy? Or perhaps that Hitler would win a war? Or that any war would inevitably be profitable?

Whatever the bankers' exact ROI plan, one outcome was that eventually the British had to borrow massive amounts of money for their own buildup of war weaponry. A second outcome was step (2) of the bankers' plan, in which they took military control of Palestine from the British. A third outcome was a continuing religious conflict, predicted decades in advance by many knowledgeable and thoughtful people. A fourth outcome was the establishment of a major arms industry in Israel, which sells arms around the world.

Today the Jewish supremacist mindset remains in a controlling position in Israel's government. This is the "settler" faction, which continues to have powerful patrons. Israeli director Dror Moreh has made a documentary, The Gatekeepers, that includes interviews with several former top Israeli security officials who confirm this. Interviewed on NPR about his documentary, Mr. Moreh said, "And then, you know, if there is a political movement inside Israel who has the most significant influence over the Israeli politics, it's the settlement movement. The settler leaders are living within the corridors of power of Israel on all levels, and they are the most influential one."

Thus the segregationist Jewish supremacists have been maintained in a position where they can kill any peace treaty that would stop them from taking over the rest of Palestine. There they can keep their religious supremacist goals alive, and the war profiteers' conflict, too. The constant threat of war is used to justify huge purchases of military weapons and other supplies. If a shooting war occurs, as in Iraq, and possibly Iran, huge profits can be quickly made.

This has led to Israel's pattern of re-starting the conflict when calm and peace has approached.

And the facts on the ground about Israel's ethnic cleansing continue to accumulate.

Another account of Israel's land goals and deceptions is here.

This reality is becoming harder and harder to ignore. Even an Israeli general's son has spoken publicly on these myths & realities of Israel.

President Jimmy Carter, who demonstrated with serious actions his commitment to an Israel living in peace with a Palestinian state, finally concluded that Israel is interested in further land conquests rather than peace.

Jewish-Israeli writer Uri Avnery discusses one of many instances in which Israeli leaders purposely blocked movement toward peace.

"To my mind, the assassination of Arafat was a crime against Israel.

"Arafat was the man who was ready to make peace and who was able to get the Palestinian people to accept it. He also laid down the terms: a Palestinian state with borders based on the Green Line, with its capital in East Jerusalem.

"This is exactly what his assassins aimed to prevent." Avnery is specific in his view that the assassins were Israeli government agents.

Jewish-American writer M.J. Rosenberg reports that the continued ethnic cleansing is financed by a few billionaires who can pay for "settlement" construction and American elections. "Tip O'Neill used to say that 'all politics is local.' He wasn't talking about foreign policy which, in theory, cannot be local. But it is now. Fewer than a thousand donors determine it."

Uri Avnery agrees, stating, "The Israeli right, which is financed by right-wing American billionaires, both Jews and Christian evangelicals, this week launched an all-out attack against the liberal New Israel Fund, which donates generously to all the struggles [for justice] mentioned above."

Despite a strong Jewish presence among the major bankers of Europe, and hence America, this issue is not fundamentally about Jewishness. It is about a human phenomenon that crosses all ethnic distinctions. It is about predatory business dealing, which always uses deception. It may hide behind a belief that some ethnic group is a master race or a chosen people, and hence entitled to dominate other people. A lot of profitable conflict can be generated among people with that kind of belief.

Some Jews happened to get in on the ground floor of banking in Europe. For traveling they carried their wealth in the compact forms of precious stones and metals. They dealt with the feudal nobles in Europe, eventually becoming managers overseeing estates. Eventually they were loaning money to kings, often spent on wars, and gaining political influence. And knowing a war was coming, it would also be natural to invest in war supplies.

Similarly, Indians in Kenya have been a minority in a controlling economic position, and stirred resentment among the Kenyans. Muslims in Myanmar have been in a similar situation. The resentment comes from being and feeling taken advantage of. President Andrew Jackson fought America's first central bank over this very issue - a financially priviledged group robbing the rest by deceptive, insider dealing. Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln both worried about this phenomenon. Lincoln worried specifically about the fortunes that were being made right then on the Civil War, from selling war supplies and lending money to the government. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is reputed to have said that European bankers contributed to the onset of the Civil War for its profits.

It was natural for the European bankers to be interested in investing in a developing continent. The rise of the JPMorgan bank owed much to the European Rothschild money behind it.

Today Wall Street is an acknowledged financial support center for Israel's policies. Martin Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, said, "I'll give you one sign of the times: Chuck Schumer [New York's senior Senator] waited a year and a half before he stood up for Israel, and he's been having trouble raising money on Wall Street."

This is NOT primarily an issue of religion. It is an issue of wealth. Throughout history some wealthy people have felt themselves to be like a superior species. Sometimes it is mixed with religion, sometimes it is not. Bernie Madoff, a top Wall Street financier and insider, who also happened to be a Jew, swindled the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, which is dedicated to reminding people of the Holocaust, and stole Weisel's family money as well. Madoff was clearly a completely non-spiritual, materialistic person who preyed upon other people's religious feelings. English King Henry VIII, nominally a Christian, was equally non-spiritual and materialistic. He ruled with a cruel hand, and had people executed for personal animosity. The Catholic church incurred the protestant revolt, spearheaded by Martin Luther, for swindling the German people by claiming to sell them forgiveness from sins.

Historically, predatory financiers in the Jewish community have brought resentment and trouble to the Jewish community.

These predators then rally the Jewish community to protect them by blaming this trouble on "anti-semitism".

This has the effect of segregating Jews, much like the Talmudic Jewish leaders of Eastern Europe.

One of the war profiteers' major swindles has been to dupe Western European and American Jews into financing and manning their perpetual war zone as a "safe haven". But not all Jews have been fooled. Here's a statement by a Jewish Holocaust survivor (the Holocaust also targeted non-Jews) who says "AIPAC doesn't speak for me."

A Jewish psychotherapist with a background in political studies, who grew up in Israel, has analyzed some of the psychological factors making it hard for many Jews to escape from this mindset.

Muslims who were forcibly dispossessed in the Zionist invasion, who still have the keys and deeds to their homes that were taken, today must go through security checkpoints, subject to searches and pat-downs, in order to even look at their former homes.

Further, all Americans who board a plane anywhere in the USA, even if their destination is also in the USA, must also go through security checkpoints, subjecting themselves to searches and pat-downs. This is to protect war-profiteering bankers and their ethnic supremacist troops. It also serves to fan ethnic fear and conflict.

In American politics, fanning a fear of Muslims is handled almost exclusively by people in the Republican party. It's seen in the Republican campaign to scare Christians with a bogus threat of Sharia law, as well as a general demonizing of Muslims.

The Republicans wouldn't focus on provoking this ethnic fear if their bankers didn't want it done, since the Republican party is almost completely controlled by the Wall Street banks. "Without Wall Street, Republicans risk their coffers emptying."

The strategy of stirring ethnic fears is further seen with the bogus "war on Christmas". It's also seen in GOP's long-running fanning of racial fear.

These intense campaigns of fear have created chaos in the public discussion, making it almost impossible to have a rational discussion of even the most important issues. Making democracy dysfunctional appears to be a central part of the strategy. While the war profiteering bankers themselves make extensive use of mathematics and science, they promote a religion-based, anti-science irrationality that hinders efforts to curb their power. They may well believe they will benefit from a major climate catastrophe, given the intensity of their science denial campaign on the issue. It wouldn't be that different from creating a war for profit.

Similarly, economic crashes, while harmful to most people, have historically been highly profitable for them, since they have the capacity to buy up resources when prices plummet.

In line with this pattern, the Great Recession of 2008 saw "record profits" on Wall Street.

Like Bernie Madoff, these financial predators will swindle anybody, regardless of religion or race. Their representatives brazenly lie to the public, disrupt the democratic process, and spike the open discussion upon which democracy depends.

Their inhumane desire for perpetual cheap labor drives them to block family planning globally, and block any comprehensive immigration reform in America, just as their heartless desire for perpetual war drives them to block any peace agreement with the Palestinians.

A firsthand, insightful portrait of this mindset is given by Kay Griggs, an Army colonel's wife from a Navy family, a Christian, and an educated woman. Her husband turned out to be a highly placed servant of this mindset, including being an assassination instructor for the U.S. Army. As a sincere Christian, she found herself trying to save her husband. She had been a history major in college, and she researched her husband and the people with whom he worked. Among her researching, she found his diary.

She reports that this mindset is characterized by an absolute ruthlessness toward other human beings. She also learned that it was cultivated and maintained in her husband's world using sexual blackmail. As far as she was able to see, the top level control was coming from weapons dealers and banks. Kay Griggs' thoughtful analysis is filled with specific details and names, many of which resonate in today's politics.

Consider the following segment of a 1998 interview with Mrs. Griggs.

Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which was a contract organization [private company] trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other words ..."

Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"

Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes, whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."

The above is in Part 2 of the whole interview, starting at 48:00 in the video at

In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.

Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger - there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it goes - Israel - some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were - he works with those people - they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia, which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire. They're - you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."

The above starts soon after 18:00 in the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ (Part 1 of interview)

Further on the following exchange occurs.

Interviewer: "And directly under whose instructions to sell these weapons, do you know that?"

Kay Griggs: "Yeah."

Interviewer: "Okay, who would that be?"

Kay Griggs: "Well, uh, [hesitation] it's the Israeli-Zionist group in New York."

The above starts at 1:06:45 in the same video at

Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.

Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because ..."

Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."

Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. ... And he [Steiner] tried to trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about funny money."

The use of sexual blackmail could easily explain why some prominent members of society would publicly make blatantly false or blatantly illogical statements. They would be avoiding the complete ruin of their career. Sex parties of the sort described by Mrs. Griggs, whether in the military or corporate retreats, would be ideal settings to tempt future "leaders" into apparently secret indiscretions. A strategic system of blackmail of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.

Conspiracies have existed through the entire history of humankind. The idea that there is no conspiracy among at least some of the ultra-wealthy is highly improbable, given human nature and history the way it is. Mocking the very idea of conspiracies is a key tactic to keep such discussions off the table.

A non-sectarian democracy in Palestine, as its residents were initially promised by the British, would have established a valuable precedent in the Middle East. Instead, a religious war was started. How could such a drastic reversal of direction have happened? How could America, the world's first avowed non-sectarian democracy, with the separation of church and state declared in its Constitution, precisely to avoid such conflicts, which had historically plagued Europe and the American colonies, how could it put its might behind the formation of a religious state, breaking a standing promise for an American-style democracy, and starting a well-predicted religious war to do so? How could the constitutionally protected guard dogs of the free press be so completely de-fanged? Money, in extremely large quantities, swamped the protections that had been built into America's democratic institutions.

And in dragging America into supporting the glaring injustice of this religious supremacist ethnic cleansing, the people behind this money have severely damaged America's moral credibility around the world, including with many Americans. This is a crippling effect, because American can only lead in world affairs, be that "indispensible nation", when its moral credibility is sound.

President Obama's main message on a visit to Israel, delivered to an audience of students, the future leaders of Israel, was that "Palestinians are just like you." This kind of talk scares Zionists because it contradicts a central tenet of Zionism, that Jews are different from everybody else, and because of that difference have God's permission, or even instruction, to drive Palestinians from their homes and lands. As Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann said in 1919, "The Bible is our mandate."

More recently former financier and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a conversation on the Charlie Rose Show, also used the Bible to justify Zionism's longstanding assault on the Muslims in Palestine. "Why is this conflict here? ... The Palestinians were offered a Palestinian state in 1948. They opposed it because they didn't want a Jewish state. ... We were there for 2000 years before the Arab conquest. Now, I have a deep attachment to these places. They're in the Bible."

The belief in one's own ethnic superiority and privilege always seems to cause problems. When the Nazis had this attitude, it was also a catastrophe. That's two catastrophes in a row. It's a primitive, barbaric belief that, for the good of the planet as a whole, must be eliminated. Among its many problems, it leaves under-informed people easy prey for seriously disturbed, ultra-wealthy predators.

You may use this material freely and without attribution.

You can help rescue democracy by linking to this article.

Over 19,000 page views.

War Profiteers and the 9/11 Attack

A Primer

The 9/11 Report

The 9/11 attack was used by the Bush administration to inject a massive deployment of U.S. military forces into the "War on Terror". Thus, this attack and deployment are continuations of the history documented in this site's article "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror".

There are many debates about many aspects of 9/11. This article avoids those debates, and focuses on facts that are indisputably true.

It is indisputably true that the stated purpose of the official report was to "provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned."

It is indisputably true that a third building collapsed at the World Trade Center on 9/11, Building 7, also referred to as WTC 7 and 7 WTC. It is indisputably true that Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

It is indisputably true that the official 9/11 report contained no analysis of Building 7's collapse. It is indisputably true that the official report did not mention the fact that Building 7 collapsed.

It is indisputably true that the official report included no reason for omitting an analysis of why Building 7 collapsed. It is indisputably true that the report included no reason for omitting the fact that Building 7 collapsed.

It is indisputably true that Building 7 collapsed quickly and completely into its own footprint, much like the other two buildings. Since it was not hit by a plane, it is indisputably true that Building 7 was the exceptional case among the three buildings that collapsed. Thus it is indisputably true that it may have provided a somewhat different set of clues from the two other buildings.

It is indisputably true that in a normal crime scene or scientific investigation, the potential for extra clues would justify an analysis of the exceptional case.

The official 9/11 report is online at

In the report Building 7 is referred to as "7 WTC". You can search for "7 WTC" (without quotes), and you'll find five brief mentions of 7 WTC. You'll find that none of them mention Building 7's collapse.

There are two possible explanations for omitting all mention and analysis of Building 7's collapse. One would be an extreme oversight. The second would be an intentional cover-up. These raise two parallel questions. First, what is the likelihood of a team of intelligent, educated, professional investigators overlooking one of three buildings that collapsed suddenly and completely? Second, what is the likelihood of the Bush-Cheney administration falsifying evidence?

The Building 7 Report

The 9/11 report was done because of pressure from the victims' families, pushing against the Bush administration's preference to not do a report. Similar pressure from the families resulted in a report on the collapse of Building 7. This report was issued in the final months of the Bush administration.

The official government report on Building 7 is here:

The government version is "locked", so readers cannot copy sections for pasting into research documents. An unlocked version is here:

It is indisputably true that CBS News anchor Dan Rather described the collapse of Building 7 by saying, "It's reminiscent of the pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." At 1:35 in the video here:

In a controlled demolition of the sort Rather described, all support columns in a building are collapsed simultaneously. This is important to bring the building down into its own footprint. If the building started its collapse on one side, it could tip over like a tree being felled, and land on many neighboring buildings.

It is indisputably true that the official report on Building 7 says the support columns did NOT collapse simultaneously. It repeatedly says the building's collapse began with the collapse of support column 79 near the north-east corner of the building. When that column collapsed, it's collapse propagated to nearby support columns, which in turn dragged down further neighboring columns, creating a wave of collapse that travelled the length of the building. "Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west." (p.22)

There were eight such sets of support columns from east to west. If we assume a mere two seconds elapsed between one column's collapse and it's neighbor being dragged down, the wave of collapse would have taken about 16 seconds to travel the length of the building from east to west.

It is indisputably true that videos of Building 7's collapse show no wave of collapse traveling the length of the building. Instead they show the opposite, a simultaneous collapse of both ends of the building.

"The symmetry is the smoking gun", says metalurgic engineer Kathy McGrade in a concise, yet thorough 15 minute documentary prepared by an organization of professional architects and engineers (at 6:20 of the video).

This documentary shows indisputably that a great deal of significant evidence was omitted from the official report on Building 7. This omitted evidence is also discussed in a C-SPAN interview with a professional architect Richard Gage, who has looked carefully at this omitted evidence.

It is indisputably true that among this omitted evidence are testimonies from numerous NYC first responders on the scene, firefighters and police officers, who reported hearing explosions just before Building 7 collapsed.

9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open

"WTC7 in 7 Minutes - 9/11 Explosions not Fire", at 5:20 in this video

Explosions Before The Collapse of WTC 7

While it is indisputably true that the report on Building 7 includes no mention of these testimonies, nevertheless the report says, "Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7."

Describing this "considerable effort", the report says, "Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection." (p. 26)

Here the report says that those in charge of the investigation declared other scenarios (which would include a well-controlled demolition) "infeasible", and therefore ignored them. That is, they reached their "infeasible" conclusion before investigating those scenarios, and used that as a justification to not investigate them.

The situation parallels one in which three people are murdered, and the official crime scene report analyzes two of the murders, while failing to even mention the third murder. Eventually a report on the third murder is issued which is glaringly contradicted by multiple videos of the murder.

For many professional investigators and analysts in crime scene investigations, law, science, and engineering, the total set of omissions are too major and too numerous to be likely oversights. Even by standards of common sense, they do not look like oversights. On the contrary, by both professional and common sense standards they look more like intentional omissions.

Today there is a wealth of information available on the internet that was omitted from these two 9/11 reports. Since much information remains hidden, there will be a variety of theories attempting to fill these gaps in the picture. Such differences are inevitable with incomplete information. But they do not discredit the indisputable facts, nor discredit the legitimate questions that call for further investigation.


Who would have had the motive, capacity, and opportunity to carry out such an attack?

And who would have also had the capacity and opportunity to cover up important facts, both in the official reports and in the major news media?

One theory is that the Saudis were behind it. The facts and reasoning behind this theory is that the men identified as the airplane highjackers were Saudis. Further, there is evidence that some of these men received money from highly connected Saudis. The wife of a 9/11 victim makes this case here.

A second theory is based on the conclusion that the buildings were brought down by explosives, and the planes were merely a diversion. On this basis a Jewish-American U.S. Marine and scholar makes a very compelling case that the Israelis were behind 9/11.

Dr Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D. University of Michigan) received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. He is listed in WHO'S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky's teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University. While in government service he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

Dr. Sabrosky discusses the facts that show the Israelis had (1) motive, (2) the technical capacity required, and (3) opportunity. A key point is that an Israeli company was in charge of security for the World Trade Center at the time of the attack. Thus, the Israelis would have had the unique access essential to secretly wire the buildings for demolition.

His analysis of the attack, along with his analysis of the political relationship between Israel and the U.S. and Zionism's relationship to Judaism, is in this thoughtful interview.

Cover-up Skills

For any inside job, the cover-up is a key part of the plan. The Israelis have demonstrated their capacity to cover-up a major crime in the case of their attack on the USS Liberty. In this premeditated attack they intended to kill the entire crew and sink the ship. Despite the overwhelming evidence, they were able to shut down an official Navy investigation, and keep the story mostly out of the news.
"Still Waiting for USS Liberty’s Truth"
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/04/still-waiting-for-uss-libertys-truth/ "The Day Israel Attacked America"

It's instructive to look at the Israelis' options to coerce President Johnson's decision on the USS Liberty investigation. Why did Johnson overrule the Navy, suddenly ending its investigation? The admiral got word directly from Johnson to shut it down. The reason given verbally was approximately, "we aren't going to embarrass an ally over a few sailors". If this were clearly an accidental attack such a response might be reasonable. But the evidence is overwhelming that this was a very deliberate attack. To ignore such evidence, Johnson must have been under considerable pressure from the Israelis.

How might the Israelis have pressured Johnson?

Johnson had frequent, intimate social contact with an Israeli couple. The husband was wealthy and the wife may have been a Mossad agent. That would fit her past. There are hints that she may have given him other favors. They discussed matters of Israel with Johnson on a continuing basis. And they were in close contact throughout the USS Liberty crisis. Was this a purely personal connection, or were they "advising" and "guiding" Johnson at the behest of the Israelis?
"The not-so-secret life of Mathilde Krim"

What then would have been their leverage on Johnson? What knowlege might they have had that could destroy him?

At that time investigations were potentially heading into old murders linked to Johnson's political career. The Israelis may be known about these.

There is also substantial evidence that Johnson was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Becoming the president could let him dispose of these legal problems. A lawyer who worked for LBJ, Barr McClellan, wrote a book making this case, Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK. He talks about his case on C-SPAN here.
"Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK"

Johnson's longtime mistress eventually broke her silence, and was definite about LBJ's involvement in JFK's assassination. He told her he didn't originate the plan. That was the "fat cats" and "intelligence" people.
"LBJ's Role in the JFK Assassination"

So while it was in his own interest to get involved in the JFK plan, it made him even more vulnerable to blackmail by the Israelis.

Kennedy had started to nip the Vietnam war in the bud, keeping it from taking off. He had seen the devastation in Europe at the end of WWII, the obliterated cities and suffering people. He had friends killed in war and had been wounded in war. He did not take war lightly. The evidence on his thinking is definite from his closest associates. He signed an executive order to withdraw an initial contingent of CIA-controlled troops from Vietnam, and planned the major withdrawal for the following year, after his re-election.

Kennedy also signed an executive order that shifted all CIA military operations over to the military, effectively taking away the CIA's clandestine operation capacity to overthrow governments. This would reset the CIA to gathering and analyzing intelligence, which was its purpose as stated in the legislation signed by President Truman.

The new President Johnson immediately reversed Kennedy's orders, and the Vietnam war took off.

Perhaps Johnson pushed so hard for civil rights legislation because he was trying to save his soul.

Hidden conspiracies in the realms of power and money have existed since the dawn of history. The belief that there are no such conspiracies is uninformed. Scoffing at such conspiracies, promoting the belief that they are always silly, is a key tactic in covering them up.

You may use this material freely and without attribution.

You can help rescue democracy by linking to this article.

War Profiteers and the JFK Assassination

A Primer

Update Due

A great deal of new evidence has come out since the Warren Commission Report was published. Much of this is due to the funding of the Assassination Records Review Board by Congress in 1992. Also, many witnesses who were afraid to testify before have felt safer with the passage of time and have come forward. Many other witnesses who had been interviewed, but had their testimony disregarded or even reversed, were re-interviewed. Accepting the official Warren Commission report requires ignoring many eyewitness testimonies.

It's important to keep in mind that any assassination plan using multiple shooters cannot predict the wounds. Therefore it would be essential to take possession of the body before it can be officially examined, so the wounds could be made to match the cover story. The plan would have to included tightly controlling the whole autopsy process. Fake autopsy photos would probably be needed.

This is why it is so significant that there is a huge controversy over Kennedy's wounds. The official story requires ignoring the eyewitness testimonies of doctors who treated Kennedy in the emergency room. Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History" simply dismisses these doctors' eyewitness testimonies as "not credible medical evidence". That's how he removes them from consideration as he works toward his conclusions supporting the official report.

Bugliosi was not the first to use this tactic. Gerald Posner used it in "Case Closed". Bugliosi's book had a lot more padding, which made it look even more conclusive. Bugliosi has filler like scenes with Marina Oswald waking up in the morning and going through her routine.

But on Kennedy's wounds, the evidentiary center of such a case, Bugliosi spends only a few pages of his massive tome. And he delivers a a most slanted version of that controversy, not even trying to be fair. Posner does his version of the same. In Posner's own transcripts it's easy to hear him badgering the doctors, trying to get them to change their testimonies in this way or that.

Bugliosi's book is an expansion on his role in a BBC documentary drama, in which Lee Harvey Oswald gets put on trial and Bugliosi is the prosecutor. As he did there, his book avoids evidence that hurts his case, as a lawyer does, and as Posner does. But it's not what a scientist, or any other objective investigator does.

The Head Wound

A bullet through the head will leave a small entrance wound and a large exit wound. As the bullet goes through the body it creates a pressure wave that spreads out beyond the size of the bullet. The front of this pressure wave creates a large hole as it exits the head.

So a large exit hole in the back of the Kennedy's head would clearly indicate a shot entering from the front. Which could not have come from Oswald, being behind Kennedy. And would mean a multiple shooter situation.

Overall, many eyewitnesses have testimonied that they saw a large hole in the back of Kennedy's head.

As Kennedy was being shot, two women in the Willis family were watching him. They both testified that brain matter blew out the back of his head. "All of the brain matter went out the back of the head. It was like a red halo, a red circle with bright matter in the middle of it." The second woman concurred. "The particular head shot must have come from another direction besides behind him because the back of the head blew off." Testimony begins at about 23:45 in this video, the 1988 documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy: Part 1 The Coup d'Etat", abbreviated in future references as "MWKK 1".

The Willis family's testimonies were never heard by the Warren Commission. The family was surprised they weren't called, several eyewitnesses with a clear view. They were part of a batch of similar witnesses whose evidence never made it to the Warren Commission.

Another batch of ignored witnesses were the doctors who treated Kennedy right after the shooting. And their testimonies place a large exit hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head. These testimonies, if true, would mean at least some of the available official autopsy photos were fake.

At Parkland Hospital several doctors also saw a large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. The first doctor to attend Kennedy was Malcolm Perry. He describes seeing "a large wound to his head in the right posterior", at about 0:50 in this brief video.

Parkland Hospital doctors Paul Peters and Robert McClelland also attended Kennedy and testified to a large wound in the back of the head. You can watch them each place their hand on the right rear of their head to indicate the location of the wound. Their testimony begins at about 25:30 in the Men Who Killed Kennedy 1 video. Dr. McClelland draws a picture showing the location of the wound at about 28:45 of this same video.

Doctor Kemp Clark, chief of neurological surgery at Parkland Hospital, was the person who made the official pronouncement of Kennedy's death. His testimoney included the following. "I then examined the wound in the back of his head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed."

More recently Dr. McClelland repeated his story at the JFK Museum in the Dallas Book Depository building, recorded by C-SPAN. During the rescue efforts he stood right beside Kennedy's head. His first words upon seeing Kennedy's head were, "My God, have you seen the back of his head? It's gone." He repeatedly describes a "massive" wound to the back of the head. He describes seeing part of the cerebellum fall out of Kennedy's head onto the table. The cerebellum is a distinctive looking part of the brain at the lower back of the head, approximately at the top of the spinal cord, easily distinguished from the cortex. McClelland specifically disputes a Warren Commission drawing of a bullet trajectory that shows only a small wound on the back of Kennedy's head, presumably where a bullet entered. McClelland's testimony begins at about 14:00 on the video Men Who Killed Kenndy 1.

Nurse Audrey Bell was the Parkland Hospital Supervisor of Operating and Recovery Rooms in 1963, and viewed President Kennedy's main head wound. She asked Dr. Perry where the wound was, and he turned Kennedy's head slightly toward the left. She saw a head wound in the right rear, which she described as occipital. A summary of her testimony is in the first following link. Two diagrams on which she circled the main wound location are in the next two links.

It's generally acknowledged that the autopsy did not meet normal standards of care in the handling of evidence. The most crucial physical evidence, the brain that would show bullet trajectories definitively, disappeared. There are only theories about what happened to it, but no definitive knowledge.

Paul O'Connor, was a medical technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital when Kennedy's body was brought in for the autopsy. He was present at the arrival of the body and the opening of the casket. O'Connor testifies that there was essentially no brain in Kennedy's skull when it arrived at Bethesda. "My job in working with autopsies was to remove the brain. What struck me was when we removed the sheet I looked down, I said 'My God, he doesn't have any brains left, literally. I was just astounded by it. I think everybody else was too, because there was just a gasp throughout the room. There was no brain to be removed at all." The purpose of removing the brain is so it can be sliced into thin sections, the sections photographed, and any injuries, including bullet tracks, clearly mapped out. O'Connor's testimony is about about 31:15 of MWKK 1.

O'Connor also testified that the casket was a "cheap, shipping type of casket", and "not very ornamental, very plain." Al Rike testifies that in Dallas he placed Kennedy's body in an "expensive, bronze colored" casket, "one of the most expensive we had in stock", with "white satin lining inside the casket."

Rike further says that in Dallas "We wrapped him in one of the sheets and just placed him in the casket". O'Connor testifies that when the casket was opened at Bethesda, Kennedy's body was in a rubber body bag. The body was removed from the body bag and placed on the table. "He was nude, no clothes on, but he had a white sheet, a bloody white sheet on wrapped around his face and his head". O'Connor and Rike's testimonies begin at about 26:45 of the video MWKK 1.

In Dallas there was a highly experienced, pre-eminent forensic pathologist ready to do the autopsy. Instead the body was taken to a Naval doctor at Bethesda who had never done an autopsy, and had been an adminstrator rather then practicing medicine for the last several years, and was getting ready to retire. Attending medic Paul O'Conner said there were many top military brass in the room, outranking the pathologist, interrupting the procedure, and ordering some steps skipped.

Changing the autopsy's venue involved a physical struggle for control of the body. The Dallas police who were guarding the body refused to give up custody without explicit orders from their superiors, regardless of what badges they were shown. Instead of going that route, the federal agents strong-armed the body away.

All photograph negatives from the autopsy were immediately turned over to a plainclothes agent at the autopsy, to be developed at a lab at another Navy base, rather than being developed by the Bethesda lab as usually done.

The head autopsy photographer, John Stringer, later testified under oath to the Assassination Records Review Board that the official autopsy photos of Kennedy's brain in the archives are quite possibly not the photos he took, for several reasons.

The brain photos he took were of the brain being sectioned (sliced). From such slices bullet tracks could be traced through the interior of the brain. The photos he was shown from the archives for the ARRB testimony included no sectioning, and included exterior views that he did not take.

Further, the film type and film packing type were not the standard types that he normally used and recalled using in Kennedy's autopsy. This section of his testimony begins at PDF No. 40 (testimony pages 211-216), which is one web page, and goes through PDF No. 41 and 42.

The head photographer, John Stringer, changed his testimony, from initially seeing a large wound in the back of the head, to seeing only a small wound in the back of the head, consistent with the Warren Commission report. However his assistant, Floyd Riebe, also present throughout the autopsy, when asked about head wounds said, "The right side in the back was gone (indicating). Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in it."

Testimonies of several doctors who attended Kennedy are in this video, which looks in detail at the wounds.

The medical evidence in both Kennedy assassinations, JFK and RFK, is discussed by forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, including implications for the motives behind their deaths.

Who Gave the Order?

The evidence is overwhelming that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was an inside job, and involved the highest levels of the US government. Who gave the order?

The main theories are:

1. The mob, because JFK and RFK were cracking down on mob corruption.

2. The Cubans, in retaliation for the efforts to assassinate Castro.

3. Lyndon Johnson, so he could squash investigations into his shady dealings, including murders.

4. Texas oil men, because JFK wanted to end their oil depletion tax break.

5. The CIA, because JFK wanted to take away their covert operations, and restrict them to intelligence gathering and analysis (their original legal purpose).

6. The Israelis, because JFK wanted to (a) stop their nuclear weapons program and (b) eliminate Israeli money from American politics by making the Zionist Organization of America (the precursor to AIPAC) register as an agent of a foreign government.

7. An unspecified cabal that would profit from the Vietnam war, because JFK would end that plan.

8. A consortium of the above.

Today, decades later, we have an additional piece of evidence. It was somebody who had the capacity to keep the overwhelming evidence out of the news media. That would rule out the mob, the Cubans, Johnson, and the oil men as principal perpetrators. None of them on their own have the persistent control of the American news media to this day.

That leaves the CIA, the Israelis, and a cabal of war profiteers.

Vice President Johnson was at the highest level of the government, and was involved in the plot. But as he told his mistress, the actual initiators were "fat cats" and "intelligence" people. Most politicians in America are ruled by the ultra wealthy due to the extravagant costs of political campaigns. So the plot was hatched above his pay grade.

We know that Johnson as president was somehow coerced by the Israelis to squash the Navy's investigation into the premeditated Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. This demonstrates some Israeli interest and capacity to control high levels of the American government.

And we know that the story of that attack has been kept out of the American mainstream media ever since. This demonstrates a significant Israeli capacity to keep selected stories out of America's news media. More details on the attack and coverup, with links to further details, are in this site's article "War Profiteers and 9/11".

We also know that the establishment of Israel was financed by the Rothschild bank, which had been profiting from both sides of wars for centuries. More details on the establishment of Israel, with links to futher details, are in this site's article "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror". More details on the huge role played by war profits in the rise of the Rothschild bank are here.

We also know that the Rothschild bank early on became the wealthiest European bank because, among other factors, of its coordinated international branches in five countries. And this great wealth was naturally invested in fledgling banks and corporations in America, extending its financial influence into some of America's major pools of wealth.

We also know that the CIA from its inception was run by men with close connections to the banking world. It's not plausible that government employees, even in the CIA, secretly control the bankers. Employees are easily fired. But it is plausible that ultra wealthy bankers control who is hired at the top levels of the CIA. Vast wealth enables a vast network of bribery, which has been a standard political tool since before the ancient Romans.

Further, if the bankers had a covert operations organization, like that in the CIA, this would enable them to use another ancient political tool, physical intimidation, including assassination. If this covert operations organization could draw men and materials from the largest, most high-tech military in the world, as the CIA draws on the US military, then they would have the most formidable secret military operation in the world.

The war profiteer theory was professionally presented by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, an insider's insider. Prouty was the CIA's contact person in the US military. He directed all military support for clandestine CIA operations. So he knew what was going on.

In Prouty's words:

"By the fall of 1963, I knew perhaps as much as anyone about the inner workings of this world of special operations. I had written the formal directives on the subject that were used officially by the U.S. Air Force and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services."

So what did Prouty observe when the Kennedy assassination occurred? Continuing in his own words:

"Therefore, it seemed strange when I was approached after I had come back from a week spent reading intelligence papers in Admiral Felt's headquarters in Hawaii, during September 1963, and informed that I had been selected to be the military escort officer for a group of VIP civilian guests that had been invited to visit the naval station in Antarctica and the South Pole facility at McMurdo Sound. This group was scheduled to leave on November 10, 1963, and to return by the end of the month.

"Although this trip had absolutely nothing to do with my previous nine years of work, except that I had supported CIA activity in Antarctica over the years, I accepted the invitation and looked forward to the trip as a "paid vaction".

So Colonel Prouty was temporarily stationed out of the country when Kennedy was killed.

Prouty had an insider's knowledge of the protection procedures for a presidential motorcade. He quickly saw that many standard motorcade security measures were not followed in Dallas. He writes:

"An assassination, especially of the chief of state, can always be made easier and much more predictable if his routine security forces and their standard policies are removed and canceled. The application of this step in Dallas was most effective. A few examples serve to underscore this phase of the concept:

"1. The President was in an open, unarmored car.

2. The route chosen was along busy streets with many overlooking high buildings on each side.

3. Windows in these buildings had not been closed, sealed, and put under surveillance.

4. Secret Service units and trained military units that were required by regulations to be there were not in place. As a result there was limited ground and building surveillance.

5. Sewer covers along the way had not been welded shut.

6. The route was particularly hazardous, with sharp turns requiring slow speeds, in violation of protection regulations.

"The list is long and ominous. Such a lack of protection is almost a guarantee of assassination in any country. It is difficult, if not more difficult, to convince trained and ready units not to be there than to let them go ahead and do their job; yet someone on the inner cabal staff was able to make official sounding calls that nullified all of these ordinary acts of presidential protection on November 22, 1963." (JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassination John F. Kennedy, pp. 315,316)

Details on the exact Texas police and military units that were specifically ordered to stand down that day, over their strenuous objections, is given by James Douglass in his extremely thorough book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters". This book is excellent for bringing together a great deal of the most significant and recent evidence, and presenting it in a clear and coherent way. A review and summary of his book is here.

A speech by James Douglass is here.

Here's a video showing one of Kennedy's bodyguards being obviously baffled by an order to stand down just moments before Kennedy is assassinated.

Prouty also had a clear view of how the CIA was manufacturing the war in Vietnam. He describes the methods in some detail. He also describes how it was an extension of the CIA's manufactured war in the Philippines in order to influence elections there. In that case the CIA actually provided both sides of staged battles.

Prouty notes that the CIA's sabotage of peace efforts also occurred during the Eisenhower administration. In his words:

"1. It was Allen Dulles who overlooked President Eisenhower's express orders not to involve Americans in Vietnam, with the creation of the Saigon Military Mission (1954).

2. Allen Dulles was in charge of the CIA's U-2 spy plane operations and of the flight that crash-landed in the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960, causing the disruption of the Paris Summit Conference. Eisenhower had specifically ordered all overflights of Communist territory to be grounded before and during that period.

3. The Bay of Pigs operation was planned under Dulles's leadership, and his failure to be "on duty" that day may have been a contributing factor in its failure.

4. Dulles was a member of the Cuban Study Group that reviewed that ill-fated operation (1961).

5. Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission."

The above quotes are from Colonel Prouty's book, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassination John F. Kennedy", pp. 303,304

Seeing how Eisenhower's peace efforts were sabotaged by the CIA, it makes sense the he would warn about the "military-industrial complex". The close social ties between the upper levels of the CIA and the financial elite, together with the CIA's secrecy, made it an ideal instrument to foment highly profitable wars.

The business strategy of war was not new. Abraham Lincoln worried about how extremely profitable the Civil War was for some companies, partly because of the massive amounts of fraud committed. He feared that the extreme amounts of wealth becoming centered in a few companies would corrupt and threaten democracy even more than the civil war itself. In Lincoln's words:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

Prouty saw how the CIA sandbagged Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs by suddenly forcing him to either escalate dramatically or be defeated, to either go big for war or seriously risk defeat in the next election. But Kennedy had been in combat, and he had toured devastated German cities as a reporter in 1945. He had interviewed destitute and desparate people. He did not want to casually impose such suffering on masses of people. Kennedy saw that he had been sandbagged in Cuba, and realized he was being set up in Vietnam. Some people were floating the idea of a nuclear first strike against the USSR, while the US could still "win" a nuclear exchange. Kennedy saw the very real possibility of a nuclear war, and turned his attention to preventing it. Economist Jeffrey Sachs discusses Kennedy's push for peace here.

Prouty saw Kennedy's memorandum taking away the CIA's covert operations arm and putting it under the military. Prouty was in the meeting when the top military brass discussed this major change. Before it could be implemented Kennedy would be dead.

Prouty tells this story in detail in "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy". You can see Prouty interviewed in the following video. The interview begins discussing his impressive insider background. His DEFINITIVE observations on the JFK assassination begin about 30:40 in the video. At about 1:08 he discusses who did it, noting the role of the CIA is that of a servant agency. He mentions people "above the military", "above the State Department", with "enormous wealth". His interviewer mentions Churchill's private references to a "high cabal".

Other Prouty interviews and articles are here.

A major line of Prouty's story, that behind the scenes Kennedy was actively working to extricate the U.S. from Vietnam, has been confirmed by recently released audio tapes of conversations between Kennedy and some of his key advisors, including Defense Secretary MacNamara and General Taylor. Some of these tapes were presented and discussed by Marc Selverstone, Chair of the University of Virginia's Presidential Recordings Program, who is presenting and discussing the tapes. The presentation is available on C-SPAN.

At the Assassination School

Daniel Marvin was an elite Special Forces Green Beret training at the Special Warfare School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina school when JFK was assassinated. There he was receiving training that included guerrilla warfare, assassination, and terrorism. In 1995, after becoming a born-again Christian and retired, he went public on how the instructors in his school had used the JFK assassination as a textbook case of a political assassination. In his own words:

"On the John F. Kennedy situation, that was brought to our attention as a classic example of the way to organize a complete program to eliminate a nation's leader, while pointing the finger at a lone assassin. It involved also the cover-up of the assassination itself. We had considerable detail. They had a mock lay-out of the plaza and that area, and showed where the shooters were, and where the routes were to the hospital...

"They had quite a movie, film coverage - it seemed like, thinking back to the time - and some still photoes of the Grassy Knoll and places like that. They told us that Oswald was not involved in the shooting at all. He was the patsy. He was the one who was set up.

"We did, myself and a friend of mine, for a very distinct impression that the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. During the coffee break, we overheard one of the CIA instructors say to the other, 'Things really did go well in Dealey Plaz, didn't they?' Or something to that effect.

"And that just reinforced, or really added to our suspicions. And we really felt, before the end of the training was over, that one of those instructors may have been involved himself in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

"... But I just then convinced myself, as did my friend, that it somehow had to be in the best interests of the United States governmennt that Kennedy was killed. Otherwise, why would our own people have done it?"

This illustrates the mindset cultivated by the clandestine services. If the CIA did it, it must be good. This belief is based on the assumption that the CIA always acts in the best of interests of America as a whole. The historical evidence is plentiful that this is not always true. On its best days, America is a force for good in the world. But it definitely has bad days in that department. That's when America's government is hijacked from its democratic process, at great expense, but well worth the "investment". But in a "need to know" environment, agendas are easily hidden. The operator on the ground may have no inkling of the true purpose of his mission.

The above quotes from Colonel Marvin were copied from "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It's Important" by James Douglass (2008) pp. 318-321. There Douglass tells Marvin's story more completely.

A moving video of Colonel Marvin telling his story is in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 6 at about 17:45 on the video.

Colonel Marvin was later asked by the CIA if he would volunteer to kill a U.S. naval officer, William Pitzer, who was head of the audio-visual unit at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Marvin turned down the assignment when he found out the killing would have to be done in the United States rather than overseas. That naval officer, it turned out, had film of a JFK autopsy that clearly showed a "small" wound in the right temple and a "huge gaping" wound in the rear. That officer was killed by someone else, just before he retired, and the film disappeared. This part of the story is told by his work colleague, and immediately follows the segment above, beginning at about 21:10 of MWKK 6.

Colonel Marvin's testimony resumes at 25:47 of MWKK 6 (above link), telling how he finally decided to come forward in 1993.

Cover Up

The day after Oswald was killed, the new acting Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, wrote a memo that said,

"1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a communist conspiracy, or ... a left-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists." This memo is shown in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy Part 1" (MWKK 1) at about 33:10.

So even before all the evidence had been collected, the witnesses interviewed, and analysis done, the decision had been made to tell the public not only that Oswald did it, but also that he acted alone. This last fact could not reasonably have been known at that time.

Was Johnson in on it? Barr McClellan, a lawyer who was a member of LBJ's legal team for many years recently came forward and explained LBJ's motive for participating in the Kennedy assassination. As president he would be able to scuttle two percolating investigations into old Texas dealings that involved murder. He talks about his book "Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK" in this C-SPAN video.

Johnson's longtime mistress eventually broke her silence, and was definite about LBJ's involvement in JFK's assassination. He told her he didn't originate the plan. That was the "fat cats" and "intelligence" people. Some of her testimony is in the documentary "LBJ's Role in the JFK Assassination".

The official Warren Commission report on the assassination was deeply flawed. Sylvia Meagher carefully examined the report itself and the 26 volume set of data and interviews on which the report was based. She found that many of the claims in the report were not supported by the evidence referenced, and sometimes even contradicted by the evidence referenced. Further, much evidence that conflicted with the report was simply not mentioned in the report. Ms. Meagher wrote up her findings in two books, "Accessories After the Fact" and "Master Index to the JFK Assassination Investigations". The latter book is an index to the evidence in the 26 volume set, and became the standard index used by researchers. You can hear her discussing about her findings here.

There is also abundant testimony that many witnesses were disregarded by the FBI in its investigation. Some witnesses have even testified that FBI encouraged them to change their testimony. The case of the Willis family was discussed above. In another case, Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home drew a diagram showing a large hole in the back of the head. The FBI agent told him it was an entrance wound, clearly trying to influence his testimony.

The large number of witnesses ignored by the Warren Commission was highlighted by attorney Mark Lane. Lane heard Oswald's request for legal assistance over the radio. He volunteered his service to the authorities and was turned down. He learned that several other attorneys had also volunteered and been turned down. This alerted him to the possibility that something was amiss. His book "Rush to Judgement" was an early examination of the anomolies in the case. Lane is interviewed here.

Was Earl Warren in on it? Probably not. The person who oversaw the collection of evidence, and decided which evidence the Commission would see, was Allen Dulles. He had been head of the CIA when it tried to sandbag Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, and was subsequently fired by Kennedy as he began to clean house and take control. Earl Warren was reluctant and heavily pressured by Johnson to head the Commission. Warren was told that the investigation had to be wrapped up quickly to avoid runaway speculation that the Soviets did it, which could lead to a nuclear war with millions of Americans killed. Historian David Wrone believes Warren was unfairly made the face of the cover-up, stated in the panel discussion linked in the following paragraph.

The current state of the public debate is seen in a CSPAN broadcast in which four panelists (historians and reporters) debate the accuracy of the Warren Commission report. The two panelists disagreeing with the report present many new facts not in the report. The two panelists defending the report ignore all these new facts.

The evidence described above is only a small part of a vast amount of evidence clearly proving a conspiracy and cover-up.

How could such glaring disinformation escape the scrutiny of America's free press? Here is an account of how CBS News president Richard Salant derailed an objective re-examination of the Warren Commission report, and replaced it with a CBS cover-up report, by James DiEugenio.

This CBS case shows that the head of a news organization can successfully overrule that organization's reporters and producers to protect a cover-up, and succeed.

Therefore, a few men placed as heads of the few major news corporations can hide the facts from most Americans.

The New York Times' "ostrich" behavior on the assassination is discussed here.

On the surface, continuing to keep the story buried makes no sense. What would anyone have to lose today, with the conspirators surely in their graves? But it would make sense if new members of the same gang were involved in something similar today. They would not want any talk that might lead the conversation into their current activities. Then it would make a great deal of sense.

This raises the question: Have there been any needless, manufactured wars recently? Yes, the evidence is plentiful that Iraq was a needless, manufactured war. The MSNBC documentary "Hubris" summarizes much of this evidence, even while it tries to clean up the participants motives.

There is also clear evidence that the US attack on Iraq was driven by Israeli interests. Author and political scientist John J. Mearsheimer describes how pro-Israel lobby groups drove the US decision to attack Iraq. He also notes that the 9/11 attack was a necessary ingredient for the decision to attack.

Hidden News Monopoly

We can see there is a hidden news monopoly because it acts exactly like a monopoly. A bunch of separate news businesses in unison do the opposite of what you'd expect a news business to do, which is to cover an important news story. Instead they all ignore the same important story together. They are like fingers on a single hand.

Who is controlling that hand? "Who benefits?"

A clear fact is that they all ignore news unfavorable to Israel. They have kept Israel's true history hidden, and bury important current events about Israel's actions in the Middle East and America. Americans have a completely false picture of Israel. The hidden historical information is richly documented on the website "If America Knew"
as well as this site's article "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror".

And the owners of the major news outlets definitely have ties to Israel. For example, Michael Bloomberg described his emotional attachment to Israel on Tavis Smiley's show. The Comcast media empire, which includes NBC and MSNBC, is run by ardent Zionists. http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/

Concentrated media ownership has routinely been used to silence critics of Israel. Many examples, including Norman Finkelstein and Tom Friedman, are documented in a thoroughly researched article here.

Seeing whose stories are being kept out of the news tells us who controls the news.

Therefore, when some other major story is not being covered, it is also under the direction of this same hand.

A media cover-up of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty would be an example.

A media cover-up of 9/11 would be an example.

A media cover-up of the Kennedy assassinations would be an example.

The Israelis were extremely effective in covering up their attack on the USS Liberty. It's likely that cover-up was carefully planned. For a brief account of that cover-up see this site's article "War Profiteers and 9/11".

Any group secretly undertaking an operation like assassinating an American president, or demolishing Manhattan landmark buildings, or an endless "war on terror", would need an equally well-planned cover-up operation.

Keeping the major press quiet would be essential. This can be done by owning it.

Keeping politicians quiet would be essential. This can done by "owning" them through campaign finances.

This would require an ownership level of control on a large scale. It takes a lot of money.

The Bankers

We know from the LIBOR scandal that the biggest banks in the financial capital of London routinely conspired to defraud entire economies. We know the biggest banks have been involved in money laundering for major sources of illegal money, such as drug smuggling. For example:

We know that big money literally overrules the wishes of large majorities of America's voters. A recent scientific study has found that that America in practice is no longer a democracy, but an oligarchy.

And we know that these stories of banking crimes receive only the slightest bit of obligatory attention in America's news media, and then essentially vanish, just like the mountains of overwhelming evidence about the JFK assassination, the 9/11 attack, the attack on the USS Liberty, and the true story about the establishment of Israel.

This control over the American news media is effectively a hidden monopoly. While the various networks and top newspapers are not legally owned by a single parent company, they act exactly as if they were.

US Senator Dick Durbin famously said of the US Senate, "The banks own the place".

The Roman Republic rotted and collapsed due to severe financial corruption, including in its Senate. The US today is on the same path. The US Constitution embodies lessons learned from the Roman efforts and failures. But the US Constitution clearly did not solve all the problems that can befall a republic. Major additional safeguards against financial corruption are needed.

You may use this material freely and without attribution.

You can help rescue democracy by linking to this article.