Setting Precedent: A History of U.S. Military Occupational Crimes

By Curtis B. Maynard

The United States government and military have engaged in wars that have resulted in the occupation of former belligerents on numerous past occasions, including the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and most recently the Gulf War and the War in Iraq. What is interesting about this inevitable consequence of defeat is that often the American public is misled about the occupation, its goals, direction and purpose. This paper will delve into a comparative generalization between the American occupation of Post War Germany and its present occupation of Iraq.

The crimes the U.S. Military has been accussed of committing in Iraq are not without precedent. In most cases, the United States Military was first accused of eerily simial atrocities against German POWs and civilains in post-War Germany.

Today, the United States government and its military have developed an extremely bad reputation internationally. Very often, the stories told by the American government through the western media in respect to the occupation in Iraq are quickly proven to be inaccurate. So inaccurate in fact, that they can only be appropriately termed lies. When the lies themselves become blatantly apparent, most often as the result of an independent media investigation and/or by bloggers on the Internet, the stories these lies initially sought to cover-up are then ignored, dropped, or distorted by further exaggeration.

Few people today are completely unaware of the duplicity associated with the War in Iraq and the subsequent occupation of the Iraqi nation. What most people may be unaware of however is that lying to the American people is something the United States government has become quite proficient at, especially as it relates to the occupation of former belligerents, the government has I fact been practicing such deception for generations. The United States government has in the past exploited its presence in the nations it has defeated to cover up crimes that it has itself committed, both during the war and during the latter occupation itself. These crimes vary from intentionally causing the deaths of “at least 800,000” German POWs, by way of “exposure, unsanitary conditions, disease and starvation,” to machine gunning captured and helpless German Prisoners of War, to fabricating, falsifying and omitting diary entries of the former Nazi leadership in order to cover-up horrendous acts committed by the Anglo-Allies during the Italian Campaign in 1943.

The fact is that the today American government is quickly losing credibility on the International stage and a great deal of this has to do with its past behavior in respect to the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and its subsequent efforts to conceal these facts. Today the United States government strands accused of subjecting human beings to torture, something the United States has condemned in the past; as have other civilized nations. Today the United States Military stands accused of committing atrocities in Iraq, something it vociferously denies, but the evidence weighs heavily against this disclaimer. Today the United States Military stands accused of employing poison gas against Iraqi insurgents and civilians, something it has self-righteously accused the former Iraqi regime of committing against its own in the 1980s.

The possibility exists that this accusation that of using poison gas in Iraq, is nothing more than false propaganda, but the notion that the United States military’s might use toxic agents against human beings, despite its violation of the Geneva Gas Protocols isn’t without precedent.

When Peter Arnett was fired from CNN for spreading an allegedly unsubstantiated story that the United States military had intentionally used nerve agent in Laos during the Vietnam War, many Americans accepted the fact that it was untrue, rather than consider that Arnett’s story might have some merit. Arnett interviewed Admiral Thomas Moorer U.S.N. (ret), and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for the story and he verified the story and stated further that he felt the use of poison gas was justified under the conditions it was used. When asked if nerve agent had been used during the Vietnam War, Melvin Laird the Secretary of Defense at the time stated that he was not aware of it, but would not dispute what Moorer had to say on the matter. This may appear a strange comment coming from Moorer’s civilian boss, but the fact of that matter was, Laird was excluded from much of what the Nixon-Kissinger White House did during his tenure, and Moorer was not. Rather than deny the allegations outright, former National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger had no comment whatsoever. Unfortunately for Arnett, Moorer eventually retracted his statement, and CNN fired Arnett for distorting the story.

What is possibly the most important issue here is not so much what Americans believe to be true, but what people from other nations believe to be accurate. Unknown to most Americans, the U.S. military has been accused of using chemical and biological agents against its enemies in the past. Both North Korea and China accused the U.S. military of engaging in biological warfare during the Korean War. The use of the herbicide Agent Orange during the Vietnam War cannot conceivably be considered anything else but the implementation of a chemical agent during wartime. The U.S. military may not have been aware of the carcinogenic nature of Agent Orange in the 1960s and early 1970s, but the fact of the matter was that it poisoned hundreds of thousands of human beings, including a considerable number of U.S. servicemen. Americans may believe that these accusations were either unsubstantiated and therefore untrue, or as in the case of Agent Orange, accidental, but other nations do not necessarily take the same position.

Of course Admiral Thomas Moorer is arguably the best source one could possibly ask for in respect to such information, after all he was the highest ranking Military officer in the United States at the time the nerve agent was allegedly used in Laos. As noted above, the United States did deploy gas munitions to the European Theatre of Operations during the Second World War, which culminated in at least one serious accident that the United States government lied about and attempted to conceal from the American public.

The hypocrisy associated with the United States government isn’t confined to World War Two and the Vietnam era, it continues to this day. Torture violates International law, yet the United States government is engaged in it in Iraq and is busily manipulating the law in order to absolve itself of guilt, something it has done before and presumably will continue to do.

According to a former S.S. judge-advocate name Konrad Morgan, he had been pressured to testify at the Nuremberg Military Tribunal that Ilse Koch had tanned human skin and turned it into lampshades, something Morgan later called a legend and totally untrue. When he refused to lie on the stand, “The Americans almost killed me… They threatened three times to turn me over to the Russians or French or Poles.” The notorious S.S. Obersturmbannfuhrer Rudolf Hoess, first of three commandants of Auschwitz was likewise subjected to torture. According to Hoess, “At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it… Alcohol and the whip were too much for me.” Hoess was a mass murderer, of that there is no doubt, but for some inexplicable reason Hoess confessed to gassing two million persons between June 1941 and the end of 1943, when today the memorial plaque at Auschwitz enumerates a total of 1.5 million murdered, which deviates from Hoess’ confession by a substantial number, not to mention the fact that many more people were thought to have been gassed and murdered after 1943 and before the camp was liberated by the Soviets in January 1945. The point of bringing this to light isn’t to exonerate Hoess or to question the numbers murdered at Auschwitz, only to emphasize the likelihood that he was in fact tortured and moreover, tortured by American military personnel.

Morgan and Hoess weren’t the only Nazi officials that claimed to have been tortured, many of the defendants at Nuremberg claimed as much, including Julius Streicher, who stated, he had been repeatedly kicked in the genitals, forced to drink water from a urinal, and forced to open his mouth so that an American soldier could spit into it. Hans Frank too, the former governor of occupied Poland was beaten upon capture, despite having turned himself in to the Americans along with his highly incriminating diaries. In many cases the prisoners at Nuremberg were placed under considerable psychological stress after their families were apprehended by the Allies, in an effort to compel the prisoners to confess to crimes real or imagined.

Much of the above information in respect to the torture of former German civilian and military leaders was obtained from the writings of David Irving, a rather tainted historian who has in the past been accused of harboring National Socialist sympathies and allowing this bias to affect his historiography. Without a doubt Irving harbors an unconventional and even socially unacceptable view of history as it relates to the Third Reich and the Second World War, however because of this, students of history are afforded the unique opportunity of seeing certain events through the eyes of a historical nonconformist, which can be extremely revealing.

As far as bias itself is concerned, all historians are subject to it to a certain extent, and it cannot help but taint their subsequent research and writing. Bertrand Russell, a liberal labor activist and Winston Churchill had diametrically opposed perspectives on history as it related to the Second World War, yet both men are considered excellent historians in their own right. Churchill’s voluminous contributions to history in respect to his wartime memoirs are considered by many to be the most revealing sources associated with WWII, yet Churchill himself openly advocated deceptive policies, including outright lies, and is more responsible for the purging of incriminating British documents in the post war period than anyone else in recent memory. Bearing the above in mind when critiquing and/or condemning David Irving, the careful student of history should consider that like it or not, Irving is considered by many to be one of the foremost experts on the Nazi hierarchy and possibly the world’s greatest expert on the former Nazi Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels. Of course Irving’s writing should be critically examined, just as anyone else’s should, but if one wants to truly develop an objective opinion on the Second World War, one that encompasses a broad view and therefore understanding, Irving’s writing must be included in one’s research library.

The defendants at Nuremberg were guilty of innumerable crimes, including mass murder, slavery, conspiracy, corruption, theft, of this there is no doubt. However, this didn’t stop the American prosecution team from engaging in extremely unethical behavior, including coercing confessions from the prisoners, leading them to believe that certain conversations would be kept in confidence when they weren’t, utilizing psychologists to probe the minds of the prisoners in such a way as to provide the prosecution with a strategy to demoralize them individually and as a group. In short the actual prosecution of these men was a shameful example of American jurisprudence at work. This is not to say that these men were innocent, they weren’t, but in hindsight, the Nuremberg Military Tribunal appears to have been somewhat of a farce, a show trial in which the verdict was known the moment the Germans capitulated.

Several Nazis equally guilty in many respects as those later convicted and hanged were not charged with certain crimes, but were in fact treated with tenterhooks by the Americans. These two were Grand Admiral Erich Raeder and Admiral Karl Doenitz, the latter being the heir to the throne of the Third Reich after Hitler’s suicide. Both men were initially charged with Crimes Against Humanity along with many of the other Nuremberg defendants but were acquitted of these more serious crimes after the British and Americans had determined that although both had committed Crimes against Humanity in respect to unrestricted submarine warfare, so had the Americans and therefore it might prove embarrassing to have this uncomfortable fact brought to light in a public trial monitored by millions of radio listeners around the world. Francis Biddle, one of the judges at Nuremberg even went so far as to say in respect to Germany’s record of war crimes on the high seas that “Germany” had “waged a much cleaner war than we did,” meaning the United States Navy.

Much of these facts remain unknown to many people, not just Americans. In respect to conspiracy, the United States has outdone itself in the fabrication of history. Its efforts to conceal what happened at Bari, Italy in December of 1943 when the American merchant ship, the USS John Harvey blew up gassing much of the Italian city with its toxic cargo, has been highly successful and remains unknown to most Italian citizens to this day, despite the fact that it happened in their own country.

In respect to crimes against humanity, there is no doubt whatsoever that the United States government and military conspired in various ways to starve millions of Germans immediately following Germany’s capitulation. This may come as a shock to the reader, but documentary evidence leaves no other possible conclusion. James Bacque, the author of the book Other Losses, has exposed irrefutable evidence that the United States Army under the command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower intentionally enacted policies that led directly to the deaths of at least 800,000 German POWs after the end of the Second World War. Denigrated by critics for not having training in historiography or document analysis, Bacque nonetheless proves he possesses a considerable amount of aptitude in both areas, with the publication of Other Losses. Bacque relies almost exclusively on primary documentation, from such sources as The International Red Cross, U.S. Military archives, British and Canadian archives and a good bit of eyewitness testimony. Despite his critics, Bacque reveals that hundreds of thousands of Germans were systematically starved, and subjected to the effects of exposure, disease, and neglect. The reason Bacque is of extreme importance today is that once again the United States military is being accused of committing atrocities in an occupied country, and the military appears to be predictably falling back on the very same techniques it used in post war Germany in order to cover these facts up. Today very few serious people would argue the fact that the American media isn’t keeping the American people informed about what is happening in Iraq, except perhaps in the most superficial manner.

Today, it is a well-established fact that American troops have committed acts of torture at Abu Ghraib, an American prison in Iraq. The photographs of acts that cannot be described as anything other than torture have been splashed across the screen of world consciousness for many months as of April 2005. What isn’t so well known is whether high-ranking United States military officials sanctioned these illegal acts. At this juncture, the Army and civilian government have denied any knowledge that the acts were being committed. There is a tremendous amount of international and domestic skepticism in respect to this claim, however this isn’t being brought out into the light of day, it is being stifled by the mainstream news media. This isn’t a new phenomenon, according to Bacque the very same technique was applied in post war Germany in respect to hiding the number of German POWs that had died in American captivity over a relatively short period of time.

Bacque opined, “Once the half-dead men were discharged, however conflict between eyewitnesses and propaganda arose. The evidence of the witnesses lost credibility as it was repeated by word of mouth alone. It had the status of doubtful rumor from resentful individuals, lacking the authority of print.” The author was absolutely correct in identifying this very significant fact as perhaps the most important ingredient in the future fabrication of history, a history that would conveniently lay the responsibility of these men’s deaths on the Soviet Union, a fait accompli that escaped the notice of journalists and historians for decades. According to the Bacque, “Inside Germany, Eisenhower or his deputies ran everything, so censorship was much easier to maintain. Newspapers, radio stations, book publishers, even movie theaters had to have licenses to operate in the U.S. zone. For a long time they had no freedom, but much free propaganda.” Control over these information outlets was essential, it was only through these means that the occupational forces could create the kind of atmosphere described by Bacque:

In Germany after 1945, there were millions of biographies; there was no history. When the nation was cut in four, its history was fragmented by the political divisions, censorship, coverup and fear of criticizing the USA and France. No intelligent public opinion was formed on the subject [Of German POWs] because no expression of it was allowed. The occupation of Germany resulted in an occupied mentality, which attempted to subject reason to unreasoning discipline.

Millions of Germans wondered what had happened to their loved ones, and it was during the Cold War that the Americans and French figured out a way in which to rid themselves of the burden of their responsibility by dumping it on the Russians. Through a bit of creative paper shuffling, propaganda and deceit, the Americans conveniently blamed the Russians, sating that it was they who had taken these German soldiers prisoner and thus in the words of Arthur Smith, author of the book Heinkehr aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, “The mystery about the location of Germany’s POWs ceased to be.” Dr. Joseph Goebbels’ the infamous Nazi Reichsminister of Propaganda and Enlightenment, was himself quite impressed with Anglo-American propaganda efforts, perhaps even somewhat envious, saying once, “When I think what the English are reporting in the way of news from the areas occupied by us and compare with it how little we do to meet it, I am all the more anxious to do something in a big way.”

What is important here is that one understands the power of the press, of mass communication. The United States military dominates and controls the news media in Iraq, dictating to the media whom it may and whom it may not include as reporters representing their various media corporations. In effect, this means that the U.S. military decides who reports what. If an independent journalist should discover something and worse attempt to disseminate it, there may well be consequences as suggested by a “companion of freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who was released from the clutches of Iraqi militants on March 4, 2004 only to be shot at by U.S. military troops, an act said to be “deliberate.” According to an interview Pier Scolari, a friend of Sgrena’s, “The Americans knew she was coming,” he said, “Giuliana had information, and the US military did not want her to survive.” Whether or not there was any merit to this claim or not remains to be seen, her companion Pier Scolari seemed to believe so and the story hit the Internet almost immediately. The Internet is a medium that the United States military has never had to contend with in respect to an occupation in the past, it remains to be seen how exactly they will deal with it.

Despite Bacque’s lack of credentials, Other Losses is an excellent book that emphasizes a point rarely discussed among historians and that is the psychological phenomenon of “selective distortion,” well understood in advertising circles. “This phenomenon can occur in two primary ways. If an individual wants to believe something is not true, then even in the face of an overwhelming amount of information disputing their original contention, they will still reject what they do not want to believe. Likewise, this can happen in the same manner with an individual that wants to believe something is in fact true, no matter the amount of material refuting that belief.” The imperative ingredient in creating this “selective distortion” is of course early access to the target, the individual, and the way this is generally achieved is through the indoctrination processes offered by the media.

In order for this to succeed however, the target must not be exposed to contradictory stimuli, at least not initially. Once the phenomenon has congealed however, those so exposed to it will inevitably develop what is known as “brand loyalty,” which is another advertising term relevant here because the “traditional macroeconomic view of advertising ‘holds that the main purpose of advertising is to manipulate or persuade’”

What Bacque brings to light in Other Losses, is that the United States military committed atrocities on a large scale in Post War Germany and utilized its monopoly of the German press to conceal that fact. Of that there is no doubt today. These atrocities included the exact same murderous outcome that the United States government was prosecuting Nazi war criminals for, at exactly the same time they were being subjected to the judgment of the Allies in Nuremberg. Bacque describes how the United States government “created” the illusion of a “World Food Shortage,” in concert with the American and German media, despite the fact that agricultural output in the United States and Canada had exceeded expectations and was at an all time high. This was done intentionally in order to excuse the fact that the United States was depriving the German population of foodstuffs, specifically wheat. Bacque never comes directly out and says why he suspects this was the case other than to suggest vengeance on the part of high-ranking U.S. Military officials including Eisenhower, whom “hated Germans… because the German is a beast,” according to a letter he wrote home to his wife in September 1944. In order to subvert the spirit of the Geneva Convention and the protection it afforded prisoners of war, Eisenhower changed the status of German POWs immediately after Germany surrendered to that of “disarmed enemy forces” [DEF], which conveniently placed them outside of the protection of the Convention as well as the monitoring of the Red Cross.

This too has been done today in respect to Iraqi prisoners as well as anyone deemed to be an international terrorist. The Iraqi prisoners are no longer considered POWs since Iraq capitulated in 2003 and they, along with any “international terrorists,” are instead referred to as “battlefield detainees,” for exactly the same reason that German POWs were forced to assume the designation of DEF’s, so that the Geneva Convention’s protection wouldn’t include them, nor would the Red Cross or Red Crescent be allowed to examine the conditions under which they are/were being held. Of course the United States military has been accused of committing crimes against these prisoners to include rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and murder, but there is no way to substantiate these claims at this time as the military won’t allow inspections to be conducted by independent organizations. Bacque provides precedent in the sense that he provides the reader with irrefutable evidence that the military did exactly the same thing sixty years ago, the question is, what exactly is going on at Guantanamo Bay and other military facilities in which these people are being held today? After reading Other Losses one no longer has the luxury of the uninformed, it is quite clear what the U.S. military did in post war Germany and the same thing could just as easily be happening in these “detainee” camps today.

How would the military go about covering up these crimes? Simple – they fabricate history and go after young Iraqi’s as early as possible, preferably right in the classroom, just as they did in Germany sixty years ago. Jonathon Zimmerman, an instructor of history at New York University and contributor to the Washington Post had this to say:

Here's a quick quiz from an Iraqi elementary-school textbook of the not-too-recent past: What do you get when you add three rocket-propelled grenades and four Kalashnikov rifles? If you guessed simply "seven weapons," you're wrong. The correct answer, of course, is "seven ways to kill the infidel enemy." Millions of children imbibed such propaganda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Textbooks often bore a colorful picture of Hussein on the first page, smiling in his crisp battle fatigues. Inside, students encountered passages comparing him to the famous Arab warrior Saladin or to Nebuchadnezzar, the legendary Babylonian king… Propaganda afflicted every subject of study, including math and science. But it was sharpest in history and civics textbooks… When schools officially reopen in the fall, Iraq will need an entirely new set of textbooks. And that's where Creative Associates International comes in. The Washington-based firm has received a $62.5 million contract from the U.S. Agency for International Development to overhaul the Iraqi school system. Part of the job involves preparing a new set of "de-Baathified" textbooks, purging passages that fawn over Hussein and his Baath Party.

It is highly unlikely that any Iraqi textbook actually stated what Zimmerman suggests above, Iraq was a highly secular nation under Saddam Hussein and probably would have avoided the term “infidel,” at least in the context Zimmerman implies. The history instructor from New York University however neglects to provide us with a source, so we can’t know for certain. What is certain though is that de-Baathafied textbooks means essentially the same thing as “de-Nazified,” a change in the curriculum that will favor the occupying power, the United States of America. On can be sure than anything eluding to American war crimes will be absent from the final product, a product produced by the corporation Creative Associates International, a fitting name to be sure.

In the end, one must conclude that the United States government’s record is anything but illustrious and that present skepticism in regards to what is happening in Iraq is well founded. The Internet has taken on a life of its own; the mainstream media is losing its base as people flock instead to the Internet blogs. The mainstream media will do all that it can to discredit the Internet for being unregulated and uncensored, but it was the regulation and censorship engaged in by the mainstream media that has instead discredited it. The winds of change are truly blowing and short of massive censorship of the Internet it is unlikely that the western powers will forever be able to maintain their own subjective views of history.


This statement relates specifically to the fact that the American people were led to believe that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi nation were in possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” had ties to Al Qaeda, and were likely involved in some manner with the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Subsequent investigations have not proved any of the above.
Bacque, James. Other Losses. Stoddart. 1989 Pg 2.
See photo and associated story. Index I.
An American liberty ship christened the USS John Harvey blew up in the harbor of the Italian city of Bari, releasing some 100+ tons of mustard gas it had surreptitiously transported to the ETO into the harbor and surrounding atmosphere. More than 80 allied personnel died and uncounted numbers of Italian civilians. Joseph Goebbels’ noted this fact as well as the fact that the associated Luftwaffe attack led to the sinking of some 17 Allied ships, a devastating loss to the Americans, second in severity only to Pearl Harbor, and unreported to the American people. On at least three occasions, these revealing entries were excised from the published version of Goebbels’ diaries released in 1948 and the facts associated with Bari weren’t exposed until almost three decades later. Maynard, Curtis. Bari Revisited: Remaining unanswered questions Related to the German Air Raid at Bari. Texas A&M University-Kingsville. 2003.
March 2, 2005 - Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli, a representative of the Iraqi Ministry of Health who was authorized to assess health conditions in al-Fallujah after the end of the major battles there, announced that the surveys and studies which a medical team did in al-Fallujah and subsequently reported to the Ministry confirm that US forces used substances that are internationally prohibited -- including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals -- in the course of its attacks on the city. Mafkarat Al-Islam, Uruknet.Info. Site accessed on March 5, 2005.
TIME Magazine, June 15 1998. Vol. 151. No. 23.
The Nixon White House excluded both Secretary of State Rogers and Secretary of Defense Laird from much of its policy. This is a continuing theme throughout Seymour Hersh’s revealing expose of the Nixon administration. Seymour Hersh, The Price of Power. (New York: Summit Books, 1983).
Maynard, Curtis. Bari Revisited: Remaining unanswered questions Related to the German Air Raid at Bari. Texas A&M University-Kingsville. 2003.

Irving, David. Nuremberg The Last Battle. Focal Point Publications. 1996, pg 149 – 150. Quoted by John Toland from an interview with Konrad Morgan, October 25, 1971. This paper will not attempt to tread on the toxic ground of whether or not Koch did use human skin to have lampshades made, only that Konrad Morgan denied it.
Irving, David. Nuremberg The Last Battle. Focal Point Publications. 1996, pg 241.
Irving, David. Nuremberg The Last Battle. Focal Point Publications. 1996, pg 242.
A photo of the current memorial plaque can be seen at this link. It should be noted here as well that prior to 1990 the Auschwitz memorial plaque listed “4 million” victims at Auschwitz, this was changed in 1990 and now states “1.5 million.” A photo of the older plaque can be viewed at this link.
Irving, David. Nuremberg The Last Battle. Focal Point Publications. 1996. Pg. 50. Taken from the manuscript of Julius Streicher, June 16, 1945.
Butler, Rupert. Legions of Death: The Nazi Enslavement of Europe. Pen & Sword. London. 1983. Pg 238. The diary was subsequently used to incriminate and convict Frank for crimes against humanity.
Irving, David. Nuremberg The Last Battle. Focal Point Publications. 1996.
Churchill is well known for having said, “In wartime the truth is so precious that it must always be carefully guarded by a bodyguard of lies.” While investigating the accidental mustard gas release at Bari Italy in 1943, this author encountered much deception on the part of Churchill including orders that expressly forbid any mention of any form of “poison gas” present at Bari as well as orders from the former PM insisting that certain documents in British Archives be destroyed.
Reasons for this conclusion include the fact that Irving has a strong command of the German language as it was used during the Second World War, is recognized the world over for being able to read Goebbel’s unique and difficult to decipher handwriting, and possibly most importantly, has an unparalleled ability to access the memoirs of former German military and civilian leaders through their families because of his “sympathetic” views. It must be said here that Irving was found to be a “neo-Nazi,” and “distorter” of history in a libel trial he lost to an American historian and “Holocaust expert,” named Deborah Lipstadt in the 1990s.
Gilbert, G.M. Nuremberg Diary. Da Capo Press. 1995.
Raeder was sentenced to life in prison and Doenitz was given ten years. Both men were released from prison in the mid 1950s.
Irving, David. Nuremberg The Last Battle. Focal Point Publications. 1996. Pg 259.
This fact was ascertained through corresponding with an eighty-year old gentlemen by the name of Alfio Faro, currently living in Rome, who lived in Italy during the time Bari was attacked and the gas released. He was absolutely stunned to read about the incident in my history thesis. Faro, Alfio, in a letter to this author August 2004. It should be stated here that without the complicity of the Italian government this fact wouldn’t be possible.
Bacque, James. Other Losses. Stoddart. 1989 Pg 145-146.

Bacque, James. Other Losses. Stoddart. 1989 Pg 147-148.
Bacque, James. Other Losses. Stoddart. 1989 Pg 150.
Bacque, James. Other Losses. Stoddart. 1989. Pg 154.

Joseph Goebbels, Goebbels Diaries. Edited by Louis Lochner. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc, 1948. Pg. 485.
AFP (French Press) article posted by the Turkish Press. Accessed on March 5, 2005. Sgrena herself later came out of the hospital accusing the United States government of intentionally trying to kill her in order to silence evidence provided by her implicating the US Military in war crimes. Whether true or not, the Italian public appears to believe her, and not the official US or Italian version, which may or may not have something to do with the current weakening of the Berlusconi regime – a government that is on the verge of collapse as of this writing.

Maynard, Curtis. A Study Focusing on the Formation of Opinion, and the Knowledge Associated with its Development. Psychology Thesis. Texas A&M Kingsville, 2002. Pg 38. Futrell, C. Fundamentals of Selling. Boston. Irwin-McGraw-Hill. 1999.
Maynard, Curtis. A Study Focusing on the Formation of Opinion, and the Knowledge Associated with its Development. Psychology Thesis. Texas A&M Kingsville, 2002. Pg 39. McConnel, R. C., & Brue, L. S. (1996). Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies 13th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Bacque, James. Other Losses. Stoddart. 1989 Pg 23.
Bacque, James. Other Losses. Stoddart. 1989 Pg 64.
This process was known as de-Nazification and included the publication of school textbooks free of Nazi propaganda but full of American propaganda.
Zimmerman, Jonathon, “Iraq’s Textbooks – and Ours.” Washington Post. June 13, 2003, Pg B07. Accessed on March 6, 2005.

Conspiracy: The cases of Asher Karni and Ryan G. Anderson

By Curtis B Maynard

A Newsweek article in January 1997, states that, "Conspiracy paranoia is surrounding us. A paranoid person might even say it's closing in, because these wacky theories aren't just spreading in the usual cheesy newsletters dense with type and craziness. Fomented on the Internet, conspiracies have become a kind of Para-religion. Its vast flock ranges from casual believers to zealots who think O.J. Simpson was set up by the Japanese Mafia and that Prince Charles is a puppet of the New World Order ..." That statement has never been more true. Every day people all over the world find new “evidence” that people and often governments are joining against them. Of course every conspiracy theory cannot be true, but some theories, although controversial have substantial evidence to back them up, and therefore reveal that at least some conspiracies are authentic. One such conspiracy can be found in a close examination of the state of Israel and what appears to be a favorable bias the Zionist state enjoys in the mainstream media, particularly in the United States of America.

Our current Secretary of State Colin Powell recently stated, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel.”

These wise words are very important to remember in studying this conspiracy. One can find one’s self in a very uncomfortable position when attempting to persuade others that the American mainstream media manifests a decided bias in favor of the state of Israel, in fact, one can find one’s self labeled an anti-Semite for attempting to do so, but the objective observer can reach no other conclusion when weighing the preponderance of evidence. The fact is, for whatever reason, the American mainstream media does manifest a decided bias in favor of the Zionist state of Israel. Examining this issue closely and considering its potential ramifications does not, nor can it, constitute anti-Semitism, to suggest as much at this point in modern history ultimately lends credence to the idea that our society is willing to “kill the messenger, for dislike of the message,” and all that implies.

A substantial amount of evidence can be found in a comparative analysis between two very interesting and distinctly different individuals. One, a rather insignificant personality by the name of Ryan G. Anderson, accused of passing information on “U.S military capabilities and weaponry,” to FBI agents posing as Al Qaeda operatives on the Internet; the other, a gentlemen by the name of Asher Karni who was arrested on January 2, 2004 at Denver International Airport for having sold Pakistan at least sixty-six spark gap igniters, devices used to trigger or detonate nuclear weapons. For whatever reason the crime committed by Ryan G. Anderson has been broadcast to the entire nation, whereas Asher Karni remains an almost nonentity in the American consciousness primarily because the media has chosen to remain silent about him and his case.

Is this a conspiracy or is it just an example of media negligence and/or indifference? Fundamentally that is the real question. In order for one to conclude that there is or may be a conspiracy at the center of this issue, it is crucial that one understand what exactly Ryan G. Anderson did and then compare that to what in fact Asher Karni is accused of.

Ryan G. Anderson apparently did pass along information about the technical aspects of the M1 Abrams main battle tank, an armored vehicle that has been in service since the early 1980s, as well as possible vulnerabilities inherent in other military equipment. Mr. Anderson was in fact a Specialist in the National Guard and had recently been activated and stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, outside of the city of Tacoma. A Specialist is an enlisted man with the rank of E4, which essentially means he was neither a noncommissioned officer nor an officer, but was in fact a somewhat glorified private. As a rule, the United States military does not entrust privates with extremely sensitive information, especially privates serving in the National Guard, without a “Top Secret,” clearance, which Anderson did not have.

Anderson of course cannot be excused from what he did. He intended to, according to the FBI, pass along information that could potentially have jeopardized the safety of U.S. military personnel during a time of war to individuals he believed to be Al Qaeda operatives-- a clear case of treason. However, let us closely scrutinize the ramifications of that information had it gotten into the wrong hands. According to an April, 2004 article in Newsweek magazine, coalition forces had “at least 650 tanks in Iraq.” This of course includes the tanks of other coalition member nations, weapon platforms in which Anderson would have known nothing about. For the purposes of this study and the sake of expediency, let us liberally assume that there may be as many as one thousand M1 Abrams main battle tanks in the Iraqi theatre. An M1 Abrams tank utilizes a four-man crew: the driver, gunner, loader and track commander. If Anderson’s information miraculously allowed Iraqi insurgents to exploit and simultaneously take out every M1 tank in Iraq along with its crew, one might expect that approximately four thousand lives could be lost. Compare that number to the number of people that might be expected to die from an average one megaton thermonuclear weapon-- the kind of weapon that Asher Karni’s illegally and surreptitiously acquired spark gap igniters would have been used to detonate. In 1993, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment compared a scenario involving aerosolized anthrax with the impact of a one megaton hydrogen bomb on Washington D.C. The study concluded that anthrax, if disseminated under certain conditions, could kill as many as three million people, as many or possibly more than a hydrogen bomb. Even if one were to consider that a hydrogen bomb would or could not have been developed in Pakistan, one must keep in mind that the comparably small atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima conservatively incinerated some 65,000 people. How many nuclear weapons could be constructed by utilizing sixty-six spark gap igniters? One essay has thirty-two being required to initiate the first atom bombs. Karni supplied at least enough to initiate the detonation of two nuclear weapons. In any case, if we conservatively consider the potential loss of life one might expect from what Karni already provided to what is arguably and possibly the most unstable Islamic Republic in the world today and then compare that to what Ryan G. Anderson did, we can clearly see that Karni’s actions could have far greater consequences; yet, the media is emphasizing the actions of Anderson and diminishing those of Karni simply by way of omission.

Who is Asher Karni? Why would the media for all intensive purposes ignore the ramifications of what he did and highlight the comparably insignificant Ryan G. Anderson and his crime? Asher Karni is a citizen of Israel who resided in South Africa prior to his arrest earlier this year in Colorado. According to a Commerce Department Special Agent named James Brigham as reported by Fox News on January 15, 2004, Karni owns a business in South Africa, “which trades in military and aviation electronic gear,” and employed an elaborate ruse to acquire and ultimately to export these nuclear weapon detonators to Pakistan. There is not a tremendous amount of public information available on Mr. Karni; in many respects he is shadowy figure with an obscure past.

On January 13, 2004, eleven days after Karni’s arrest, Rocky Mountain News published a very strange story concerning a man accused of exporting nuclear weapon detonators to Pakistan and how he was about to be released from federal custody on a ridiculously low bail. This must have drawn someone’s attention, as currently Karni sits in a United States federal prison without the opportunity for bail-- the very situation one would expect to see for someone accused of selling nuclear weapon detonators to a potential enemy during a time of war. Two articles published by Rocky Mountain News following Karni’s arrest can be carefully scrutinized in order to extract all of the pertinent information.

To begin with, Karen Abbott, the author of both the January 9, 2004 and January 13, 2004 articles detailing the Karni case, identifies the accused as being charged with “sending U.S. made parts that can detonate nuclear weapons to Pakistan.” Nowhere in the January 9, 2004 article is Karni identified as being an Israeli; he is merely recognized as a citizen of Cape Town, South Africa and listed as the owner of a company known as Top-Cape Technology which attempted to acquire two hundred “triggered spark gaps” from an American company identified as Perkin Elmer Optoelectronics. At some point between the first article and the second, United States Magistrate Judge Michael Watanabe ordered the release of Karni on bail. Bail was set at the paltry sum of $75,000; a pittance considering the severity of the charge, especially in a country where one can expect to pay substantial bonds for the following crimes:

· Bribing a judge = $100,000
· Manufacturing documents too hide true citizenship. = $75,000
· Influencing the testimony of a witness and/or preventing them from testifying.
· Vehicular homicide (Driving vehicle with gross negligence) $50,000
· Murder $1,000,000
· Murder with special circumstances (No bail is offered)

There are a considerable number of very odd circumstances listed in the first half of Abbott’s January 13, 2004 article entitled “Israeli goes free on bail,” beginning with the fact that bail was available at all. The first few paragraphs are most telling and reveal quite a lot when carefully examined:

An Israeli accused of illegally sneaking U.S. made nuclear detonators into Pakistan will be freed from federal custody on bail but will be confined to a rabbi’s home in Maryland. Denver U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Watanabe ordered the release of Asher Karni, 50, a citizen of Israel who lives in Cape Town, South Africa, after a hearing Monday. A rabbi arrived from Cape Town on Monday to testify that Karni is a respected member of the Jewish community there. “I know him as a very religious and honest man,” said Rabbi Menachem Popack, a U.S. citizen born in Buffalo, N.Y., who has lived in Cape Town for 28 years and has known Karni for 18 of them.

Karni’s attorney, Harvey Steinberg, of Denver, also presented supporting letters from people in South Africa and in the United States. One was from the U.S. based son-in-law of South African multimillionaire Cecil Jones, offering the $75,000 cash bail that will free Karni from federal custody. Another letter was from a rabbi in Maryland offering to let Karni and his wife live in his home while the charge is pending against him in federal court in nearby Washington D.C. Watanabe ordered Karni to live with the Maryland rabbi and wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet to be sure he stays there. Watanabe delayed Karni’s release until Thursday to give federal prosecutors time to appeal. Prosecutors had sought to keep Karni locked up while the charge against him works its way through the legal system. However, Prosecutor Bob Brown said he doesn’t plan to appeal.

Once again we have to consider that a man accused of selling nuclear weapon detonators to an unstable Islamic Republic during a time when the United States considers itself at war with world terrorism, a good part of which is centered in Pakistan itself, was about to be released on bail because a few rabbi’s came forward on his behalf, one even stating that he knew Karni to be a “very religious and honest man.” If selling nuclear weapon detonators to Muslim’s bent on the destruction of world Jewry, the Israeli state and the United States of America is an indication of a Jew’s religious fervor, then we need to carefully consider what that might imply.

In addition to the fact that it is most strange that a bail was even offered, the terms of Karni’s release are equally mystifying considering that he is not a United States citizen and would undoubtedly be a flight risk. He could flee to either Israel or South Africa, the former having a history of harboring fugitives from justice. Although the article emphasizes that Judge Watanabe ordered Karni to wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet to ensure he stays at the Maryland rabbi’s house, one needs to know that a monitoring bracelet will do absolutely nothing to prevent someone from leaving anywhere or at any time, it will only notify the police that the wearer has left the area he/she was restricted to after the fact. Perhaps strangest of all, Bob Brown, the Prosecutor in the case didn’t plan to appeal the judge’s bail decision or bond requirements, a most unusual occurrence for a prosecutor with the amount of evidence Brown had available to him and the seriousness of the crime.

Now how can this case are contrasted in an equitable manner with that of Ryan G. Anderson? The following excerpt from a Fox News article speaks for itself when one pays attention to what is being said and how it is being said. Bear in mind that Fox News first reported Mr. Anderson’s arrest on February 13, 2004, the day after Anderson was charged, unlike Karni, whose story didn’t appear in any news publication until Rocky Mountain News reported it eight days after the fact. Fox News itself didn’t cover Karni’s story at all until January 15, 2004, and then the news network itself glossed over his arrest once, never covering the story again. Compare that to the fact that Fox News has produced at least ten stories on the comparably insignificant Ryan G. Anderson. One could easily say at this point, “well of course, we all know Fox News is biased, so what?” That may well be, but Fox News network is not the only media outlet to dedicatedly ignore the story of Asher Karni and publicize that of Ryan G. Anderson. The very same phenomenon manifests itself on many other mainstream networks in North America, take for instance the CBC, Canada’s largest broadcast and news network, on February 13, 2004, the day after Anderson was arrested the CBC published a story about Anderson with a photograph of the young army specialist and biographical data which didn’t fail to mention he (Anderson) was a Muslim convert! The same network however failed to mention the fact that an Israeli was arrested at Denver International Airport for having sold Pakistan numerous nuclear weapon detonators. CNN too reveals this bias, if one conducts a search on its website, one will find two articles on Anderson and one mentioning Asher Karni, albeit the article itself focused on Pakistan’s illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons technology, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan and Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf, Karni himself is only mentioned in the second to last paragraph and identified, not as an Israeli, but erroneously as a South African. One can find twelve articles related to Ryan G. Anderson on MSNBC, but up until today, September 3, 2004, there were none on Karni. However, today, September 3, 2004, MSNBC posted two articles mentioning Karni, one from Reuters and the other an Associated Press (Neither were contributed by MSNBC). Neither article focused on Karni, but rather on a South African named Johan Meyer, who has been accused of “manufacturing nuclear-related material and exporting goods that could be used in developing weapons of mass destruction.” The point is of course, that MSNBC never mentioned Asher Karni, a man accused of selling nuclear weapon detonators nine months ago, but mentions the bumbling, “wannabe al-Qaida spy,” specialist Ryan G. Anderson in twelve articles over the last eight months.

There is much happenstance associated with Israel and Israeli citizens that seem to defy logic insofar as why the media hasn’t covered the incidents in such a way as to inform the American people better than they have. Examples are abundant, and cannot be rationally explained away as mere coincidence and/or the hysterics of anti-Semites, yet despite this fact, the American people remain blissfully ignorant of them and their possible implications.

Some of these instances of bias are well known among historians, yet unknown among the general public, as an example the Lavon Affair, in which the state of Israel in 1954 recruited several Egyptians to bomb American installations in Egypt, intentionally leaving behind fabricated evidence in order to implicate Arabs and thus fracture tenuous American-Egyptians relations, which was thought might somehow benefit the state of Israel. Unfortunately these agents were caught as one of the bombs they intended to use prematurely detonated, leading to the capture of one agent and his subsequent confession. As a result of the scandal, the Israeli Defense Minister resigned in humiliation. The Lavon Affair should be closely scrutinized today, as there are some actual parallels that exist between it and September 11th, 2001 in certain respects.

In 1967 the Israeli Navy and Air force attacked an American ship dubbed the USS Liberty during the Six Day War, 34 American sailors perished and 172 others were wounded. To this day the Israeli government denies that it was intentional, insisting that they thought this ship was a “Forty year old Egyptian horse transport,” yet the matter is anything but settled. Anyone that bothers to read about the incident will have a difficult time convincing them selves that it was a case of mistaken identity. James M. Ennes Jr., the author of the definitive book on the subject, Assault on the Liberty (Random House 1980), was actually present on the ship that day, and he insists to this day that the Israeli’s were well aware of the fact that the Liberty was an American ship. The possible reasons behind the attack are numerous; yet remain cloaked in mystery, uncertainty and denial. On October 9, 2003, Captain Ward Boston, the man assigned to be the senior legal counsel in the Navy’s Court of Inquiry on the matter, came forward after signing a sworn affidavit, more than thirty years after the fact, testifying that President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara insisted that the attack be “concluded as a case of mistaken identity despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

The fact that a foreign nation committed an act of war on the United States of America in the latter case and an act of terror in the first, isn’t necessarily unusual, what is unusual about the above two incidents, is that for the most part, the American public, like in the case of Asher Karni, remain completely unaware of the facts associated with them. To this day, despite strong protest, from among others, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer; the United States Congress has refused to reopen the USS Liberty investigation and/or hold Congressional Hearings on the matter. The mainstream news media too has been conspicuously silent, and as a result, the American people remain in the dark.

One could write tomes on the multitude of bizarre coincidences associated with the state of Israel’s “free pass,” in the American mainstream media. In fact some people have, like former Congressman Paul Findley, who wrote an excellent expose of the power and influence enjoyed by the state of Israel in the U.S. House of Representatives the U.S. Senate, and the American mainstream news media entitled They Dare to Speak Out. Some have labeled Findley an anti-Semite as a result of his book, but few actually question the veracity of his work, preferring instead to find fault in the author’s character instead, a much easier pursuit. Findley focuses his attention on an organization known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a lobbying group that concerns itself with doing what lobby’s do, influencing politicians. AIPAC however, might be too good at what it does, according to their own website, AIPAC claims that Fortune magazine “ranks AIPAC among America’s most powerful interest groups,” a very powerful endorsement for an organization that represents the interests of a country of less than six million people.

The American Israel Political Affairs Committee is currently embroiled in a spy scandal of monumental proportions, one that even a very powerful interest group may have difficulty extricating itself from. Without going into great detail, the scandal centers around an analyst named Larry Franklin who was allegedly caught passing U.S. National Security information to AIPAC representatives, who may or may not have passed them on to Israel, a situation very reminiscent of what Richard Perle did in 1970, according to Congressional Testimony acquired by the renowned investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, released in his book The Price of Power. The odd thing about Perle’s apparent act of espionage is that he later went on to become Undersecretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration and most recently an influential advisor to President George W. Bush. The American mainstream media has for all intents and purposes remained silent about what Perle did in 1970, despite the fact that he is considered to be one of the most prominent and influential neo-conservatives in Washington D.C. The lid is anything but closed on the AIPAC spy scandal; it will continue to grow and has become the focal point of interest on many of the major information clearing houses on the web. This wouldn’t be the case if the American public hadn’t developed an interest in the issue, and perhaps even a certain level of suspicion in regards to the activities of AIPAC and by association, the state of Israel.

Recently, Pat Buchanan wrote an article entitled “Pollardites in the Pentagon,” dealing with the recent AIPAC spy allegations, which recited the fact that in 1970 Richard Perle was “picked up on an FBI wiretap discussing NSC secrets with the Israeli embassy,” yet later inexplicably became assistant secretary of defense and then continued to engage in many questionable activities that seemingly benefited the state of Israel more so than the United States, Perle’s alleged home, over the last twenty-three years. The reader may be asking himself/herself, what exactly is a “Pollardite,” it is simply Buchanan’s way of bringing up another historical instance in which Israel was caught red handed engaging in espionage targeting the United States, a case in which they denied culpability as vociferously as they are today in the Larry Franklin/AIPAC case, a case they denied for thirteen years.

Jonathon Pollard was an American citizen who spied for the state of Israel and whose activities in the 1980s are considered by many to represent the most damaging intelligence breach in recent memory, not to mention causing the deaths of several American intelligence assets. Of all the individuals thus far mentioned in this paper, Pollard may in fact be the most recognized. Despite this fact and despite the fact that he was sentenced to life in prison for espionage, Israel has engaged in an aggressive campaign that includes AIPAC and even direct negotiations with past and present Israeli officials to have him freed and deported to Israel, where he is considered a hero. That’s right, a hero, an American who engaged in espionage against his own nation is considered a hero in the state of Israel. Yisrael Medad, at the time a parliamentary aide to the Tehiya Party in Israel emphasized this fact in an article appearing in the Jerusalem Post in March, 1989, entitled “Jonathon Pollard is my Purim Hero,” where he proceeds to slavishly lather praise onto a man whose actions seriously compromised American National Security and caused the deaths of American intelligence assets on the ground. Today, Medad “is responsible for Educational Programming and Information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center,” and he is an “Op-Ed contributor to the Jerusalem Post, LA Times, International Herald Tribune, Sh'ma, Outpost, Israel Scene and other periodicals.

Medad isn’t the only Israeli that’s thinks highly of Pollard, in 1998, Benjamin Netanyahu; the then Prime Minister of the state of Israel actually linked an Israeli-Palestinian land-for-security agreement with the release of Pollard. When asked to comment on why he did this; Netanyahu said, according to the Associated Press:

Not only will I not apologize, I am proud that I stand up for him (Pollard) and I will continue to do so… The man worked for us and our security, Netanyahu said. He made a mistake. He should not have done what he did and Israel made a mistake by doing what it did against the United States. But he has been paying the price for 13 years and we need to get him out of there.

One could say that this kind of sentiment, on behalf of a traitor, by the leader of an alleged ally, shows very little respect for United States law and/or National Security. This is particularly frightening given that Israel is occasionally referred to as America’s fifty-first state and quite often a rogue state as well, by those not entirely enamored with the Israelis.

This strange media bias in favor of Israel is no figment of the imagination, it is real, it exists, it has for some time and it continues unhindered, except for a few voices from the wilderness. This bias prevents Americans from developing informed opinions. It prevents us from learning that the United States Drug Enforcement Agency developed a report in 2001 that was subsequently leaked to the media and has become something of a sensation since. It states that dozens and dozens of Israeli’s were arrested in the United States following September 11th for engaging in espionage, and then quietly deported to Israel before the American public was informed of the details.

This bias prevents Americans from learning that in October 2001, less than a month after 9-11; two Israeli’s were arrested for “carrying guns, hand grenades and explosives,” in the Mexican Congressional building. Inexplicably, these two men were later released to Israel after Israeli envoys came to pay Mexican officials a visit. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense, but there it is. This self evident bias prevents Americans from learning many relevant facts associated with what happened on September 11th, 2001, like the arrest of five Israeli’s, reportedly cheering with joy, while filming the disaster that befell the World Trade centers on 9-11. Neil Mackay writes:

There was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.
Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

Despite the fact that the above story did run on a fairly mainstream news site, the fact of the matter is the story and the fact that these Israeli’s including the intelligence agents were quietly deported to Israel, remains largely unknown to the majority of Americans, and if they have heard about it, are likely to dismiss it out of hand as meaningless and/or part of some paranoid conspiracy theory, yet in reality, it happened.

The problem with this bias is that it will inevitably lead, and already has to some extent, to the discrediting of the media mainstream and accreditation of what is now the marginalized media, which could have profound negative consequences. Initially this idea might seem unlikely, even impossible, but should some catastrophic event occur in the United States and the currently marginalized media covers it accurately and the mainstream sources conspire to keep it from the public, and are discovered, all bets are off, anything could happen. As it is now, the vast majority of Americans are dependent on televised news for the information they receive on a daily basis. Studies suggest that this trend had increased over time and replaced reading as both a form of entertainment and a source for information acquisition. Of course this can lead to the subjectivity of the media itself influencing the individual’s opinion formation, thus true objectivity is lost or surrendered. This critical point was emphasized when Spiro Agnew, former vice president of the United States delivered a speech in Des Moines Iowa in November 1969, in which he stated, “No medium has a more profound influence [than television news] over public opinion- nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power.” The media itself is actually growing smaller and smaller, in that it is merging into fewer and fewer corporate owners, as Nicholas Johnson, (1995) a former Federal Communication Commission (FCC) official, commented on in relation to the developing media monopoly in mass communication. “At the time of the Time-Warner merger, when company executives were asked why they were merging, Time-Warner said that according to their calculations, it would not be long before there would be five firms that control all the media on Planet Earth, and that they intended to be one of them.” Johnson later acknowledged that, “it is true that most people get most of their information from television. It is also true that fewer and fewer people, particularly young people, are reading the newspapers.” To summarize the article; the media is already monopolized by a few powerful companies, but if trends continue eventually Time-Warner’s calculations may in fact be correct.

Recently however, since September 11th, 2001, many people have begun moving away from a reliance on the mainstream media and have begun to seek information on the Internet. This may be a sign of growing dissatisfaction with the reporting and/or honesty of the mainstream news, and why wouldn’t it?

If Americans as a whole were to learn a few of the facts presented in this paper tomorrow, the possible and unexpected backlash might be that they’d turn in growing numbers to the Internet for information on these issues and others, and the Internet is unregulated and tricky territory to maneuver. Many anti-Semitic websites have already exploited the media’s dishonesty in respect to its favorable bias toward the state of Israel and are well prepared to receive an influx of curious web surfers. The fact of the matter is; these sites will in all likelihood begin to look more and more credible as the mainstream media marginalizes and discredits itself through its own overt dishonesty and partiality.

It is extremely difficult to determine why exactly this bias exists and even more dangerous to speculate about, lest one be accused of anti-Semitism, racism or worse yet, being a neo-Nazi. In fact, it is dangerous to present facts on this particular topic period; it tends to elicit strong emotions among many different people for many different reasons. A Masters in Psychology thesis by Curtis Maynard in 2002 found that students tend to get emotional about issues in which they know little about. The thesis; entitled “A Study Focusing on the Formation of Opinion and the Knowledge Associated with its Development,” revealed that an over reliance on television as one’s primary source of information actually caused one to develop strong opinions even in the absence of relevant or accurate information, in other words the students surveyed had been influenced, rather than informed.

The only way that people can develop informed opinions and thus make intelligent decisions is by utilizing the best information available to them at the moment. The American mainstream media has failed the citizens of this country in this role. It consistently diminishes the importance of significant issues and enhances the superfluous. Most Americans are aware of this on some level, yet buy into the idea that we are often more collectively interested in the trivial than we are in the substantive, thus stories like the Scott Peterson saga are well known and disseminated and stories like the 100+ Israeli students arrested in the United States for espionage immediately following September 11th, 2001 are unfamiliar to the vast majority of American citizens and suppressed by the mainstream news media. The actual facts behind the “Israeli art student spy scandal,” are incredible, inconceivable and even earth-shattering, yet seem to be unknown to ninety-five percent of the American population, simply because the news media has dedicatedly avoided the issue. This self-evident refusal by the media, a veritable conspiracy in fact, to omit certain uncomfortable aspects of modern history in favor of the state of Israel can only have negative consequences, there is no upside, it is and will continue to be, until seriously addressed, a blight on the consciousness of the American people and a significant impediment in American foreign policy.


Rick Marin and T. Trent Gegax. Newsweek. Dec. 30 1996/ Jan. 6 1997, pp. 64-71.
Colin Powell speech, delivered at the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Berlin Germany, April 28, 2004. Speech transcripts accessed on the United States Department of State website, September 12, 2004.
Fox News' Bret Baier, Mike Emanuel, Ian McCaleb, Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report. February 13, 2004.,2933,111324,00.html - accessed on 9/2/04
Ryan G. Anderson was convicted on September 3, 2004. Associated Press, as presented by the Fox News website, accessed on September 17, 2004.,2933,131264,00.html
As a former member of the United States Armored Cavalry with a “top secret” clearance I attest to this fact based upon personal experience. Any vulnerability inherent in the M1 Abrams main battle tank was long ago divulged and has been common knowledge to those interested for a decade.
Accessed on 9/2/04
My personal experience from having served in the United States Armored Cavalry, 3/2 ACR 1985 – 1988.
PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION — Assessing the Risks, a report by the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-ISC-599 — Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1993.
Sublette, Carey, “nuclear weapons frequently asked questions,” Accessed on 9/2/04
Associated Press, posted on the Fox News website, January 15, 2004. Accessed on 9/3/04,2933,108569,00.html
Currently Pakistan is considered an ally of the United States, however it must be noted that Musharraf’s hold on power is tenuous and several attempts on his life have been made within the past twelve months by people the U.S. government considers “potential enemies.”
Karen Abbott. “Israeli Goes Free on Bail” Rocky Mountain News, January 13, 2003, Accessed on 9/3/02.,1299,DRMN_15_2571771,00.html and Karen Abbott. “DIA Arrest Tied to Nuke Control Law,” Rocky Mountain News, January 9, 2004.,1299,DRMN_15_2563582,00.html See also Appendix I & II.
The Bail Schedules listed above are from the Los Angeles Superior Court, so bear in mind that these are only a few examples from a judicial district that is almost universally considered quite lenient as far as punishment and that these examples are used to do nothing more than to establish the fact that a $75,000 bail for selling nuclear weapon detonators to an unstable Islamic Republic is unrealistically and unbelievably low. As far as the one million dollar bail for murder, please bear in mind that a single nuclear weapon could conceivably kill millions of people. Site accessed on 9/3/04.
As an example Meir Lansky in the 1970s and recently Vladimir Gusinsky, a Russian Oligarch wanted in Russia for fraud. Pravda. March 21, 2001.
This fact can be verified by conducting a search on the Fox News networks search engine by entering in “Asher Karni.” The Fox News website was accessed by this author September 2, 2004.
This fact can be verified by conducting a search on the Fox News networks search engine by entering in “Ryan G. Anderson.” The Fox News website was accessed by this author September 2, 2004.

Accessed on 9/4/04

This fact can be verified by conducting a search on the CBC search engine and entering in “Asher Karni,” the results will state: Your search - "Asher Karni" - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing ""Asher Karni."
This can be verified by conducting a site search on CNN, entering in “Asher Karni,” and “Ryan G Anderson” respectively. (When this search is conducted, be sure to indicate that it is a CNN search, not a web search. The CNN article on Kahn and Musharraf was accessed 9/2/04.

This can be verified by conducting a MSNBC site search and entering in the names “Asher Karni,” and “Ryan G. Anderson,” respectively.
Peter Apps, Reuters, Accessed on September 3, 2004 .Inexplicably, all charges against Johan Meyer were dropped without comment or explanation on September 8, 2004, five days after he was initially charged. International The News, September 9, 2004. Accessed on September 17, 2004.
MSNBC staff report. February 13, 2004. Accessed September 3, 2004.
Yehuda Abraham was charged in 2003 for being a part of a conspiracy to sell Russian shoulder fired surface to air missiles to FBI agents posing as terrorists, much in the same way that Ryan G. Anderson was caught. Interestingly Anderson was sentenced to life in prison and Abraham, for whatever reason, only faces five years imprisonment and a fine. (Ronnie Burke & Jennifer Styles, “Jeweler pleads guilty in missile sale case,” May 6, 2004. Accessed on 9/4/04. Abraham was in league with another individual by the name of Hemant Lakhani, described as a “Hindu businessman.”( Ronnie Burke & Jennifer Styles, “Jeweler pleads guilty in missile sale case,” May 6, 2004. Accessed on 9/4/04.
Interestingly there are parallels between the cases of Lakhani, Abraham and Karni, Anderson, namely that the media has essentially ignored in many respects Yehuda Abraham and concentrated instead on Hemant Lakhani. The very same phenomenon associated with bias in favor of Abraham is evident when “searches” are conducted on the major three news network websites, i.e. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. (A CNN search reveals nine articles when “Hemant Lakhani,” is typed into the CNN search engine and six when “Yehuda Abraham,” is typed into the CNN search engine, yet with the exception of one article, the five others focus on Lakhani, mentioning Abraham in one or two sentences. A Fox News website search yields)
Additionally, Time Magazine published an article on August 25, 2004, entitled “How secure are our skies,” in which Lakhani’s name and details associated with the missile sale are prominently featured, yet Abraham’s name is conspicuously omitted. (Time Magazine. Josh Tyrangiel & Kristina Dell, “How secure are our skies?” August 25, 2003.,10987,1101030825-476407,00.html ).

Wikepedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed September 9, 2004.
James M. Ennes, Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs. “The Assault on the USS Liberty Still Covered up After 26 Years.” (June 1993) Pg. 19. Accessed on September 9, 2004.
Sworn Affidavit by Ward Boston, USN, JAG (Ret) Senior Counsel to the Court of Inquiry. October 9, 2003. Copy of Affidavit accessed on September 9, 2004
Findley, Paul. They Dare to Speak Out. Chicago, IL: Lawrence Hill Books. 1989.
American Israel Political Affairs Committee website, accessed on September 9, 2004.
Seymour Hersh. The Price of Power. Summit Books. (1983) Pg 322.
Pat Buchanan. The American Conservative. “Pollardites in the Pentagon.” September 8, 2004. Site accessed on September 10, 2004.
Yisrael Medad, Jerusalem Post. “Jonathon Pollard is my Purim Hero,” March. 1989. Site accessed on September 10, 2004.
Ariel Center for Policy Research. Biography of Yisrael Medad. Accessed on September 10, 2004.
Dina Kraft. Associated Press. October 26, 1998. Internet site accessed on September 10, 2004.
Matt Spetalnik. Reuters. “Is Israel ‘Swing State’ That Could Tip U.S. Election?” September 9, 2004. Internet site accessed on September 9, 2004.
The leaked DEA report can be downloaded on pdf here.

Dallas Peace Times. Accessed on September 11, 2004. Other sources can be found at, Translated articles of the Mexico City paper Cronica de Hoy can be found here.
Yossi Melman, Haaretz. Accessed on September 11, 2004.,
Neil Mackay. Sunday Herald Online. November 2. 2003. Accessed on September 11, 2004.
Hart and Teeter Research Companies survey, Retrieved April 28, 2002 from LEXIS NEXIS Academic Universe. Roper Center For Public Opinion Research.
Accession Number. 0282271, June 19th, 1997.

Spiro Agnew, in a speech delivered in Des Moines Iowa, November 13th, 1969
Media Monopoly: An Interview with Nicholas Johnson. Accessed on September 26, 2004.

NBC News. January 12, 2004. Accessed on September 11, 2004.
Curtis Maynard. “A Study Focusing on the Formation of Opinion and the Knowledge Associated with its Development.” (2002) Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Masters Thesis.
A multitude of articles and reports exist in reference to the established fact that these students were arrested for espionage and then deported to Israel without being prosecuted after September 11, 2004. Carl Cameron a Fox News correspondent did a 3 part series on these students, which has mysteriously vanished from Fox News archives, but fortunately was downloaded, saved and is currently available on thousands of other websites. An investigation into these students and what they are accused of doing will be fruitful for the reader and well worth doing. Some of the articles can be found at the following (non-mainstream) websites, including Carl Cameron’s suppressed Fox News series.., The leaked DEA report can be downloaded on pdf here.

Anti-Semitism - the provacative accusation

By Curtis B Maynard

“Anti-Semitism,” the provocative accusation.

“Anti-Semite,” the very word can evoke a strong emotional reaction in many people, sometimes this reaction manifests itself as fear and discomfort, other times it may create confusion and uncertainty, which may then cause that individual to rethink their former position on various matters and perhaps even change their mind.

The word itself is something of a misnomer, in that its modern application generally is associated with identifying and/or defining someone that “exhibits hostility towards Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group.” The term, as it is used however is contradictory and prejudicial in that it excludes every other member of the Semitic racial-ethnic group except Jews. The very same modern dictionary that defines “anti-Semitism” in the aforementioned manner clearly identifies a Semites as “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews and Arabs.” This may at first seem to be a rather meaningless and even petty argument, after all it’s just a word right? In many instances this might be true, but not so this particular word, it has special connotations and purpose. There may not be another word in the entire English language with as much power and influence as the word “anti-Semite, it is truly a unique expression, reserved for those unfortunate enough to feel the effects associated with its malignant label.

Despite being Semitic themselves, Arabs are frequently branded anti-Semites, as are the modern day descendents of the Phoenicians [Lebanese] when it comes to identifying any negative attitudes they may harbor towards Jews. David Rieff of the New York Times asserted in 2004 that the “Sharon government claims Arafat is an anti-Semite,” which is a lot like saying that an Anglo-Saxon British subject is an Anglophobe, which admittedly it is not impossible, but would be quite rare. The fact that Yasser Arafat, the former leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] can be labeled an anti-Semite in America’s largest and most influential newspaper, despite the fact that Rieff and the Times editors themselves were well aware of Arafat’s Semitic pedigree goes a long way in describing the awesome weight carried by that word.

The purpose of delving into the application of the word “anti-Semitism,” is done solely to provide a clearly stated definition of what that word should mean and how its meaning has become distorted to the point where it excludes the vast majority of those it should theoretically be applied toward. The reason behind this of course has everything to do with the significance of the word itself, the weight it carries politically, socially, and emotionally. Essentially the question is, should the word “anti-Semitism,” continue to be associated with Jewry exclusively, or should it be discarded as meaningless, in that Arabs too are in fact Semites, and therefore cannot truly be categorized themselves as “anti-Semites?”

In 2000 Perseus Books published The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army, by Joseph Bendersky. The provocative title is self-explanatory; the author probes into the history of the United States Military Intelligence Division [MID] and its interest in what many of its members perceived to be Jewish socio-political machinations in the first half of the Twentieth Century. The author’s premise is that an inherent anti-Semitic bias played the largest role in these erroneous beliefs, the result of an indoctrinated prejudice among officers in particular that was instituted initially in their white racist upbringing and reinforced later in various military venues including the War College itself. The book itself is well written and thoroughly researched, Bendersky claimed that in researching and writing the book it “grew enormously in scope and ultimately took more than a decade to complete.” The author dredged up many documents heretofore unseen, many of which would no doubt cause their original author’s great embarrassment today, but which were written contemporaneously without the slightest hesitation and/or concern for how they or their material might be perceived fifty, sixty, seventy years in the future.

Bendersky’s fundamental argument centers on the idea that many memos and reports forwarded to MID from various embassy intelligence staff members overseas implicating Jews as exerting a disproportionate amount of influence and leadership over the Bolshevik party, the Bolshevik revolution and its associated bloody aftermath are more the result of the racist [anti-Semitic] views held by these predominantly Anglo-Saxon officers rather than their honest and unbiased testimony as to facts they witnessed on the ground.

Many of these MID officers absolutely believed in 1917 that Jews controlled the media in the United States. They believed that through the media public opinion was carefully cultivated and could be used against them. Their ideas may seem ludicrous today, even paranoid, but in reading Bendersky’s tome, one begins to come across the names of many well-known American military personalities, officers we view today as heroes, could they have been so wrong, so ignorant, so blind? Perhaps one of America’s greatest military heroes was General George S. Patton, we know him today as one of our greatest military strategists/tacticians, a man tough on communism, a no-nonsense soldier’s soldier, but very few know about his views on Jews and communism or the fact that Patton himself believed insidious Jewish influence over President Roosevelt had created a “virus” of “Semitic revenge against all Germans,” in post war Germany, led by “Morgenthau and Baruch.” Patton was said to despise the Jewish post war displaced person [DP], or those Jews who had either survived Nazi internment and/or who slipped out of Eastern Europe in an effort to evade Soviet occupation or to emigrate to the west.

In a September 1945 diary entry Patton wrote, “Harrison and his ilk believe that the displaced person is a human being; which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.” Some believed that “radical journalists,” intent on establishing a “Russian puppet government” in post war Germany wanted to get Patton out of the way. It is interesting that Bendersky cites “editorial condemnation” as what “set the stage for his removal,” after the General “supposedly” compared Nazis to Democrats and Republicans. After this disgraceful departure, Patton wrote home to his wife over a period of several weeks stating repeatedly that there was a plot by “Jews and Communists” ‘to remove him and anyone other officer who stood in the way of their destructive plans for Germany.”’

The reader learns that a great American General has his prejudices, feet of clay so to speak. One can either look at Patton and his views as that of an innate and/or cultivated racist, which Patton most certainly was, and thus tainted by this bias, or one might consider that their could have been a kernel of truth in what he wrote, at least in respect to the existence of a plot against him and the idea that it might have been instigated by Jews in some manner. Ultimately that is the choice the reader must at some point consider, either it was in some way true, or it was completely false.

Patton wasn’t the only prominent U.S. General to harbor “anti-Semitic” views, many did, including General George Van Horn Mosely, once considered for the position of Chief of Staff, which elicited Dwight D, Eisenhower to note in his diaries that Mosely would prove to be “a peach” in that spot. General Mosely was none to quiet about his racist beliefs; he advocated segregation in the ranks as did most officers of his generation, but Mosely was especially sensitive about issues related to Jews. In fact a speech given before a group of doctors in which Mosely advocating sterilization of European refugees in the 1930s [Mostly Jews or at least taken to mean Jews] led to his untimely retirement. Mosely felt that certain Jews were conspiring to force America’s hand into war against Germany, stating publicly in 1939, “The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the word,” utilizing “your sons and mine.” Mosely insisted that the Jewish banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, a well-known Jewish banking establishment had “financed the Russian Revolution,” which fed into what was considered to be the “anti-Semitic” ideas of American rightists and Nazis at the time.

Other eminent American military officers like Mosely, General Patton, General Fries, General Willoughby, General Wedemeyer, General Stratemeyer, General Pedro del Valle were convinced to a man that Jews wielded a disproportionate influence in various American institutions but most especially in the media, where they felt public opinion was being manipulated in such a way as to advance Jewish interests [Later Zionist interests] and discredit those who sought to draw the American peoples attention to these matters. It is safe to say that no other American minority group has to the extent of Jews been accused of the same manipulative and/or hegemonic influence. As an example, one never hears the idea that African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, or Arab-Americans dominate the media, it is and has always been always Jewish-Americans.

Billy Graham, America’s best known evangelist was recorded as saying to Richard Nixon in the confines of the Oval Office in 1972, that the “stranglehold” on the United States media [by Jews] had to be “broken,” to which Nixon replied, “You believe that?” “Oh boy so do I, I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.” What Graham and Nixon had to say to one another on that day in 1972 has been effectively diminished and/or forgotten by the news media, very few Americans are aware of their former Presidents views on Jews and the media and those who are seem all to ready to dismiss what he had to say as the words of an anti-Semite. Admiral Thomas Moorer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Vietnam War believed that Jews commanded so much power of the President of the United States that he had this to say to former Congressman Paul Findley, when the latter was conducting research for the purposes of a book on Jewish influence in Washington:

I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them... They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wouldn't write anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.

Was Moorer a racist and anti-Semitic nut too, or did he have some special insight? As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was arguably in a position to know what kind of influence the Israeli’s [A Jewish State] had on the President of the United States of America. He certainly was in a position to know that they exerted some form of influence on President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967 when they, the Israeli’s intentionally attacked an American military ship, the USS Liberty, killing thirty-four American seamen and wounding more than one-hundred and seventy. Moorer knew for more than two decades that Johnson and Defense Secretary Mcnamara intentionally deceived the American people by suppressing the facts associated with an American Naval investigation, the results of which proved Israeli culpability and intention. Of course Moorer was attacked in the press as an anti-Semite and marginalized as a result. Only in 2003 was Moorer vindicated when Captain Ward Boston the lead investigator in the 1967 USS Liberty investigation came forward after signing a sworn affidavit testifying to the following:
For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of the USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth.
In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocates General Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on the USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th. The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June 10, 1967) to “inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected with the armed attack: damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.” Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.
The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors who had ordered the attack, were aware that the ship was American.

The long and short of it is, Israel did attack the USS Liberty and did so intentionally. The only unknown aspect of the investigation today remains exactly why they did it. It does seem clear however, that for some reason, despite committing what was essentially an act of war against the United States, Israel somehow managed to get President Johnson to cover it up for them.

Moorer wasn’t the only Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to speak up about Jewish/Israeli/Zionist influence in the United States, in October of 1975, General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under President Gerald Ford stated before a group of Duke University students that “Jewish influence” in the United States was so strong that they “wouldn’t believe” it, and that they [Jews] “owned” the banks and newspaper in the USA, adding presumably to reinforce his words to “look where the Jewish money is.” Of course Brown was immediately assaulted by the press, labeled a bigot and an anti-Semite, but was he, or was there some truth to what he had to say? The idea that Jews monopolize the United States media has been kicked around by the right wing for many decades, MID as we know was focused on it even in 1910. As a rule, the notion is generally dismissed as nonsense and/or racist/anti-Semitic propaganda. However, careful and objective research proves otherwise, we can certainly accept the fact that MID tended to believe that Jews dominated the American media prior to WWI, establishing precedent of opinion whether factual or erroneous and today at least facts bear out that Jews do represent a seriously disproportionate presence in television media and in Hollywood. Ben Stein, a well-known Hollywood personality, author and speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford writes in his somewhat provocatively entitled article “Do Jews run Hollywood? You bet they do - and what of it?

A few days after Marlon Brando scandalized the airwaves by referring to the Jews who worked in Hollywood as "kikes," I got a call from an editor at 60 Minutes. The woman wanted to know how I felt about Brando's use of words and his allegation that Hollywood is "run by Jews."
She suggested the desired answer by noting that her researchers had conclusively proven that Jews do not run Hollywood.

Crafty 60 Minutes had studied the top slots in town. Their research showed that "only" about 60 percent of the most important positions in Hollywood were run by Jews… if Jews were about 2.5 percent of the population and were about 60 percent of Hollywood, they might well be said to be extremely predominant in that sector.

Stein states that nobody really “controls Hollywood,” asserting that it is much too “chaotic” for that, but he acknowledges a certainly suzerainty that anyone else other than he, a Jew, might be accused of being an “anti-Semite,” for saying:

At mighty Paramount, the controlling stockholder is Sumner Redstone. Head of the studio is Jon Dolgen. Head of production is Sherry Lansing--all members of the tribe. At titanic Disney, the CEO is Michael Eisner, the world's most assimilated Jew, who might as well be a Presbyterian. Deputy head is Michael Ovitz, karate champ but also a Jew. Head of the studio is Joe Roth. At newly energized ICM, the top dogs are Jeff Berg and Jim Wiatt. At still overwhelming CAA, Jack Rapke and other members of my faith predominate. At William Morris, Jon Burnham and other Jews are, by and large, in the power positions. This has always been true in Hollywood. The ex-furriers who created Hollywood were Eastern European Jewish immigrants, and all of the great edifice of fantasy-making in Hollywood is their handiwork. Names like Zukor and Lasky and Goldwyn and Cohn are the foundation of mass culture in America and the world.

Stein essentially listed all of the major studios and affirmed the idea that they are at least heavily under the influence of Jewish management and ownership. In January 2001, Michael Wolfe wrote in an article appearing in New York Magazine, entitled “From AOL to W,” in which he stated, “since Time Inc.'s merger with Warner ten years ago, one of the interesting transitions is that it has become a Jewish company,” which would seem to indicate Jewish control on at least some level at Time-Warner, the largest media corporation in the world today. Another huge media conglomerate is Viacom, which is headed by Sumner Redstone (Born Murray Rothstein) who also purchased CBS in 1999. As mentioned above by Stein, Disney, which acquired ABC in 1995, is run by Michael Eisner, a Jew whether assimilated or not. Edgar Bronfman Jr. whose father Edgar Bronfman Sr. is President of the World Jewish Congress has a major stake in NBC. Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox Television Network, has a rather obscure pedigree he was born of a gentile father without any doubt, but his mother Elisabeth Joy Greene’s ethno-religious background isn’t clear. David Irving, a rather toxic individual associated with Holocaust revisionism has posted some intriguing information on his website Focal Point Publications which purports that Murdoch’s mother, Elisabeth was of Jewish ancestry, although it must be stated here that subsequent investigation revealed nothing confirming this to be true or false.

So what does this all mean? Nothing perhaps, but it is indicative of a rather large and disproportionate management and ownership of the American media by a minority that composes less than three percent of the American population. It also supports rather than refutes the statements of people like Admiral Thomas Moore, General Brown, Richard Nixon, Billy Graham et al, exonerating them of the guilt of anti-Semitism, unless of course we choose to believe that facts can be anti-Semitic, in which case we then accept the notion that “Truth is no defense,” i.e. that hurt feelings become more important than facts. This exact thing actually happened relatively recently in a Canadian courtroom, when the Canadian Human Right Tribunal handed down a decision stating that “Truth is not a defense,” in a case involving another alleged “anti-Semite” named Ernst Zundel, a man who harbors without a doubt strong critical opinions of Zionism and Jewry as both a religion and ethnic group, similar in some respects to those of General Mosely, in regards to whether or not there is in fact a Jewish hegemonic presence in western politics, economics, and the media.

Noam Chomsky, a well-known Jewish intellectual, leftist, and professor of Linguistics at MIT acknowledges a very real and concerted effort on the part of some Jews in order to discredit dissent and critics by way of accusing them of “anti-Semitism,” or labeling them a “self hating Jew,” in the case of Jewish critics of Zionism and our Zionist-Israeli policies.
About 30 years ago, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban commented that the task of Israeli propaganda (he did not, of course, use that word) was to demonstrate that critics of Zionism -- by which he meant critics of the policies of the state of Israel -- were either anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. That's wise advice: it entails that state policies are insulated from criticism, as a matter of logic. Those who do not take old-fashioned Stalinist commissars as their models regard such practices with disgust.

Kevin MacDonald, a Professor of Psychology at the State University Long Beach in California critiqued Bendersky’s The Jewish Threat and provides some excellent insight in respect to why MID officers were more likely to submit accurate contemporaneous intelligence reports rather than distortions that fit an alleged “anti-Semitic” agenda as insinuated by the author Bendersky. Admittedly, MacDonald is not a historian per se, but he can and does effectively examine and analyze human motivation in this instance and contributes to the epistemology in this sense. MacDonald himself is well versed in Jewish cultural history and has written several books on the topic. MacDonald notes that Bendersky’s approach in The Jewish Threat relies mostly on the idea that anyone that might criticize Jews is probably anti-Semitic and therefore their thoughts, idea, findings and research can be dismissed with extreme prejudice. Bendersky thus safely “assume[s] that any statement by a U.S. military officer that reflects negatively on Jews or Judaism is a reflection of the prejudices and bigotry of the officer and has nothing to do with the actual behavior of Jews or the nature of Judaism.” MacDonald further asserts that the purpose of his critique is an effort to show that the “officers [of MID] had a basically accurate view of Jews and Judaism for they were quite correct in their fear that Jewish influence would have a disastrous effect on the ability of their race to retain control of the United States.”

MacDonald’s approach is dry, unemotional and analytical. He isn’t attacking Jews or attempting to deny the idea that Anglo-Saxon officers in the early part of the Twentieth Century may have harbored what would today be considered “racist” views, rather he acknowledges that indeed, these officers did embrace a racist world view and that their preoccupation with Jewish subversion was justified in the sense that Jews weren’t necessarily interested in furthering their Anglo-Saxon vision of the future.

MacDonald is of the opinion that the innumerable contemporaneous reports submitted by United States military officers in various foreign missions around the world in the early Twentieth Century indicating a disproportionately high number of Jews in the Bolshevik hierarchy “should be believed,” whereas Bendersky’s latter day interpretations of these reports essentially dismisses what they say and instead suggests that they are simply the “paranoid ravings of racist military officers.” MacDonald also challenges Bendersky’s assertion that atrocities committed during the Bolshevik Revolution were magnified and exploited by MID solely for the purposes of advancing their anti-Semitic agenda:

Bendersky also makes it appear that MID reports of Bolshevik atrocities are fantasies. Reports stated that Bolshevik methods included not only seizure and destruction of property but also "barbarism and butchery" (p. xii). Included in the intelligence reports were photographs of "naked bodies with butchered flesh, hanging upside down from trees, while 'the Bolsheviki soldiers were laughing and grinning and standing about'" (p. xiii). Bendersky writes as if such claims are unworthy of being rebutted, yet there is more than enough evidence that such things did happen. Indeed, the recently published Black Book of Communism not only documents the horrific slaughter of some 20 million Soviet citizens, the widespread torture, mass deportations, and imprisonment in appalling conditions, but reproduces the photos from 1919 of a naked Polish officer impaled through the anus hanging upside down from trees while Bolshevik soldiers are laughing and grinning and standing about (Courtois et al. 1999, 202?203).

According to MacDonald, the belief that wealthy Jewish financiers supported the Bolshevik Revolution “rest[s] on widespread [contemporaneous] intelligence reports,” not upon “fantasy” as suggested by Bendersky.

Another inconvenient fact glossed over by Bendersky as just one more example of an innate anti-Semitic bias in the United States Officer Corp were MID reports submitted by American military officers stationed in Poland in 1919, that clearly stated that the Jews welcomed the Bolsheviks with open arms to the chagrin of their Polish countrymen, who then later “attacked Jews who were accused of collaborating with the Soviets,” when the Bolsheviks were “expelled from Vilna in 1919.” Bendersky argues that that attacks against the Jews were quite real, whereas the alleged embrasure of the Bolsheviks by Polish Jews was exaggerated. The psychologist in MacDonald simply points out, what would the motivation have been in attacking the Jews once the Soviets had been expelled unless their was more than a modicum of truth to the accusations, a view taken by MID in 1919 as well. MacDonald then further points out why the Jews may have been motivated to collaborate with the Soviets, they simply believed, and with good reason, that the “Polish government was anti-Semitic” and that its policies were not necessarily in the best interests of its Jewish population, albeit a minority within the larger non-Jewish Polish population. In other words, MacDonald notes that it wouldn’t necessarily have been all that odd for Polish Jews to collaborate with a foreign regime they believed would instate a more equitable form of government in Poland. According to MacDonald:
Polish Jews did welcome the 1919 and 1939 Soviet invasions of Poland, because of perceptions of Polish anti?Semitism combined with favorable opinions about the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union -? that in fact Jews were an elite group in the USSR (Checinski 1982; Schatz 1991).

In regards to whether or not Jews constituted a threat to American National Security, MID thought so, according to Bendersky, who fails to mention the fact that the American Communist Party was effectively “directed by the Soviet Union and had a high percentage of Jewish members, often above 40 percent.” Whether or not the percentage of Jews in the American Communist Party was approximately 40 percent, without any doubt Jews did in fact constitute a disproportionate number, considering that their representation within the American population hovered around three percent, and being that the Communist Party was considered a subversive organization by MID it is little wonder the organization did pay particularly close attention to American Jews.

MacDonald ends his critique of Bendersky’s The Jewish Threat by emphasizing something the discerning reader begins to detect early in Bendersky’s approach, that the author is too emotionally involved in his argument, that he himself is biased. “Bendersky,” MacDonald asserts, “for all of his obvious hatred toward his subjects, tells a compelling story, but, in the end, one just has to believe the officers whose views he chronicles and not their chronicler.” Were this not such a sensitive subject, MacDonald’s view would be much easier to accept, after all, we are once again left with the option of either accepting the word of the men who were actually present and/or at least living during the time these events occurred, or the ideas of a man who interprets what he believes motivated these men to write the reports they did seventy or more years after the fact.

This brings us back to the timeless question, what exactly is anti-Semitism, when should it be applied and to whom. Is Professor Kevin MacDonald to be branded an anti-Semite simply because he exposes the limitations so easily found in the research and writing of a historian? Should we denounce all of the findings of America’s Military Intelligence Division because some of its officers believed, and with justification, that a subversive Jewish element existed within the United States and that some Jews did in fact engage in activities that could generally be considered against the best interests of the nation as a whole? Many people are of the erroneous opinion that propaganda entails the dissemination of lies alone, this isn’t true; the truth too can be propagandized. In this respect, Bendersky’s The Jewish Threat smacks from cover to cover of pure unadulterated propaganda, the author does an incredible job of bringing many facts to light, he utilizes excellent source material, but from them, draws the most unlikely of conclusions. MacDonald’s critique exposes these weaknesses and does so without the same emotional investment Bendersky himself falls victim to.

Historiography is an incredibly complex and important discipline; it must not be tainted by emotionalism and the biases so intimately associated. The very word “Historiography,” is defined as the “writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods.” In a sense Bendersky met the first two characteristics without much difficulty, but fails in the third as so well demonstrated by MacDonald’s thesis. At the same time that bias shouldn’t play a leading role in the research and writing of history, it is generally accepted that the two can never be entirely mutually exclusive. For some reason Bendersky was “motivated” to write about MID, its findings and biases and for some reason MacDonald too was “motivated” to critically examine and call into question many of Bendersky’s conclusions. Kevin MacDonald is an Evolutionary Psychologist, a firm believer in the importance that genetics play in determining who and what we are, something Bendersky vociferously argues is a racist belief in and of itself.

MacDonald has written extensively on Jewish cultural history in the context of its adaptations over millennia and has many unacceptable and politically incorrect views on the matter, including the below:

Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community… We shouldn’t be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one… Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism. They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world. But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion…

Considering the above, it is easy to see why MacDonald would have been interested in critiquing Bendersky’s The Jewish Threat; MacDonald makes it fairly clear, at least for those familiar with current events, that in many respects, his views and those of MID, at least in respect to Jewish influence, the “Jewish Question,” if you will, are interconnected ideologically. The Military Intelligence Division feared that growing Jewish influence in the United States would subvert the democratic and Constitutional constraints within the system and one day dominate, manipulate and control the entire system itself, something the neoconservatives, have frequently been accused of since 2000. Whether or not there is any truth to the idea that neoconservatives actually are “controlling” the policies of the United States, it is an indisputable fact that Jews once again, like within the early Bolshevik movement, are represented in significantly disproportionate numbers within the neoconservative movement, if you will.

One could make the argument that disproportionate representation of any ethnic group in any single organization isn’t necessarily a sign of a concerted effort on that group’s part to surreptitiously infiltrate and usurp authority within that specific group and/or the larger majority and that much would be true. However, as shown by Bendersky’s extensive research within The Jewish Threat, Jews weren’t being accused by MID of dominating a single group, they were accused of dominating communist groups internationally, the United States government itself through Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sympathetic ears, the newspaper and publishing industries, various social institutions, etc… The very idea may seem preposterous, but it must be kept in mind that MID and MacDonald haven’t been the only one’s to suggest as much, there have been many others, Presidents, Statesmen, Congressmen, Senators, Military Officers, industrialists, authors, journalists, the list goes on and on. Are we to assume that these men were fools, deluded, or simply out of touch with reality?

The Jewish Threat reveals quite clearly, that these ideas were given a good bit of credibility in the first three decades of the Twentieth Century. Bendersky himself suggests that this “anti-Semitic” atmosphere within the United States military diminished over time, never fully disappearing, but succumbing slowly to the growing phenomenon of tolerance, diversity and understanding. In a sense this is true, but as shown earlier by the words of General Brown and Admiral Moorer this paranoia or possible insight has continued up to the present day. William J. Fullbright, a United States Senator stated quite clearly on CBS’ Face the nation in 1973, that:
"The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate . . . somewhere around 80 percent of the senate of the United States is completely in support of Israel -- of anything Israel wants.

Fullbright’s sentiment was reinforced in the 1980’s by former Congressmen Paul Findley’s diatribe on the power of the Israeli lobby within the halls of Congress, in his book They Dare to Speak Out.. Findley’s thought provoking work details many instances in which The Israeli lobby and Jewish American interests were able to effectively manipulate US foreign and domestic policy in ways that weren’t necessarily in the United States’ best interests. Findley challenged the Israeli lobby while in office and paid a price, he lost reelection to another man heavily financed by Jewish Americans bent on seeing him replaced.

One can look back at the apology Billy Graham made to the Jewish community for stating to President Nixon in what he thought was a private conversation, that he felt there was a [Jewish] “stranglehold” on the media. He apologized for the comment, but does that mean he no longer believed what he said in 1973, especially considering that the apology was issued in 2002, nearly thirty years after the remark was initially made, and at a time when the actual Jewish presence in the media had grown exponentially? Perhaps he did. However, one might then take into consideration the apology of Henry Ford to the International Jewish community issued on June 30, 1927, in which Ford apologized for anti-Semitic articles published in his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent. For years [Since 1922] the Dearborn Independent had accused Jews of everything from dominating International Finance, to surreptitiously infiltrating western government for the purpose of world domination. This outraged the Jewish community, who then set out to hold Ford accountable for his shocking and outrageous accusations. Then one day, mysteriously, if you believe current accounts, Ford must have recognized the error of his ways, because out of nowhere the industrialist sent two of his representatives to see a prominent Jewish American Congressman and Vice President of the American Jewish Congress, named Nathan D. Perlman. They said that Ford was ready to “end” the “controversies and ill feelings stimulated by the Dearborn Independent articles.” Perlman sent Ford’s representatives to Louis Marshall, a prominent Jewish-American attorney. Having to go through Marshall, must have caused Ford a considerable amount of discomfort as the Independent had written many nasty things about Marshall, including that he [Marshal] was something of and “enigma,” and that he headed up “the list of organized Jewry in America, and [that he was] known as the arch-protester against most things non-Jewish… He [was the] head of nearly every Jewish movement that amount[ed] to anything, and [that] he [was the] chief opponent of practically every non-Jewish movement that promise[d] to amount to something.

In the end, Ford signed an apology to the International Jewish community written by Louis Marshall. One can imagine if they like that Ford was actually sorry about what his newspaper had written about Jews and Jewish power and influence over the preceding five years, or one could view his apology as an example of the power and influence the community commanded; they had literally brought one of America’s richest and most powerful men to his knees. The latter idea seems infinitely more likely, especially considering the words of one of Ford’s best-known confidants, E.G. Leibold, who once commented “I don’t know as Ford ever apologized for anything. Of course he was supposed to have apologized to the Jews, but I think everyone knows about that, he never even read that or never even knew what it contained [the apology written by Louis Marshall]. He simply told them [Marshall] to go ahead and fix it up.”
Although we are unlikely to learn the details of a recent occurrence in Russia, through our mainstream news networks that is, in February 2005, five hundred Russian “academics, intellectuals, newspaper editors” and nineteen members of the Russian Duma, a legislative body similar to Congress issued what amounted to an open letter to the Russian government requesting that all Jewish religious organizations be investigated for “suspicion of spreading, incitement and provoking ethnic strife,” within Russia. Of course the letter itself and its authors, all five hundred of them will now be subjected to the power of a body that allegedly has no real tangible power. Natan Sharansky, the Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs, in the spirit of thoughtful support for the democratic virtues of freedom of speech and press, called on Vladimir Putin, the Russian President to “treat the letter and its authors harshly.” Interestingly, Sharansky failed in his attempt to stifle the dissent, almost as soon as his demands of Putin were released, the number of signatories grew from 500 to 5000.

What is important here, isn’t so much that a group of people think Jews as a whole are up to no good, as we have seen, this has been a continuous theme in the last century, and in fact dates back several millennia, but why? In the above case, it won’t be so easy to completely dismiss these “intellectuals, academics, editors and politicians,” as they do represent a significant number of Russian citizens and probably should be viewed as a rather accurate representative sample. The question might be, why have five hundred Russians come forward and signed their names to a letter that the western media will inevitably label anti-Semitic; that is if and when they ever decide to mention it, thus far they haven’t. Could there be any truth to what they have to say?

Time will tell if the contents of this letter, signed by 5000 Russian “academics, intellectuals, editors and politicians” will ever be translated and seen by the American people in the mainstream news, it is arguably bigger news than the Scott and Lacey Peterson saga, but one shouldn’t hold their breath, as it is highly unlikely that Americans as a whole will ever learn of this letter, let alone the details within, at least in the western media.

The purpose of writing this paper is to inform - the reader can take what he or she likes with him, or leave it behind. In the end, it is up to the individual to decide for him or herself, whether or not those critical of Israel, Zionism, and yes, Talmudic Judaism itself as a religion, are in fact always anti-Semites or perhaps if they may instead be objective observers accused of being anti-Semites. Henry Ford, the old “anti-Semite” himself mentioned to a friend in conversation, that he didn’t harbor hate, he said, “I don’t hate Jews, I want to be their friend… The Jews have gone along during the ages making themselves disliked… They ignored their own splendid teachers and statesmen. Even they [The statesmen] couldn’t get their people to change some of their obnoxious habits… I thought by taking a club to them [figuratively] I might be able to do it.” [Italics mine]. No doubt Ford attempted to take a club to them in the journalistic sense through the Dearborn Independent, but whether or not he did it with benevolence in mind initially doesn’t matter, as he certainly died with malevolent feelings regarding Jewry.

In the end, the reader should take into consideration the fact that numerous seemingly intelligent, educated and patriotic Americans have believed that Jews for whatever reason have accumulated a considerable amount of influence in the United States and elsewhere around the world in a variety of different ways, through banking, the stock market, the news media, government, etc… it is up to the reader to decide if each and everyone of them was a complete crackpot, crank, racist and/or anti-Semite.


Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004
Rieff, David. New York Times. April, 25, 2004. Accessed on January 21, 2005.
Joseph Bendersky is a professor of history at Virginia Commonwealth University and has been for twenty five years, as well as the editor of the journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies.
Bendersky, Joseph. The Jewish Threat. Perseus Books. 2000, Pg ix.
Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 357.
Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 357.

Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 357-358.
Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 357.

Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 358.
Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 311.

Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 250-252. .

Bendersky, Joseph, Pg 255.
St. Petersburg Times, published March 2, 2002. Accessed on January 22, 2005. Mr. Graham has subsequently apologized for his “regrettable” comments.
Interview with Admiral Thomas Moore by Findley on Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in, Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby .Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985, pg. 161.
Ennes, James M. Jr., Assault on the Liberty. Random House, New York. ISBN: 0394-50512-3.

Horrock, Nicholas M. United Press International. Friday October 24, 2003. Accessed on January 22, 2005.

A speech at Duke University given by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General George S. Brown, October 10, 1975. Accessed on the MIT website on January 22, 2005.
Stein, Ben. Article on the Eonline website (1998). Accessed on January 22, 2005.
Stein, Ben. Article on the Eonline website (1998). Accessed on January 22, 2005.

Stein, Ben. Article on the Eonline website (1998). Accessed on January 22, 2005.

Wolff, Michael. “From AOL to W.” New York Magazine, January 21, 2001. Accessed January 22, 2005.
Irving David, Focal Point Publications.
This author spent many hours and a not small amount of money investigating whether or not E Greene was Jewish, I sent letters to the Australian Archives, made telephone calls and faxes to Australia, in the end I was unable to find any evidence that E. Greene was Jewish, but nor could I find any information suggesting she wasn’t. Her background remains obscure.
Humphreys, Adrian. The National Post. Canada: Friday, February 28, 2003:{9B4ABE18-360E-4F47-8F29-D24FAEA23905. Accessed on January 22, 2005.
In an email to this author, January 29, 2005.
Kevin MacDonald has written three academic tomes on Jewish History and culture, A People that Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and its Discontents (1998), and The Culture of Critique (1998), all published by Praeger Press.
Macdonald’s critique in its entirety is found in the Index.
MacDonald, Kevin. (See Index)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. accessed January 27, 2005.
MacDonald, Kevin. “Thinking About Neoconservatism.” September 18, 2003. Vdare: Accessed on January 27, 2005.
Senator William Fullbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Oct. 7, 1973, on CBS' "Face the Nation.”

Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby .Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985
Baldwin, Neil. Henry Ford and the Jews. Public Affairs, New York, 2001, Pp. 235-240.
“America’s Jewish Enigma – Louis Marshall.” The Dearborn Independent, issue of 26 November 1921
Baldwin, Neil. Henry Ford and the Jews. Public Affairs, New York, 2001, Pg 241.
Lily, Galily. “Blood Libel Makes Comeback in Russia.” Ha’aretz. Tue., January 25, 2005 Shvat 15, 5765: Accessed on January 27, 2005.
Lily, Galily. “Blood Libel Makes Comeback in Russia.” Ha’aretz. Tue., January 25, 2005 Shvat 15, 5765: Accessed on January 27, 2005.
Jerusalem Post article,
When this paper was originally written, 500 Russian academics were known to have signed it. According to Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, 50,000 Russians have since signed the affidavit. The Jerusalem Post placed the number substantially lower – 5000 signatories.
Baldwin, Neil. Henry Ford and the Jews. Public Affairs, New York, 2001, Pg 243.

Baldwin, Neil. Henry Ford and the Jews. Public Affairs, New York, 2001, Pg 328.

<< Previous 10 Articles  11 - 13 of 13 articles  

Search This Site

Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy

Free Blog Hosting