mardi 28 juin 2011

Michele Bachmann est comme Sarah Palin: plus sioniste que les sionistes


Palin présidente fera passer Obama pour un enfant de coeur. Mais vu que c'est lui qui est là, c'est lui qu'on attaque en priorité... par manque de vision à long terme probablement. Ou en tout cas, par ignorance de ce que les autres candidats à venir nous promettent de faire... Alors qu'Obama nous promettait le meilleur, Palin et ceux en son genre nous promettent carrément le pire!



http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvS9p-ksL6eNqEHle2BgDvPeNKUryfCjzq1Caf24akjgencDttVnnWJclg
Once again the “liberal” Newsweek is
promoting the political ambitions of
Sarah Palin, demonstrating further that
elite interests have an interest in
advancing Palinʼs career.


Groundwork Laid for Controlled Third Party

by Michael Collins Piper

The push for a new “centrist” third party being orchestrated behind the scenes at the highest levels is quietly escalating as the 2012 election cycle gets under way.

As recently as July 25, Chris Cillizza, chief in-house political columnist for The Washington Post, hyped the theme that “advocates of a third party—or at the very least another viable option in the 2012 presidential race—seem to be sprouting up all over.”

Tomany free-thinkingAmericans, third parties sound like a grand idea (which they are), but the problem—as AFP has been alone in the independent media in pointing out—is that the third party concept being touted by Cillizza has its origins in the elite, high-finance connected circles that already dominate both the Republican and Democratic parties.

In other words, the “centrist” party being promoted is designed to undercut the viability of any serious populist challenge to the power elite who already dominate the political structure inAmerica. In short, it is a “controlled opposition.”

Cillizza’s influential “must read” weekly “Monday Fix” column—prominently placed each week on page 2 of the Post—featured the headline “Anger atWashington Revives Third-Party Push” and proceeded to describe a number of ongoing activities designed to set a third party in place. Cillizza noted, “Those who closely monitor these third-party efforts say that not only is there an array of groups with similar goals, but there also is money flowing to them from wealthy individuals trying to change the two-party dynamic.”

What makes Cillizza’s commentary so interesting is the fact that his column ignores that there are already several independent “third parties” that have been in existence for many years. Each of these parties has or has had ballot status at one time or another in all or nearly all of the 50 states.This list includes the ReformParty, the Constitution Party, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.

While all of these parties differ in philosophy, they do stand as existing alternatives to the two major parties.

But it’s clear that the Post and other like-minded voices in the controlled media don’t approve of these genuine opposition forces. That’s one of the foremost reasons why there is a push from the power elite to set up an alternative party that they control.

That the Post is lending its influence to the third party push is significant. Although publicly known as a fiefdom of the heirs of Zionist financier Eugene Meyer, first head of the World Bank and an early Federal Reserve board member, the Post has long been controlled by a tightly knit group of banks in the Rothschild dynasty’s sphere of influence whose tentacles can be found, in varying respects, throughout the “centrist” third party scheme now being promoted.

Meanwhile, although formerAlaska Gov. Sarah Palin remainsmumabout her 2012 presidential ambitions, the elite media has continued to keep her in the public eye. The July 18 issue of Newsweek (long controlled by the Post but sold to Zionist billionaire Sidney Harman—recently deceased—and his wife, former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), once again featured a cover story about Mrs. Palin with the bold headline quotingMrs. Palin: “I can win.”

As AFP pointed out in an exclusive special report, The Power Behind Sarah Palin,* the Washington Post-Newsweek publishing network has been particularly generous and actually quite supportive in its promotion of Mrs. Palin, making it clear that those who control these influential media voices see a use for Mrs. Palin in the forthcoming election.
——

Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests ofWar, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in theWhite House, The New Babylon, The Judas Goats: The EnemyWithin, Target: Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202-547-5585 to inquire about pricing and S&H fees.


VIDEO - On CNN, Bachmann's lies go unchallenged




Rothschild-Backed

‘Third’ Party Emerges



by Michael Collins Piper

A host of international plutocrats, including Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild, have set in motion a “grass-roots”movement to launch a “centrist” third party to be on the ballot in the 2012 presidential election. The group calls itself Americans Elect (AE). With $20million now in their war chest, they are engaged in a well-funded effort to get ballot status for their new party all across the country.
Because the group is legally designated a non political, tax-exempt social welfare organization, it is not obligated to disclose the names of its obviously well-heeled contributors—said to be only 300 to 400 in number—who are bankrolling its operations.
As of mid-July, the group had already gained ballot access in Arizona, Alaska, Kansas and Nevada. Efforts are now under way in Michigan, Hawaii, Missouri, Florida and California, while many more states are also being targeted.
AMERICAN FREE PRESS has been alone among the media in reporting on the intrigues of those conspiring to foist an ostensibly “independent” political party on the American people, although some dissident voices on the Internet have started to pick up on the story.
The chief operating director ofAmericans Elect (AE), Elliot Ackerman, claims his group doesn’t take money from special interests, but his protests are disingenuous when one considers the names and high-level financial connections of the people—including his own father—who are involved in AE.


ELLIOT ACKERMAN
Working with elite to form controlled third party.

Ackerman’s father, PeterAckerman, is a veteran Wall Street operator who collaborated with infamous junk bond king and Israeli lobby stalwart Michael Milken during the 1980s. The senior Ackerman is also among 13 members of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who serve on the board of advisors for AE. The fact that the aforementioned Lady Rothschild is also among themis no coincidence. The CFR is the American wing of the Rothschild-controlled Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign policy wing of the Rothschild empire.
Another CFR member active in AE is Douglas Schoen, a veteran Democratic Party political consultant who, despite his partisan background—like Lady Rothschild—has been adamant about the need for President Barack Obama to be ousted from office in 2012. A lifelong Democrat, de Rothschild backed Republican John McCain over Obama in 2008. Since that time she and Schoen have been writing and speaking publicly about their intentions of seeing Obama displaced from the White House. Likewise, both have been touting the need for a “centrist” challenge to both Obama and any potential “extremist” nominated by the Republican Party.
As AFP has repeatedly pointed out, The Washington Post—which is owned inmajor part by financial interests historically connected to the Rothschild financial dynasty—has been promoting the concept of a “centrist” third party movement as has The New York Times. On Sept. 1, the Post even went so far as to publish a commentary pointedly entitled “Billionaires to the Rescue” that hailed the efforts o AE.
The author of this piece, Matt Miller, suggested that wealthy patrons should continue to bankroll AE (as they have already done) and urged that some independent minded American billionaire put himself and his fortune forward to lead the new third party.
Miller wrote: “If you’re rich, serious about changing the world and think that our two-party tyranny has become part of the problem, there’s no better time to invest in disruptive political innovation. The country you save may be your own.”
The fact that such big money forces are promoting this endeavor should set off alarm bells among serious grass-roots folks who believe in the need to break the back of our controlled two-party system.
In the year ahead, the mass media will begin to unveil this “new alternative,” but truly independent-minded voters need to know the facts about this movement and how it’s being orchestrated behind the scenes. Why more independent newspapers, magazines and Internet voices are not blowing the whistle—as AFP has done—on this conspiracy remains a mystery, but you can count on AFP to continue to bring you updates as they develop.



Sera-t-elle l'élue des Élus?


Elle se considère juive dans la mesure où le christianisme est d'origine juive...
(De toute évidence, elle n'a jamais lu son Talmud, pour dire une chose pareille!)

Michele Bachmann on her love for Israel, and considering herself Jewish
Jenna Mitelman | Mar 24, 2010
http://tcjewfolk.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/03/Michele-Bachmann.jpg
On the last day of AIPAC Policy Conference, I interviewed GOP Congresswoman from the 6th District Michele Bachmann. Here are her thoughts on Israel and Iran:

On Israel:
I have been a long time supporter of Israel. The first time I went to Israel was the day I graduated from high school. I spent a summer working on Kibbutz Be’eri near Beer Sheva in 1974. I’ve been 4 times in Israel – 3 times as a Member of Congress. I loved Israel – from the moment I first landed.
As a young girl from Anoka, I was shocked at the level of security in Israel.
We worked on the kibbutz from 4 am to noon. We were always accompanied by soldiers with machine guns. While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines. I really learned a lot in Israel.
I was delighted to go back as a Member of Congress, and see all the changes. To see how it has developed - it is nothing short of a miracle! To see a rose bloom in the desert. In 60 years, Israel has achieved first world, or nearly first world, status.
I am honored to be in a position where I can help Israel. I have a tremendous love for Israel, and great admiration for the Israeli people. I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian.

On Iran:
Iran is a very serious situation. With each day that we’ve failed to have sanctions, our choice is more difficult. Iran has been an aggressor. It has been unwilling to deal diplomatically with the issue. We need to be apprised [of the situation] and not underestimate the intent of the leaders [of Iran] to do damage to the United States and our friend Israel.
Israel has always been a friend to the United States, and in the United States, it is in our best interest to maintain that stability, for democracy.
Wikipedia


VIDEO - Michele Bachmann: Update on Israel


Are Jews Warming to the Tea Party?


A provocateur to some, Michele Bachmann also offers Jewish voters common cause

Glenn Beck's Jerusalem rally program unveiled
The multi-million dollar production is expected to be attended by a convoy of American dignitaries, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. US Senator Joe Lieberman, a independent, and Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann are to join Beck at the rally as well.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann in a speech linked the fallout from current U.S. economic policy to the Holocaust.

Bachmann Lived On Kibbutz, Hardcore Pro-Israel Zionist

Bachmann: " America ‘cursed’ by God ‘if we reject Israel "

Bachmann’s old Kibbutz friend finds letter from the congresswoman

Michele Bachmann "Lord The Day Is At Hand! We Are In The Last Days! You Are Jehovah God!"

Michele Bachmann: Hearing The Voice Of God As Mental Illness Symptom

Islamophobic Conspiracy Theorist Frank Gaffney Advising Michele Bachmann On Foreign Policy

Behind An Anti-Sharia Push: Orchestrating a Seemingly Grassroots Campaign:
Among those now echoing Mr. Yerushalmi’s views are prominent Washington figures like R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., and the Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, who this month signed a pledge to reject Islamic law, likening it to “totalitarian control.”


Bachmann: "If We Don’t Completely Support Israel, God Will Curse Us"

Bachmann & Perry Deeply Associated With Dominionism! Belief Christians Have God Given Right To Rule (En fait c'est une sorte de sionisme chrétien, produit de l'infiltration juive du christianisme protestant, évangélique, etc.)

Michelle Bachman: " I feel Like I have a sense from God on which direction I am supposed to go"

Rep. Michele Bachmann at the Republican Jewish Coalition

Bachmann-Jewish scoop aggregated by Ha’aretz

Bachmann Endorser Grant Says "It Is Dominion We Are After... World Conquest"

Bachmann se réjouit : la Fin des temps approche…



revisionistreview.blogspot.com:

June 17, 2011
Bachmann, Beck and Palin increase their support for Israeli aggression

It took Republican congresswoman and Tea Party icon Michele Bachmann less than 24 hours after President Obama's Middle East address to launch an attack on him. On May 19, 150,000 residents in Iowa and South Carolina received robo-calls from Bachmann, accusing Obama of not standing up for Israel...

Within the Tea Party, Bachmann is at the forefront of those making Israel a key part of her agenda. In her speech at the high-profile Faith & Freedom Conference held in Washington in early June, Bachmann termed Obama's call for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on Israel's 1967 boundaries and mutually agreed land swaps "shocking." She followed up by buying ads on Jewish websites reiterating this message.

Bachmann is not alone. Attacks on Obama's Israel policy have come from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, known as the Tea Party's biggest draw.

Pundit Glenn Beck, a vocal critic of the Obama presidency, has been devoting much of his airtime lately to the issue of Israel. He recently announced plans to hold a "Restoring Courage" rally August 20 in Jerusalem. At this gathering, modeled on his rally last summer that called for patriotic unity in Washington, Beck intends to call for Americans to "courageously stand with Israel."

These voices currently appear to be dominating discourse on Israel within the Tea Party, overshadowing the more isolationist views of such Israel critics as Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, a declared 2012 presidential candidate....

Source: Nathan Guttman, Forward newspaper (New York) June 14, 2011







By Michael Collins Piper
Americans who are fed up with what many perceive to be President Barack Obama’s intransigence toward Israel will find a refreshing alternative in 2012 if Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) manages to capture the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

The attractive, outspoken congresswoman—founder of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives—is an aggressive, no-holds-barred supporter of the Zionist nation. She has taken Obama to task, asserting that “the Obama administration has decided to . . . leave Israel to face the world alone, effectively abandoning our longtime friend and ally when they need us the most.” Mrs. Bachmann told one interviewer of her special passion for Israel:

I have been a longtime supporter of Israel. The first time I went to Israel was the day I graduated from high school. I spent a summer working on Kibbutz Beeri near Beersheba in 1974. I’ve been four times in Israel—three times as a member of Congress. I loved Israel—from the moment I first landed. . . . I am honored to be in a position where I can help Israel. I have a tremendous love for Israel, and great admiration for the Israeli people.

Now serving in only her third term in the House of Representatives—first elected in 2006 following three terms in the Minnesota state Senate—the 55-year-old congresswoman has skyrocketed quickly to national fame and is much talked about in the mainstream media.

Even the liberal New Republic magazine has acknowledged that Mrs. Bachmann is a “serious contender” for the GOP presidential nod.

Already, in an early straw poll in New Hampshire, Mrs. Bachmann ran fifth in a field of 20 names, out polling former House Speaker New Gingrich and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In private life, Mrs. Bachmann and her husband Marcus have five children, have been foster parents to 23 others and are the owners of a Christian counseling clinic. Mrs. Bachmann is generally identified as a “Christian conservative,” and associated in particular with hardline dispensationalists Tim and Beverly LaHaye, who look forward to Armageddon and who are said to have inspired Mrs. Bachmann’s political activism.

Having studied advanced tax law, Mrs. Bachmann served from 1988 to 1993 as a U.S. Treasury Department attorney in the U.S. Federal Tax Court in St. Paul, where, by her own admission, she prosecuted and sought to send to jail “hundreds” of people charged with underpaying or failing to pay their taxes.

Now ensconced on Capitol Hill, where she founded the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives, Mrs. Bachmann has become a major media figure and political power player.

Unlike a lot of politicians who proclaim their support for Israel as a way to pander to the owners of the big media and to wealthy pro-Israel campaign contributors— who bankroll an estimated 70 percent to 80 percent of the national finances of both major parties—Mrs.Bachmann has a real and passionate devotion to Israel.

A member of a fundamentalist offshoot of the traditional Lutheran Church, Mrs. Bachmann has said, “I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish because it is the foundation, the roots, of my faith as a Christian.” So her support for Israel is philosophically based and not just political rhetoric. Speaking before the Republican Jewish Coalition, Mrs. Bachmann described her views:

[W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. My husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

Mrs. Bachmann and other friends of Israel on Capitol Hill even introduced a resolution in the House—backed by nearly half of the members of the Tea Party Caucus—urging Israel “to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force.”

In that regard, although Mrs. Bachmann has said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “announced his intention to bomb the state of Israel,” she was mistaken. He never made such a threat.

Like all people, Mrs. Bachmann makes errors, and this was one of a number of her gaffes, which have made her all the more down to earth and endearing to her supporters.

For example, Mrs. Bachmann referred to the Smoot-Hawley Act—which instituted much needed protective tariffs supported by American nationalists—as “Hoot-Smawley,” generating much laughter. Mrs. Bachmann also claimed the law was brought into being by President Franklin D. Roosevelt when, in fact, it was the work of two Republicans—Sen. Reed Smoot (Utah) and Rep. William Hawley (Ore.)—and signed into law in 1930 under GOP President Herbert Hoover.

What concerns purists who expect public officials to know the issues is that Mrs. Bachmann falsely claimed tariffs made the nation’s already precarious economy worse: A variety of historians have exploded that myth put forth by internationalist free traders.

Mrs. Bachmann also puzzled serious readers when she made the strange claim she stopped being a Democrat and turned Republican when she read a book by novelist Gore Vidal that she felt made light of America’s Founding Fathers. Anyone who knows anything about Vidal’s novels about American history knows Vidal celebrates—rather than demeans—America’s founders.

Mrs. Bachmann’s bias against Vidal may also arise from the fact that Vidal has been a vocal critic of Israel and its lobby in America, and has also questioned the U.S. government’s official version of the Oklahoma City bombing. In addition, Vidal’s novels paint the America-first, noninterventionist movement in a positive light in stark contrast to Mrs. Bachmann’s internationalist views.

Mrs. Bachmann’s views on religion have also raised eyebrows, including her possible hostility to Roman Catholicism. Mrs. Bachmann’s church is affiliated with the small Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which states clearly on its website that it believes the papacy “is the antichrist.” When confronted, Mrs. Bachmann insisted it was “absolutely false” that WELS considers the papacy to be the anti-Christ. Perhaps Mrs. Bachmann had not read the website.

A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.

Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .

Sign up for our free e-newsletter here - get a free gift just for signing up!
(Issue # 17, April 25, 2011)







We’re back! Mark Dankof joins the program to discuss the latest presidential candidates’ genuflecting before Israel as well as the recent case involving Israeli American spy arrested in Egypt and what it all portends for the future.
As always, thank you for supporting the financial needs associated with putting this program together.







http://mikepiperreport.com/Articles_Archive/AmericanFreePress/AFP2008_07-12/Art/AFP_20081103.p16__Sarah_Palin_and_William_Kristol.jpg

PDF - THE POWER BEHIND SARAH PALIN, by Michael Collins Piper for American Free Press




By Michael Collins Piper

Piper
.Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made a big splash on her recent first-ever visit to Israel. Now a highly paid “analyst” for Fox News — owned by pro-Israel media baron Rupert Murdoch — Mrs. Palin is a likely aspirant for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Her very public adventures in Israel — apparently orchestrated to burnish her foreign policy credentials — confirmed Mrs. Palin’s long-expressed, deeply felt, some critics say “over the top,” emotional and political commitment to Israel’s interests and its powerful American lobby.
While traveling about the Holy Land wearing around her neck what The Jerusalem Post described as a “large Star of David,” a Jewish religious symbol — rather than the cross traditionally worn by devout Christians — Mrs. Palin also ostentatiously told one of her hosts, Israeli parliament member Danny Danon, that she had Israeli flags “on my desk, in my home, all over the place.”
Mrs. Palin also announced she had bought an Israeli flag in Israel and intended to carry it around in America, possibly as a prop in her speech-making and political fund-raising.
Although Mrs. Palin strongly endorses cutting many domestic spending programs that help American citizens and urges trimming the U.S. foreign aid budget, she said during her trip to Israel that she vehemently opposes curtailing any of America’s giveaways to Israel that are generally reported by the media to be roughly $4 billion per year, but have been estimated by former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) to reach as high as $25 billion per year, including all grants, loans, forms of military aid and supplementary support measures.
Mrs. Palin’s pandering in Israel is no surprise to those familiar with her record. As AMERICAN FREE PRESS demonstrated in its un-refuted in-depth report, The Power Behind Sarah Palin, the outspoken Alaskan has — from the beginning of her entrée onto the national stage — relied on a host of influential pro-Israel ideologues as her intimate advisors, most notably among them “neo-conservative” William Kristol, one of the chief architects of the U.S. war in Iraq, and one of the key figures responsible for placing Mrs. Palin on the 2008 GOP ticket.
For more on Mrs. Palin, see “The Power Behind Sarah Palin,” available from AMERICAN FREE PRESS. 1 copy is $4; 6-39 copies are $1.85; 40 or more are 60¢ each; Add 10% of order total for S&H inside the U.S. Add 30% of order total for S&H outside the U.S. Send request with payment to AFP, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #100,Washington, D.C. 20003. Call AFP toll free at 1-888-699-6397 to charge to a major credit card.





* * * * * * *




rss202
By Michael Collins Piper
During the 2012 election campaign, you’ll probably be hearing a lot about “American exceptionalism,” particularly from the Republican presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich has made the concept a centerpiece of his campaign, and Gingrich’s wife—the current one, that is—has produced a documentary on the topic. Mitt Romney’s campaign book is entitled No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Sarah Palin’s book, America by Heart, has a chapter entitled “America the Exceptional.” And former Sen. Rick Santorum and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have also been heard touting the topic.

But don’t be fooled by rhetoric that has a lot of patriotic appeal. In fact, the concept of American exceptionalism— and a related theme known as national greatness conservatism—are really modern-day propaganda masks for old-fashioned Trotskyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism now wrapped in the American flag, but no different from the age-old dream of a world imperium—a global government.

Many call it the New World Order. The wizards who conjured up these themes are three key figures in the so-called neo-conservative movement:
• William Kristol, founding editor of The Weekly Standard, long published by Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch;

• David Brooks, a former Kristol underling at the Standard and now a columnist for The New York Times, and;

• Marshall Wittmann, a Jewish Trotskyite-turned neo-conservative and regular Standard contributor. Kristol and Brooks began their crusade for national greatness conservatism with a Sept. 15, 1997 Wall Street Journal article that urged Americans to “reinvigorate the nationalism of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Teddy Roosevelt.”

And during the 2000 presidential campaign, Wittmann chimed in with a lengthy piece in the Standard promoting John McCain, hailing McCain as a tribune of national greatness conservatism and as a modern-day Theodore Roosevelt.

Although many remember the first President Roosevelt as a symbol of American greatness, the ugly truth that the controlled media ignores is that it was “TR” who—even before Woodrow Wilson —began calling upon the American people to sacrifice their lives and treasure in the cause of global conquest, ostensibly in the name of bringing peace to the planet.

This is not nationalism. It is internationalism, advancing the theme that the United States should act as a world policeman promoting some undefined dream of democracy, which has now become the rallying cry of the modern Zionist-Trotskyite schemers.

So TR was an internationalist, and no true American nationalist should look to TR as a model of American greatness. Yet, TR’s spirit is said to underlie national greatness conservatism and American exceptionalism. More recently, in the Nov. 12, 2010 issue of The New York Times, the aforementioned Brooks—sounding the call for a new centrist movement in American politics— claimed that a national greatness agenda would be promoted by “the next big social movement.”

Brooks said this national greatness agenda would reject the views of “orthodox liberals and conservatives” and end “hyper-partisanship.” He added that “the coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in the existing two” and preserve American supremacy—that is, global interventionism. And don’t think it was—as the media has suggested— just a reckless misstep by Newt Gingrich when he criticized the Medicare reform package of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) saying, “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”

The truth is that Gingrich’s rhetoric—attacking both the right and the left in the same breath—was deliberate. He was clearly portraying himself as one of the centrist advocates of American exceptionalism, echoed by other recent comments by Gingrich proudly recalling his many years as a Rockefeller Republican.

Don’t be surprised—you heard it here first—that if he fails to win the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich will be part of a breakaway centrist third party movement which has been conjured up at the highest levels of the establishment elite.

AFP—alone among the media—has been reporting on this phenomenon.

Another disciple of American exceptionalism, Yale Professor David Gelernter—another Weekly Standard figure—has promoted the idea that Americanism is a modern-day incarnation of Biblical Zionism and that Americans have “a divine mission to all mankind” and that “every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality and democracy.”

In a book grandly entitled Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion, Gelernter expressed the contention that the United States (the base of what he has called American Zionism) is now charged with an imperial, even God-given, duty to remake the world, that Americanism is the creed of this global agenda, that this “Fourth Great Western Religion” is the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planet- wide regime. He wrote:

We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today]. If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed. This is the New World Order. And this is the underlying theme of national greatness conservatism and American exceptionalism. But there is nothing American about it. So don’t be fooled by what sounds like patriotic rhetoric from the Republicans. It isn’t.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.

Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .

Sign up for our free e-newsletter here - get a free gift just for signing up!
(Issue # 26, June 27, 2011)
. . ..Michael Collins Piper can now be heard on the Internet at michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com. He is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up in the 20th Century, The GOLEM: Israel's Hell Bomb, and Target: Traficant. These works can be found at America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.
(Issue #14, April 4, 2011, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)



Rick Perry, ‘Hawk Internationalist

Or is that “internationalist hawk”?
PLO official: Rick Perry is a "racist"

Perry Accuses Obama Of Betraying Israel

VIDEO - Rick Perry Dancing With The Rabbis

How Rick Perry courts the Zionist vote

Perry’s Faith-Based Foreign Policy Directive

Zionist Rick Perry Israel Travels Bankrolled By Rabbi

Perry embraces violent Jewish extremists, Politico’s Ben Smith calls him ‘moderate’

Rick Perry wrote that Palestinian leaders are attempting to exploit what they perceive as a weakening of relations between Israel and the United States.

Perry’s Trail of Corruption

Rick Perry calls for increased aid to Israel

Rick Perry's 'strong' religious message sparks strong religious response

Rick Perry: God Commands Us to Support Israel

Rick Perry: Israeli Settlements Are Legal ‘And I Support Them’

Rick Perry Supports Israeli Attack On Iran, Even If It Sparks Regional War

A message for Israel and Evangelicals: Genesis isn’t a policy guide

VIDEO - Pastor John Hagee: The Day America Turns Its Back on Israel, God Will Turn His Back on America

Are These GOP Candidates Running For President of the U.S.—or Israel?

Christian Zionists unite in D.C. to express support for Israel

Christian Zionists lobbying US Congress

Israel Factor: The more hawkish, the higher they get?: See what GOP candidates say about Israel and how our panel ranks them.

Israel Lobby Dominates Congress, Media Covers it Up Eighty-one congressional representatives from all over the country, led by Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, are traveling to Israel this month. Most are freshmen congressmen, and the group includes half of all the freshmen Republicans voted into office in 2010.

Romney blasts Obama on Israel, Iran

U.S. presidential candidates slam Obama's Israel, Iran policy at Republican Jewish Coalition

Newt Gingrich is "Their Chosen" as the Republican Party's Nominee for President

Likud’s perfect candidate: Newt Gingrich

Jon Stewart celebrates ‘miracle’ of GOP candidates fighting over ‘who loves Jews more’




Sur ce blog:

Sarah Palin, nouvelle leader du mouvement 'Tea Party' et présidente des États-Unis en 2012?

Des manifestants tabassés par un juif sioniste à la conférence de John Hagee à Washington

Les plus importants pourvoyeurs de haine anti-Islam aux USA appartiennent à quelle communauté, d'après vous?

Certificat de naissance d'Obama: quand les "patriotes" font le travail de Netanyahou

vendredi 24 juin 2011

L'Histoire contemporaine: une "fable convenue"

par Sagesse Païenne, Foi Chrétienne 16 juin 2011

L'Histoire contemporaine:

une "fable convenue"


« Fable convenue » – en français dans ses textes – c'est ainsi que Rudolf Steiner qualifiait toujours l'Histoire contemporaine dans ses conférences, insistant systématiquement sur le caractère illusoire, voire outrageusement frauduleux, de ce que seul un aveugle ou un benêt pourrait encore aujourd'hui gober : autrement dit tout ce que la grosse médiacratie politique s'entend si bien à présenter depuis 60 ans sans vergogne aux masses – masses de plus en plus manipulées, flouées, baladées au gré de l'information du jour. L'hypocrisie éhontée des gouvernements et des médias de notre époque devient, en effet, telle que quiconque réfléchit un tant soit peu ne peut que se sentir enclin à révoquer toujours plus en doute ce qu'ils s'efforcent de faire accroire : « Nous ne te contraindrons pas, nous pénétrerons dans ton âme, dans ton inconscient et nous te ferons vouloir ce que nous voulons que tu veuilles. » (Sergueï Kara-Mourza, « La Manipulation de la conscience »)
Dans quelque direction que vous vous tourniez, vous vous trouverez sans cesse confrontés, pour peu que vous vous donniez la peine de vérifier, au mensonge, à l'imposture d'état conditionnant les esprits en vue d'intérêts partisans sans nul égard envers la plus élémentaire vérité, muselant et bâillonnant d'autant plus fort toute tentative de la mettre en lumière.
Il n'est besoin que de se remémorer la grosse imposture du 11 septembre et celle des armes de destruction massive de feu Saddam Hussein en vue de mettre la main sur les ressources pétrolières d'Iraq, et plus près de nous l'agression de la Libye en vue de s'assurer pareillement les gisements de ce pays, sous les mêmes prétextes éculés de « droits de l'Homme » ou de protection des populations quotidiennement écrabouillées pourtant sous les bombardements de l'OTAN et de ses flibustiers. Remake de ceux de la « Libération » de l'Europe en 44 qui réduisit celle-ci à l'état de dominion anglo-américain. Impostures, falsifications toujours, comme celles des charniers de Katyn* ou de la catastrophe d'Oradour sur Glane dont c'est en ce moment le triste anniversaire. Ce dernier événement bien connu de moi puisque j'eus l'occasion d'habiter longtemps non loin de ce petit village aujourd'hui fantôme. Un exemple emblématique, s'il en est, d'une Histoire maquillée :
Sans que le le public français en soit clairement informé, il existe, en effet, depuis 1997, un ouvrage éclairant sur cette lamentable affaire : « Le Massacre d'Oradour, un demi-siècle de mise en scène »**, prestement interdit lors de sa parution sur arrêté ministériel, annulé quatre ans plus tard par arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme du 17 juillet 2001 au terme d'une bataille juridique acharnée. Comme bien d'autres ouvrages de ce genre réduisant à néant la version officielle, celui qui s'imaginerait pouvoir disposer de ce type de document dans une bibliothèque municipale serait bien naïf : n'y figureront toujours en bonne place que les titres entérinant la relation politiquement correcte et nulle autre.
Mentionnant ici Oradour*** que tout livre scolaire se fait un « devoir de mémoire » de citer en exemple de la « barbarie nazie » en rappelant que les Waffen SS de la division « Das Reich » y avaient massacré des dizaines de paisibles habitants de ce petit village tranquille et sauvagement brûlé vifs dans l'église toutes les femmes et les enfants : qui, jusqu'alors, s'était seulement posé la question de savoir si pareil crime était conforme à la vérité ? Qui se serait seulement douté que toutes ces femmes et ces enfants avaient, en réalité, été rassemblés dans l'église, non pour les exterminer, mais, tout au contraire, pour les mettre à l'abri de ce qui allait risquer de se passer ? Qui aurait pu se douter aussi que les combles et le clocher de cette innocente église avaient été transformés en copieux dépôt d'explosifs et de munitions par les maquisards du lieu avec la complicité du bon curé ? Ou même que des FTP rouges se dissimulaient encore dans le clocher lorsque les soldats allemands avaient procédé au rassemblement des femmes et des enfants dans l'église ? Qui, de nos jours, sait aussi que l'église en question n'a nullement été incendiée comme on tente encore aujourd'hui de le faire croire, mais qu'elle fut ravagée par le souffle de la terrible explosion du dépôt d'armes lors de la tentative d'évasion des maquisards planqués ? Qui sait enfin que ce drame fut ensuite grossièrement maquillé en crime de guerre pour les besoins de la propagande de la Résistance et de ses complices ?...
On comprends dès lors sans peine que (tout comme en d'innombrables cas de ce genre) cette remise en question de l'histoire, ainsi que les documents irréfutables qu'elle comporte ait pu mettre en émoi les tenants et les bénéficiaires de la bonne vieille version qu'ils entendent maintenir sous séquestre jusqu'en... 2053 ! Mais lorsqu'on songe à ce que Rudolf Steiner tint à enseigner des conséquences spirituelles mortelles du Mensonge qu'il assimilait ni plus ni moins à un meurtre au plan astral, que penser, en ce cas, des conséquences de l'incroyable accumulation de mensonges et de contre-vérités, ne serait-ce que dans l'Histoire officielle des deux dernières guerres mondiales et dans ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler l' « Holocauste », objet, de nos jours, d'un véritable tabou religieux, intouchable et quasi mystique ?
L'implantation du faux et de la calomnie dans l'esprit de millions d'êtres humains, et dans l'esprit de millions d'enfants de toutes races en vue d'une manipulation psychologique et mentale au niveau planétaire participe pourtant d'un objectif ahrimanien sans exemple en vue d'assujettir l'Homme et d'entraver son élévation spirituelle, car comment rapprocher les hommes parmi tant de mensonges agissant comme autant de ferments de haine ?
« J'ai souvent attiré l'attention sur le fait que si un jour, à l'avenir, on écrit l'histoire de ce qu'on appelle la guerre [de 14-18 Ndt] aucun critique ne l'a encore fait, bien que ce soit très faisable –, on ne pourra pas employer la méthode qui a abouti à ce conte, à cette légende comment l'appeler ? que l'on désigne actuellement du nom d'histoire. Cette « Histoire », des érudits ainsi les qualifie le monde sont restés des mois, des années, des décennies dans les bibliothèques à étudier des documents diplomatiques pour l'écrire. Il faudra que le temps vienne où la plus grande partie de l'histoire confectionnée de cette façon sera bonne à mettre au rebut. » (R. Steiner, La Chute des esprits des ténèbres, 1ère conférence)
En tout état de cause une œuvre de salubrité déjà commencée depuis des années, mais à quel prix ?! Combien de chercheurs et d'historiens ruinés, chassés de leurs chaires, emprisonnés, calomniés, voire pire, qui s'attelèrent à cette tâche ? Si donc il est écrit que la Vérité rend libre (Jn. 8, 32), elle ne s'acquiert qu'à haut prix. Il vaut mieux le savoir d'avance. WH.

* Tuerie de masse où 4500 officiers polonais furent assassinés d'une balle dans la nuque en 1940 par le NKVD. Longtemps mise au compte des Allemands, ce ne fut qu'en 1990 que la Russie reconnut sa responsabilité dans ce qui concerna au total quelques 15 000 exécutions sommaires en divers lieux. C'est à la suite de l'ouverture des archives soviétiques concomitante à cette affaire que les historiens révisionnistes furent à même de réviser avec précision l'histoire des camps de concentration allemands dont celui d'Auschwitz.
** Ouvrage traduit et publié en Allemagne sous le titre « Die Wahrheit über Oradour, Rekonstruktion und Forschungsbericht » (Vincent Reynouard, La vérité sur Oradour, Reconstitution et rapport d'enquête, Druffel-Verlag, 1999).
*** On rappellera que l'occupation du village d'Oradour par la division Das Reich en route vers le front de Normandie fut effectuée en vue de retrouver le Sturmbannführer Kämpfe enlevé, puis assassiné, le lendemain du massacre atroce d'une soixantaine de soldats allemands le 9 juin à Tulle et de la répression qui s'en était suivie.




http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiHANjivdEClz7yo-OOb9YW121d1lJP8_mQnfU8GxhMyRUDxSd

Martin et Barnes, pionniers du mouvement révisionniste

Peu de gens le savent, mais le terme "révisionniste", ce missile verbal aujourd'hui utilisé pour d'emblée disqualifier aux yeux du grand public de supposés vilains réhabiliteurs de nazis aux motifs prétendument douteux (les nouvelles "bêtes immondes"), a été utilisé pour la première fois pendant l'entre-deux-guerres pour désigner des historiens mettant en doute, preuves à l'appui, la version officielle de la PREMIERE Guerre Mondiale donnée par les autorités et la majorité des historiens de l'époque. Or, nous savons aujourd'hui que c'est la version de ces premiers historiens révisionnistes qui correspondaient à la réalité de la guerre 14-18 et que les nombreuses accusations d'atrocités pesant sur les vaincus de ce conflit (Mensonges et rumeurs en temps de guerre (Arthur PONSONBY, 1930)) n'étaient que propagande de guerre (puis recyclage de cette propagande après la guerre). Alors, quid des accusations d'atrocités commises par les vaincus de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale? Impossible pour le grand public de le savoir puisque le révisionnisme est devenu illégal dans de nombreux pays, que le black-out médiatique au sujet des découvertes révisionnistes est total et que la version officielle (et elle seule) est martelée à grande échelle dans les médias...

En ce qui concerne les prétendues atrocités commises par les vaincus de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, et principalement l'holocauste, la recherche révisionniste est parvenue à "faire tomber" 16 des 22 "camps d'extermination" ("déclassés" en simples "camps de concentration") que les nazis étaient censés avoir possédés au cours de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Les plus célèbres sont Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen Belsen et Mathausen. Les 6 "camps d'extermination" encore officiellement reconnus se trouvaient tous à l'est du rideau de fer, sous le joug de la dictature communiste d'après-guerre, et ne pouvaient donc être librement examinés par des chercheurs et historiens avant la chute de celui-ci en 1991. Seulement, en 1990, alors que l'URSS montraient des signes de fatigue et que ces 6 camps allaient enfin devenir accessibles aux chercheurs, de nombreux états à travers le monde légiférèrent pour rendre le révisionnisme concernant l'holocauste illégal et passible de peines de prison...

The term 'historical revisionism' was first used to apply to the work of historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his associates, whose earliest historical work was motivated by the belief that the generally-accepted versions of events of the First World War not only harbored serious errors, but were heavily influenced by the biases of the institutions which underwrote the "Court Historians" responsible for these versions. Barnes, however, noted that historical revisionism -- "The effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude" in his words (Barnes Review Oct 94: 3) -- was itself an activity with a very long history, going back at least as far as the exposure of the forgery of the "Donation of Constantine" by Lorenzo Valla (1407-57).

Holocaust Revisionism in One Easy Lesson | Wake Up From Your Slumber


"Truth is always the first war casualty. The emotional disturbances and distortions in historical writing are greatest in wartime."
These are the words of historian, sociologist and criminologist Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes, who founded a school of historical thought following World War One that became known as Revisionist.

But why Revisionist? What is Historical Revisionism? And what makes it different from the history we learn in school and see portrayed in the popular media?

For the late Dr. Barnes, Revisionism meant "...nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude."

The term originated with a group of scholars (French, British, American, German and others) whose researches undermined the presumption of unique German responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. Although the term Revisionist originally was used to apply only to the question of guilt for WW I, it has subsequently come to include all historical findings at odds with the Establishment version. Revisionism is freedom of speech in history.

Those early Revisionists and those who followed the tradition recognized a fact of life pertaining to the writing of history: in the case of wars, historians of the victorious nations tend to write historical accounts that ignore relevant facts not favorable to the victor while, at the same time, misrepresenting or inventing other facts in order to cast the loser in an unfavorable light. Most of these historians had played an active role in World War I, many in propaganda and intelligence; after the Second World War, it was not uncommon for them to continue to have links with intelligence agencies.

The efforts of Establishment historians to remain on the good side of the powers-that-be (like the court historians who served kings and emperors of old) created a historical record that oftentimes resembled wartime propaganda more than independent scholarship.

"To the victor go the spoils" is a well-known saying of American president Andrew Jackson. One of the great spoils of winning a war is being able to write the history of it from your own perspective.

When history is written by partisan historians from a victor nation, the winning side emerges simplistically as the "good guys." The losers, of course, are the "bad guys." Questions about the origins of the war (for instance, about the real story behind the sinking of the Lusitania or the attack on Pearl Harbor), about its conduct (did the "Huns" really cut off infants' hands in Belgium? Were we justified in annihilating the populations of whole cities like Dresden and Tokyo from the air?), and about its conclusion (such as the wisdom of the Treaty of Versailles or the secret deals at Teheran and Yalta) are ignored or swept aside.

Following the First World War, Harry Elmer Barnes and other historians, both in the victor nations and the vanquished, "revised" the official version of the winners by gaining access to the secret records of the wartime governments - their ministers, generals and diplomats. The documents demonstrated that there was a very big difference between what the leaders were saying in public and what they were doing in private. The Revisionists demonstrated that millions of men had gone to their deaths for ideals at which those in power secretly scoffed. A great and healthy revulsion against war and warmakers set in and Americans set their faces against further "crusades" across the oceans.

But the upheaval which the First World War had brought about in Europe and Asia and the short-sighted settlements which the victors had imposed on the defeated nations led to another war. This time the ruling Establishments in the victor nations determined that there would be no "revision" of their wartime propaganda, no "bringing history into accord with the facts." The men who wrote the authorized histories of the Second World War were tied to their society's ruling elites-both public and private- just as closely as the court historians of bygone days. They enjoyed privileged access to the records, many of which they had helped create themselves with their wartime roles in propaganda and intelligence. Dissident historians- the "Revisionists" - were excluded.

It is crucial, however, that we gain an understanding of the actual origins, course and consequences of World War II and of all modern wars. "Good guys" vs. "bad guys" history reinforces wartime propaganda. Carried over into peacetime it stands in the way of reconciliation and fosters an atmosphere in which all the world's conflicts are viewed as epochal struggles between Good and Evil.

It is the Revisionists' aim to understand wars, not to continue to fight them in endless polemical battles. Revisionists search for the underlying causes of wars, hold the self-serving claims of all parties to those struggles to critical review, and investigate the role of often shadowy third parties that sought to profit from wars waged ostensibly on behalf of nation-states.

Revisionist scholars are working in many nations. The movement defies political classification on the conventional "left-right" spectrum. Revisionists are dedicated first to discovering the truth that is often hidden away in secret archives that governments and established powers everywhere would seal up in perpetuity. They are further dedicated to the principle that citizens have a right to know what their governments are actually doing behind the scenes.

The Revisionists are deeply concerned with the imposition of a monolithic orthodoxy in any area of historical research. The Revisionists have challenged, in particular, some of the most sacrosanct dogmas of World War II propaganda, from the unmitigated evil and aggressiveness of Germany, Japan, and their allies, to the unquestioning acceptance of the so-called Holocaust in all its improbable details.

Revisionists have learned, and teach, that a misunderstanding of the nature of conflicts between nations allows politicians, often fronting for special interests, to lead us blindly into wars in which the great majority of the citizenry has no real interest. The failure to properly understand our own involvement in the European wars has involved Americans in one crisis after another in the decades following World War II, from Korea to Vietnam to Beirut. Each time the politicians have assured us that we are repelling "aggression," staving off "bloodbaths," "fighting Communism" or "terrorism" or what have you. And each time the interventions have ended not in victory, but in death, frustration, and dishonor.

Still, special interests conjure up new Bad Guys, new devils. The tangle of rivalries and hatreds that outside intervention has created in the Middle East continues to provide our leaders with excuses for new adventures, from the Persian Gulf to Libya. Will the kind of popular hatred manufactured against foreign leaders like Khadafy or Khomeini lure us into a new crusade? Or even into a catastrophic nuclear conflict?

Not if the findings of Revisionists are heeded. Barnes and his colleagues, and their successors, working from a deep conviction that war is unnecessary, have demonstrated how specious were the justifications and how injurious the results have been of the wars America has blundered into over the past century. These wars have diminished our freedoms, undermined our wealth and created a false illusion of national rectitude.
The Revisionists are perhaps the only students of the past who have heeded the warning of George Orwell that: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." By wrestling control of the past from established interests and returning it to those who lived and suffered it, Revisionists may make possible a secure and prosperous future for all of us.

If we can face up to and acknowledge the existence of the underlying causes of war and what our own leaders have done to encourage war, prolong it and make it more destructive than at any other time in history, we may be on our way to achieving the just and lasting peace that every person of good will desires.




Historians as Tools
of the Global Elite
Court Historians Regurgitate New Versions of Prewar and Wartime Propaganda Dressed Up as History

“TO THE VICTOR BELONG THE SPOILS,” the old saying goes. It might be amended to say, “To the victor belongs the privilege of writing history.” Julius Caesar certainly recognized that when he wrote in Commentaries on the Gallic War, Book I, that “It is the law of war for conquerors to deal with the conquered at their pleasure”—and that, of course, included the writing of “court” history. Another writer, a diplomat and scientist, Benjamin Franklin, had his own twist on the subject, declaring in Poor Richard’s Almanac that, “Historians relate, not so much what is done, as what they would have believed [by the people].” This distortion of history is what Revisionists are fighting against.


BY MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

In the years following both World War I and World War II when real historians such as Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes and his colleague dared to suggest that the postwar histories, written by the victors, were hardly more than the product of “court historians” essentially regurgitating new versions of prewar and wartime propaganda dressed up as “history,” Barnes and his fellow Revisionists were defamed as “conspiracy theorists” and worse.

However, with even the most cursory review of the role that many eminent and “respected” American postwar historians played as top-level intelligence officers during World War II, for example, one cannot help but wonder how reliable their academic accounts of the history of that period were.

In 1987 Yale University professor Robin W. Winks (now deceased) published his award-winning 607-page book, Cloak & Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (New Haven: Yale University Press) outlining the very substantial (but until then largely little-known) details surrounding the involvement of American academics in the activities of the CIA and its World War II predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).



“Each government accuses the other
of perfidy, intrigue and ambition, as a
means of heating the imagination of
their respective nations, and incens-
ing them to hostilities”
—THOMAS PAINE


In his book, Winks provided readers with an eye-opening list of the names of some—but far from all—American academics (largely historians) who served in the OSS during World War II and were therefore part of (and directing) America’s official covert intelligence operations against the enemy. The list is remarkable and demonstrates that there is reason to suggest the ties between aca-demia and the U.S. government propaganda apparatus are even more profound than Harry Elmer Barnes may have suspected.
Many of the names will be immediately familiar. The names constitute a veritable laundry list of those whom Barnes quite correctly called “the court historians” and whom—by virtue of their wartime roles in the propaganda operations of the OSS—revolutionary statesman Thomas Paine might have been foreshadowing. He wrote of war-time propagandists in The Rights of Man declaring: “Each government accuses the other of perfidy intrigue and ambition, as a means of heating the imagination of their respective nations, and incensing them to hos-tilities”—not only during wartime but afterward as well. And that is why there is the need for Revisionist scholars to continue fighting to bring history into accord with the facts, wartime and postwar propaganda notwithstanding.
What follows is the list of OSS-spawned academics taken from Winks’s book, including the sometimes-glowing descriptions that Winks provided:

  • James Phinney Baxter III, president of Williams College;
  • Carl Blegen, professor of history, University of Cincinnati, and a leading authority on American immigration and ethnic history;
  • Crane Brinton, professor of history, Harvard University, perhaps the leading historian of ideas on the European front;
  • Dr. Frederick Burkhardt, director of the American Council of Learned Societies;
  • John Christopher, professor of history, University of Rochester, who with Brinton and Robert Lee Wolff wrote an extremely influential (and extremely successful) textbook, History of Civilization, immediately after the war, a text that became one of two that dominated the market for the immediate postwar generation of undergraduate students. “Brinton, Christopher and Wolff,” as the text was known, reflected the synoptic view the authors developed while in the OSS, and it would not be totally revised until 1983;
  • Dr. Ray Cline, who wrote a first-rate volume in the official history of World War II and then returned to the intelligence profession. He became the CIA’s deputy director for intelligence from 1962 to 1966;
  • John Clive, professor of history, Harvard University, a major figure in 19th century British studies;
  • Gordon Craig, professor of history, Princeton and later Stanford universities, author of the leading books on the role of the military in German history;
  • John Curtiss, professor of history, Duke University, an authority on France;
  • Harold C. Deutsch, professor of history, University of Minnesota, also an important figure in the development of modern German history in the United States;
  • Donald M. Dozer, professor of history, University of California, Santa Barbara, a Latin Americanist;
  • Dr. Allan Evans, a medievalist from Yale who remained with the Department of State at the end of the war;
  • John K. Fairbank, professor of Chinese history at Harvard University, the leading sinologist of his generation;
  • Franklin L. Ford, professor of history, Harvard University, and the dean of Harvard College during the student disorders of the late 1960s;
  • Felix Gilbert, historian at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, an elegant diplomatist;
  • S. Everett Gleason, who worked with William Langer in the OSS and after, and returned to become the State Department’s historian;
  • Moses Hadas, professor of classics, Columbia University, who wrote on the expansion of the Roman empire;
  • Samuel W. Halperin, professor of history, University of Chicago, and after the war editor of The Journal of Modern History;
  • Henry B. Hill, professor of history, University of Kansas, who developed British history there and later at Wisconsin;
  • Hajo Holborn, Sterling professor of history, Yale University, who worked on occupation policy for Germany at the end of the war and wrote on the history of military occupation, becoming a dominant figure in the training of postwar Germanists;
  • H. Stuart Hughes, professor of history, Harvard University, who moved on from where Crane Brinton had left off in European intellectual (and especially Italian) history, and unsuccessfully ran for the House of Representatives in Massachusetts;
  • Sherman Kent, who left Yale to preside over ONE, the Office of National Estimates, at the CIA;
  • Clinton Knox, who also left the historical profession, becoming ambassador to Guinea;
  • Leonard Krieger, who returned from the OSS to become a professor at Yale and then of German intellectual history at the University of Chicago;
  • William L. Langer, the outstanding European diplomatic historian of his generation;
  • Val Lorwin, professor of history, University of Oregon, and the nation’s leading authority on the Low Countries;
  • Herbert Marcuse, who moved from history to philosophy at Brandeis and the University of California, and from the contemplative life to that of guru to the student revolt during the war in Vietnam;
  • Henry Cord Meyer, professor of history, Pomona College, another leading Germanist who left Yale for the West Coast;
  • Saul K. Padover, professor at the New School for Social Research, authority on Jefferson and democratic thought, and a pioneer lecturer on American history at a wide range of universities overseas;
  • Michael B. Petrovich, professor of history, University of Wisconsin, who developed Russian studies there;
  • David H. Pinckney, professor of history, first at the University of Missouri and then the University of Washington, a major force in French history and, like Brinton, Craig, Fairbank, Holborn, Langer, and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a president of the American Historical Association, perhaps the highest honor the discipline can bestow on one of its own;
  • David M. Potter, professor of history, Yale University (and later at Stanford), who with Ralph Gabriel and Norman Holmes Pearson firmly established American studies at Yale;
  • Conyers Read, professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, an authority on Elizabethan England and the prime mover behind the Council on Foreign Relations in Philadelphia;
  • Henry L. Roberts, professor of history, Columbia University, who followed Geroid Robinson in developing a front-rank Russian studies program at that institution;
  • Elspeth D. Rostow, University of Texas, who with her husband,
  • Walt Whitman Rostow, worked out major interpretations on American foreign policy;
  • John E. Sawyer, economic historian who left Yale to become president of Williams College and then of the Mellon Foundation;
  • Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., professor of history, Harvard University, polymath, adviser to and historian for the Kennedys before his transition to a Schweitzer chair at the City University of New York;
  • Bernadotte E. Schmitt, who after the war lived in retirement, lauded as the leading historian of the causes of WWI;



Spies Turned ‘Court Historians’

The World War II-era Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was the forerunner of the modern CIA, and also the spawning ground for a host of American academics who rose to prominence in postwar years. Most of these ex-spies—with little deviation—touted the “official” U.S.-British-Zionist intelligence propaganda version of the events that led up to the war, accounts of the war’s conduct and the twists of history that followed. Not for nothing did such independent historians as Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes refer to these characters as the “court historians.”


http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/images/herbohlbfinger250pxw.jpg
Above, Herbert Marcuse: It wasn’t “Hanoi Jane” Fonda or Huey Newton and the Black Panthers who invented the ideas and slogans that came to be identified with the “drop out” generation. It was Marcuse, drawing on Hegel, Marx and Sigmund Freud, who introduced the theory of “the great refusal,” meaning that individuals should reject and subvert the existing social order as repressive and conformist without waiting for a revolution. Marcuse left Germany one step ahead of the Gestapo to bring his “enlightenment” to America. He taught philosophy at various U.S. universities until his death in 1979.


Among the ex-OSS spies who became influential postwar arbiters of “official” history included (1) Arthur Schlesinger Jr., (2) Carl William Blegen and (3) James Phinney Baxter.


  • Carl E. Schorske, professor of history at Wesleyan and then Princeton University, an authority on European intellectual history;
  • Raymond Sontag, professor of history, University of California at Berkeley, the first of the old OSS team to publicly remind the student generation of the 1960s of his service and of why academics had felt it appropriate to engage in intelligence work, which he had
  • Wayne S. Vucinich, professor of history, continued to do as a consultant to ONE;
  • L.S. Stavrianos, professor of history, Northwestern University, who carried the idea of global history further than any other scholar, in a series of notable texts;
  • Richard P. Stebbins, a man Sherman Kent felt could turn out more work of high quality than anyone else in his shop, who became director of the Council on Foreign Relations;
  • Paul R. Sweet, who also remained with the State Department, in change of its official histories and archives.
  • Alexander Vucinich, professor of history, San Jose State University, a leading authority on Eastern Europe; Stanford University, who covered the same waterfront;
  • Paul L. Ward, who became the executive director of the American Historical Association;
  • Albert Weinberg, technically a political scientist, although the author of a fine historical analysis of American imperial expansion, who remained in government work after the war;
  • Robert Lee Wolff, professor of history, Harvard University, that institution’s outstanding authority on Eastern Europe;
  • John H. Wuorinen, professor of history, Columbia University, who covered Scandinavia and in particular Finland;
  • T. Cuyler Young, professor of archeology, Princeton University, who, with Richard Frye at Harvard (who also was in the OSS), pioneered Iranian studies in the United States.

This list, needless to say, is highly revealing, if only because it demonstrates how closely American academics have been linked to the intelligence community, and in this case, during wartime. The truth is that—despite the passing of decades—nothing has changed. The American academic community has consistently been influenced by—and in many respects, has been a part of—the high-level policy-makers, war-planners, and other elements of the high level ruling elite.


Barnes Harry Elmer - Who started world war one ?

Author : Barnes Harry Elmer
Title : Who started world war one ? An unbiased analysis of the causes and mitigating factors of World War One from the father of historical Revisionism
Year : 2009

Link download : Barnes_Harry_Elmer_-_Who_started_world_war_one.zip

Preface. Wars & the Decline of the West. This pioneering Revisionist work by the doyen of Revisionism, Harry Elmer Barnes, ends with the entrance of the U.S.A. into World War I. Thus, the final gruesome tally of the horrible and unnecessary costs of that war in terms of blood, treasure, and political disaster could not be included. ...




Barnes Harry Elmer - The causes of the world war

Author : Barnes Harry Elmer
Title : The causes of the world war
Year : 1945

Link download : Barnes_Harry_Elmer_-_The_causes_of_the_world_war.zip

Levels or types of responsibility. In generalizing about responsibility for the World War it is necessary to be specific as to just what is meant by tnis term "responsibility." There are some Revisionists who contend that ail of the Great Powers involved were about equally responsible. There are others who state that France, Russia and Serbia were the only leading powers in 1914 who desired a European war and that they worked cleverly to bring it on the least possible appearance of aggression. Both of these opinions would be correct if one clarifies what is meant. Those who argue for equal responsibility in this sense usually mean that, in regard to the causes of wars in general in Europe from 1870 to 1914, all the Great Powers were about equally responsible for the war system. They do not refer primarily to the crisis of 1914, but rather to the situation lying back of the July clash. Those who contend for the primary guilt of France, Russia and Serbia have in mind the responsibility for unnecessarily forcing the Austro- Serbian dispute of 1914 into a general European conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to know just what one implies when he says that everybody was guilty or that this or that group of nations was guilty. ...


Clark Christopher - The sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914

Author : Clark Christopher
Title : The sleepwalkers How Europe went to war in 1914
Year : 2013

Link download : Clark_Christopher_-_The_sleepwalkers.zip

Introduction. The European continent was at peace on the morning of Sunday 28 June 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek arrived at Sarajevo railway station. Thirty-seven days later, it was at war. The conflict that began that summer mobilized 65 million troops, claimed three empires, 20 million military and civilian deaths, and 21 million wounded. The horrors of Europe’s twentieth century were born of this catastrophe; it was, as the American historian Fritz Stern put it, ‘the first calamity of the twentieth century, the calamity from which all other calamities sprang’. The debate over why it happened began before the first shots were fired and has been running ever since. It has spawned an historical literature of unparalleled size, sophistication and moral intensity. For international relations theorists the events of 1914 remain the political crisis par excellence, intricate enough to accommodate any number of hypotheses. The historian who seeks to understand the genesis of the First World War confronts several problems. The first and most obvious is an oversupply of sources. Each of the belligerent states produced official multi-volume editions of diplomatic papers, vast works of collective archival labour. There are treacherous currents in this ocean of sources. Most of the official document editions produced in the interwar period have an apologetic spin. The fifty-seven-volume German publication Die Grosse Politik, comprising 15,889 documents organized in 300 subject areas, was not prepared with purely scholarly objectives in mind; it was hoped that the disclosure of the pre-war record would suffice to refute the ‘war guilt’ thesis enshrined in the terms of the Versailles treaty. For the French government too, the post-war publication of documents was an enterprise of ‘essentially political character’, as Foreign Minister Jean Louis Barthou put it in May 1934. Its purpose was to ‘counterbalance the campaign launched by Germany following the Treaty of Versailles’. In Vienna, as Ludwig Bittner, co-editor of the eight-volume collection Österreich-Ungarns Aussenpolitik, pointed out in 1926, the aim was to produce an authoritative source edition before some international body – the League of Nations perhaps? – forced the Austrian government into publication under less auspicious circumstances. The early Soviet documentary publications were motivated in part by the desire to prove that the war had been initiated by the autocratic Tsar and his alliance partner, the bourgeois Raymond Poincaré, in the hope of de-legitimizing French demands for the repayment of pre-war loans. Even in Britain, where British Documents on the Origins of the War was launched amid high-minded appeals to disinterested scholarship, the resulting documentary record was not without tendentious omissions that produced a somewhat unbalanced picture of Britain’s place in the events preceding the outbreak of war in 1914. In short, the great European documentary editions were, for all their undeniable value to scholars, munitions in a ‘world war of documents’, as the German military historian Bernhard Schwertfeger remarked in a critical study of 1929. ...



VIDEO - L'AUTRE MONDE Retour aux sources du fascisme - La lutte des peuples contre les banquiers privés 

L'AUTRE MONDE - Libye: de Hitler à Kadhafi, une autre vision du fascisme 

Top Egyptian politician calls Holocaust, 9/11 fabrications Ahmed Ezz El-Arab, leader of the secular Wafd Party, tells the Washington Times the Holocaust is a lie

La Nakba effacée d’un manuel scolaire français

Attention : manuels d'histoire revisités....


Sur ce blog:

L'Iran ne croit pas la fable convenue du 11 septembre


L'Holocauste, "superstition" des Occidentaux selon un haut religieux iranien


À lire

Une ancienne agente de la CIA révèle des infos exclusives sur le rôle des sionistes et la complicité du gouvernement US dans les attentats du 9.11
Résumé des preuves liant le Mossad aux coupables du 11 septembre


http://www.nazigassings.com/images/HoloDenier.jpg