From Athens to Madrid, Dublin to Tbilisi, Wisconsin to Cairo, people are restive and revolt is in the air.

They each have local issues of course, but there are common threads. There’s a widespread feeling of being fleeced by an economic system corrupted to protect a greedy elite. There a loss of confidence that life will get better. There’s a sense of desperation about even hanging onto existing rights and benefits, let alone gaining improvements.

There’s also a view that democracy – not the ideal, but as it really exists in our world – isn’t the panacea for all ills as sometimes suggested. If it was, there would no general feeling of dis-empowerment and widespread loss of faith that ‘the system’ will deliver, in countries that supposedly have been ‘democratic’ for a long while.

Madrid, May 2011 Europe and North America awash with angry people wanting change they CAN believe in

Although the masses have stirred, their efforts on the streets don’t seem to have achieved much to date.

One reason may be a lack of focus. Clear demands are needed. National leadership change is no substitute for policy deliverables; faces at the top can change while little else does. Protesters need to be specific about what they want – and they should base their demands on clear, well-considered policy objectives.

It would be powerful to identify common demands around which protesters everywhere can unite.

Many possible goals spring to mind, from renewable energy to human rights, free speech to universal health care, affordable education to full employment.

Yet one demand seems to me to cry out for united global action: the demand to end wars. We can all benefit from achieving peace. We all stand to lose while the dogs of wars are on the rampage.

Peace is not the same thing as the absence of war, of course. It is more. But the absence of war is crucial – and in theory, easily achieved. After all, it should be possible for the people-loving populations of the western world to force our governments to adopt peaceful policies and end the wars our own governments have initiated. We do live in democracies, don’t we?

Yet the military industrial complex, in cahoots with a supportive mass media and corrupted political elite, has got used to running rings around the peace movement. The prospect of a peaceful world has actually receded over the last quarter century; at the same time, military, security and ‘intelligence’ budgets have sky-rocketed. No sooner was a ‘peace dividend’ promised at the end of the Cold War than the promise was lost in a spate of new aggressive wars led by an increasingly domineering USA. The US, in turn, appears to have its imperial agenda set by the Zionist Lobby.

More and more people around the world are aware of this nightmarish situation. It’s a common problem – a common crisis – and we all have a shared responsibility to solve it.

Demands to end the attacks on Libya – and the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq – should be central in the coming days, weeks and months. The people of of the western world must take on our war machine and defeat it. If we can’t achieve that this year, we should keep going until it’s done.

Mass Protest against the Iraq War 2003: why didn't demonstrations keep going until we won peace?

It really is time to give peace a chance.

This northern summer, we need demonstrations as big as the demos against invading Iraq in 2003.

But this time, they need to persist and grow until we achieve the goals of stopping these appalling wars. People might consider maintaining protests in London. Paris and Washington until the war machine backs down.

Anyone who thinks we can build a sustainable, prosperous future as long as there’s such high focus and expenditure on warfare lives in fantasy land. Peace is not an option. It’s a prerequisite for a future worth having.

The military industrial complex and Zionist war-mongers are the greatest of all threats to humanity’s future.

We the people need to take back our power and exercise proper control over these malevolent forces which seek to keep us divided, weak and exploited.

Too much political debate has been imprisoned inside one dimension for far too long.

Since the early 19th century, the major ideological fault line has been between ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’. Yet these terms are better understood as descriptors of polarity within a single system than entirely separate recipes for complete, well-functioning societies.

Our Common Future

Take Capitalism. A simplistic but commonly held belief is that a free market system works best with little state interference. Taxation and other forms of regulation are regularly portrayed as enemies of capitalism.

That’s may well be true in a village economy. However, it’s been clear from the outset of the industrial revolution that a successful advanced free-market economy requires very effective regulation. Good common infrastructure encourages enterprise to flourish. Advanced capitalism depends on a clear set of legally enforceable rules – rules that curtail absolute individual freedom, yet provide for a better functioning whole. These ‘socialist ideas’ are a prerequisite for capitalist success – and always have been.

Socialism is the other end of the theoretical polarity. In it’s purest form, it’s also known as ‘Communism’.

In the pre-modern world, there certainly were societies with no classes or castes, devoid of private property and without a competitive economic system. These societies were small in scale. Karl Marx referred to them as ‘Primitive Communism’.

Skipping through ten thousand years in a paragraph, I think it’s fair to say that no society in the modern world could survive without a monetary system of some type. Every modern society uses money – and money is the quintessence of private property (a dollar in my pocket is not in yours). In other words, every existing society has elements of property ownership and economic competition. While it’s conceivable a genuine ‘communist’ society could come to pass in the future, foundations for it are not in place. They have never been in place, not since the inception of capitalism.

Pure Socialism (aka advanced ‘Communism’) is a theoretical possibility for the future; it cannot be used to describe any existing large-scale society on earth.

The economic system of every country on earth – at the most fundamental level – has some basic similarities. Every nation, every city and every community is part of the global capitalist system and subjects its people to some degree of regulation, public ownership and state control. Every society allows its citizens a measure of economic independence and the opportunity to engage in some manner of enterprise. Specifics are very different in different societies. There may be more or less political freedom, more or less central economic planning, more or less public ownership. Yet every country, from China to the USA, Australia to Algeria, operates on essentially similar lines.

This last year saw great ironies unfold. C-Span viewers were treated to a session in which members of the US Congress eagerly inquired what lessons could be learnt from China’s banking system, since it’s remained so much more stable during the latest financial turmoil than US financial institutions. Questions like this would have been regarded as communist sedition a few years ago. Meanwhile, fierce debates raged about the extent to which western banks should be nationalized to save them form their own insolvency. The leader of Russia turned up at a global summit and soberly warned the west not to turn socialist in a crisis… Anyone beamed in by time machine from a quarter century back might well think they’d arrived in Alice’s Looking-Glass World.

Historian and social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein wrote decades ago of a modern, essentialy unitary capitalist world-system. To many in the 1970s and 90s, that seemed a stretch; the world appeared to be more like two systems (or three), with an iron curtain between the first and second world. How quickly that apparently immovable divide dissipated! Quite clearly, the world is now one globalizing whole. Every society on earth has a similar basic economic system, with more or less regulation. Every society makes some attempt to ‘socialize’ capitalism.

I’m aware that many people who hold similarly unorthodox views to my own about events such as 9-11 and the perils of Zionism probably don’t share my opinions about what’s needed for humanity to survive and thrive.

There’s a general tendency to be alarmed about ‘globalism’ – that is, the proposition that humanity requires a global layer to our governance. I see globalism as a historical necessity. Although government that’s universal is obviously fraught with many dangers, I regard the anarchic, unfair, fragmented state of the world political-economy at present as wholly inadequate to the tasks at hand and an intrinsic part of the problem. It may preserve some measure of ‘national sovereignty – but at what cost?

Many folk are strongly nationalist in their views. I see nationalism, for the most part, as a curse, although I welcome cultural diversity.

Many consider themselves ‘right-wing’, and would distrust my belief that the world should be run as one, ecologically sustainable, socialist enterprise. Yet that, in a few words, is the world society I believe we must create.

The relationship we must get right

Global governance does not mean absolute centralization. There’s no need to abandon existing layers of government. We just need to add an extra, properly-functioning layer at the global level.

The most obvious reason for doing this is that we live on one globe and our collective ecological impact is now so great that we’re doing serious damage to the planet’s ecology. Most other issues pale into insignificance compared with the prospect that we will continue to degrade our planetary environment, until this wonderful world is biologically impoverished and unable to provide the basis for congenial human life. Global ecological decline simply must be stopped and reversed – and fast! This must receive the highest priority. We need to salvage what’s left of our inheritance of biodiversity and treasure it. Clearly, we must stabilize the climate and remove human-induced triggers for climate change.

These are not easy tasks . Achieving them demands global agreement and co-ordination on a scale and sophistication that we’ve never, to date, been even close to achieving. As long as the fate of the planet is left to an unseemly auction between self-interested parts of the whole, each dominated by partisan interests, we lack the institutional framework required for managing this planet’s theatened ecology. This reason for global governance is perhaps the most obvious. But there are others.

Foremost among them is the obvious need to impose effective regulation on the activities of transnational corporations. These must include environmental regulations, but should also include health and safety and economic justice provisions. No companies should be free to move operations to jurisdictions where workers’ conditions or environmental standards fall below an acceptable baseline. That’s to everyone’s benefit.

At present, using mechanisms such as transfer pricing, trans-national corporations easily minimize their overall tax burden. Ultimately, all of global society loses from tax avoidance on this massive scale. Effective taxation of trans-national corporations and the super-rich is another good reason for effective, all-encompassing global governance.

Another is the possibility it opens up for the creation of a true global bank, to act as a lender of ultimate last resort – able to issue interest-free credit to fund projects conducive to sustainability and social justice.

That’s how – as a species – we can ‘afford’ the work that needs to be done to put planetary society to rights. We don’t need to ‘borrow’ funds from a mysterious priesthood of bankers, whose own solvency cannot be guaranteed. We simply need to issue the credit – as an economic expression of our common will to survive, prosper and nurture this world.

The obvious fact is we can’t afford not to do this.

This way of financing expansionary economic activity has been attempted before on a more localized level, with success. Deprived of loans from international financiers on coming to power, Nazi Germany took this approach. Naturally, they didn’t just crank up the Reichmark printing presses to maximum capacity. The goal was to match the issuing of new credit with real, productive economic activity. The policy was skillfully implemented, non-inflationary and remarkably successful in helping transform Germany’s economy within a few years.

It’s true that individual countries could attempt something similar now, as contemporary ‘Social Credit’ advocates such as Ellen Brown and Richard Cook argue articulately. They are both Americans and propose the Obama Administration bye-passes the Federal Reserve system and issues currency directly, like President Lincoln did during the US  Civil War.

One problem, it seems to me, even if the US Administration was to muster courtage not seen for a century, face down America’s banking elite and attempt this policy alone is that the USA also has a gigantic twin deficit and isn’t close to bringing its own budget into balance. The world would likely perceive new ‘interest-free’ dollars as just another way for America to continue its extravagant lunch out on everyone else’s tab. And the world might well be right.

Interest-free credit in truly large amounts are surely best issued at a global level, backed by the consensus and collective guarantee of humanity as a whole. Global credit should be created to fund activity we can all agree about: non-violent, socially-beneficial, ecologically sustainable work.

Such activity could be funded to a practically UNLIMITED extent. As long as inflation is kept in check, there’s no reason not to. By definition, it can do only good. Much of the world has effectively been in recession for most of the last two centuries. It’s long past time to put an end to an artificial constraint on financial capital that’s served the interests of private issuing authorities but left hundreds of millions destitute.

Capitalism and socialism can co-exist  on the same planet. In fact, they always have. They are more like yin and yang than enemies. Both must now fit within a new all-encompassing framework of comprehensive ecological sustainability. It’s possible to achieve this at a global level. We should do it.

How we ensure that global society is open, pluralistic, non-authoritarian, protective of minorities while respecting majority interests, how we ensure it’s suitably decentralized and genuinely democratic – these are vitally important questions that certainly need solid answers too.

One thing that’s clear is that global society must put an end to war – and to the unfair ‘advantage’ of militarily powerful states who parade their macho like alpha males in a colony of great apes.

To survive and be be prosperous in the long-term, we become fully human.

45 years ago, as young boy, I watched the murder of a US President on TV.

JFK: an Interrupted Legacy

The family gathered round our giant early 60s black and white cathode ray tube and followed the drama agog. Like most of the world, we were truly shocked and awed. The tragedy made a deep impression on me and countless others. It was one of those moments when the world seemed to stop, in astonishment and in fear.

Two days later, I watched as Lee Harvey Oswald, the President’s alleged assassin, was also shot in front of the cameras.

By that time in my life, I’d already seen a few murder mysteries on television and read a few children’s thrillers. When Ruby killed Oswald, I remember thinking this was no ‘normal’ plot. Something was very odd about the murder of JFK. Further episodes could be anticipated before the tale was told.

In the years that followed 1963, I grew into a young man and became quite politically active. At university ten years later I gravitated to people on the left. My main political passion, since my late teens, was the peace movement, but I was interested in social justice and environmental issues too.

Left-wing icon I.F. Stone: known for his saying 'Governments Lie', he defended the Warren Commission

While a student, I occasionally asked friends and mentors about JFK. I recall being told, to paraphrase, that JFK was ‘just another establishment capitalist robber-baron militarist’.  To the question: “Who killed JFK?”, a common answer was “Who cares?” I may have made similar quips myself from time to time. Such is the power of persuasion and apparent consensus, laced with a liberal dash of cynicism.

Later on as an adult, I remained interested in politics and world affairs. In the late 1980s, when the rigid old-style communist system in the USSR began to loosen up through Glasnost and Perestroika – and South Africa began a miraculous transformation from nuclear-armed apartheid State into one democratic nation led by Nelson Mandela – things definitely seemed to be on the up.

The descent back into war-oriented hell, in retrospect, started almost immediately. George Bush Senior’s hi-tech offensive against Iraq in 1990/1 was the first bell (allegedly, it overcame the ‘Vietnam defeat syndrome’). Then the Balkans slid into conflict and turmoil erupted in parts of an impoverished Russian nation.

Around the mid-1990s, a brief opportunity for reconciliation in Israel/Palestine flitted like a butterfly on a sunny moment between storms, but after the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin that prospect receded fast.

By the time George Bush II was ‘elected’ President (by the US Supreme Court) in late 2000, the optimism of the late 1980s had largely dissipated. No one was speaking of peace dividends any more. Far from receding, the war machine was clearly on the ascendant, yet again. It was alarming to imagine what might come next.

9-11: Project for a New Zionist Century?

We didn’t have to wait long. On September 11th 2001, I happened to be staying up late on a warm Australian evening, with the TV playing silently in the background as I typed away. Suddenly, Australian broadcasting switched programming to the CNN live feed. I hit the sound. The centralized programming reminded me of the Gulf War… but with a difference. This time, live on CNN, I was watching mass slaughter in the USA itself.

I was glued to the television most of the night and into the next day. But using my dial-up Internet connection, on this occasion I also explored the internet. Access to the net made an absolutely crucial difference.

To cut to the chase, within a few months I realized that the events of 9-11 were not as presented in the almost universally acknowledged ‘official version’.

Whatever did happen on 9-11, it certainly wasn’t that. The official story was bogus. Clearly three giant skyscrapers in NYC did not collapse as a result of fire. Co-ordination of this entire atrocity was not from a cave in Afghanistan. People were being asked to believe in utter absurdities: absurdities that justified new atrocities. Voltaire’s warning was coming true in front of my eyes.

It took a fair amount of time and effort – mainly using the Internet – to establish this for myself beyond a reasonable doubt. I had a lot of help on the way from others around the world who, in the first year after the 9-11 attacks, shared doubts and worked to discover the truth. The contribution of some of these people has not been adequately recorded.

Physics 9-11: an early torch-bearer for independent, scholarly 9-11 research

In particular, the Canadian mathematician Professor Kee Dewdney shone through to me, from the first time I encountered him, as a meticulously  honest and dedicated researcher with a brilliant analytical mind and remarkable personal courage. In those early days after 9-11, it was a frightening time to doubt. Bush had declared the world to be either with him or against. He railed against ‘outrageous conspiracy theories’. No one knew for sure, at the time, what the consequences of dissent might be.

Along with his network of scientists, Dewdney helped put in place the foundations of disbelief on which many others have subsequently built.

As I adjusted to my new reality as a ’9-11 sceptic’, the hardest thing to come to terms with was not the notion that Bush and his Administration were complicit in high crimes. Actually, I rather expected that – although not in not quite such spectacular fashion. My problem was coming to terms with the role of the mass media – and the other western intelligence agencies.

If I, with such limited resources, could figure out that 9-11 was bogus, how could they be so blind? Reluctantly, I came to the conclusion that they couldn’t be. I corresponded with journalists such as radio presenter Philip Adams in Australia, and the persistent lack of honest answers from people of his ilk helped me better appreciate the mass media’s propensity for serving as a gatekeeper of public opinion if given the signal to do so.

Case Closed, by Zionist author Gerald Posner

As well as understanding the broader socio-economic and cultural milieu in which something as huge as the 9-11 hoax could be presented as a fait accompli by the entire western mass media, I also felt the need to look backwards in time.

I wanted to understand whether 9-11 was the first major event to be systematically misreported – or if there had been others before. In that context, I decided to look again at the Kennedy assassination, at that time approaching its 40th anniversary.

I delved into some interesting literature. My first question was whether the ‘lone nut’ theory of the Warren Commission was, in fact, the truth – as claimed by conspiracy-debunker Gerald Posner in his well-publicized book Case Closed (published 1993).

Lee Harvey Oswald: obviously a 'patsy'

The more I looked at the basic known facts of the assassination, the more I came to believe the ‘lone nut’ theory was ludicrous. Oliver Stone’s famous movie JFK shows why, very effectively. Obviously more than three bullets were fired – so a single shooter theory is an impossibility. Since Oswald could not have killed the President on his own as claimed by the Warren Commissio, there was indeed a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy – and a cover up afterwards.

But who was behind the conspiracy? That was much harder to figure out. There were so many contradictory theories. Some seemed factually based and plausible. Others didn’t. The overall impression, as I delved deeper into the world of JFK assassination enthusiasts, was confusion. So many claims! So many people still, after more than 40 years, researching, postulating and debating. I almost came back to the conclusion I’d arrived at decades before – that while Kennedy may have been killed in a conspiracy, we’d most likely never know who was ultimately responsible. The fog of time was setting in…

Final Judgment: the riddle solved?

At some point in my investigations I came across Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper. Actually, I encountered Piper’s name on the web before I read his book. The first time was in the context of an article about Mr Piper being chased off a university campus and prevented from meeting a student group to discuss his book. Apparently he upset the local Jewish lobby, who called him an ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘Holocaust denier’.

On further inquiry, I leant that Piper’s book on the JFK assassination, Final Judgment, had never been available in mainstream bookshops – although it’s an underground best seller (now in its sixth edition).

Labels such as ‘anti-Semite’ put me off somewhat, in a way they don’t today. At that time, I was almost ready to close the page on anyone accused of such a shocking thing. I’d been well conditioned to regard anyone described in such terms as beyond the pale. I’m more cautious now.

Michael Collins Piper, author of 'Final Judgment'

Part of what loosened me up about this was participating in web forums where Israel and Palestine are debated. I found myself branded with the exact same terms of abuse even, if I’d never mentioned World War Two or uttered a single phrase that could possibly be construed as bigoted. Over time, my phobia of expressions such as ‘anti-Semite’ diminished. Rather than decide whether to read an author’s work on the basis of someone else’s say-so, I emboldened myself to read the material directly and make up my own mind. These days, I regard the term ‘anti-Semitism’ as an essentially meaningless slur.

JFK with brother Robert Kennedy; both murdered

When I finally read Final Judgment, it seemed to me Piper’s theory explains the known facts about the case – and related assassinations such as the slaying of Robert Kennedy in 1968 – more comprehensively and completely than anything I’d ever read. I snapped the book closed with an authentic ‘case closed!’ sensation.

Not that there aren’t loose ends about the JFK assassination. There are many. But in my judgment, Mike Piper has essentially solved the mystery. I believe the truth is out.

A President slain, democracy thwarted

The murder of President Kennedy was orchestrated by powerful figures in the World Zionist movement, in cahoots with a few leading figures in the State of Israel whose ‘intelligence agencies’ were also involved.

Since coming across Piper’s book, I’ve spent time on bulletin boards where the JFK assassination is still discussed. Everything I subsequently learned – and many of the debates I participated in – strengthened my impression that Piper is right. The case is essentially solved. I’ve come across new information that either supported or was at least compatible with his theory; I’ve encountered nothing that isn’t.

Piper is a few years younger than me. He must have been too young, when JFK was alive, to remember him first hand. That’s a pity, because Kennedy was inspiring, at least to my childish eyes. He seemed like a good guy.

From JFK to Johnson: a dramatic change in policy towards Israel

Now, looking back at some of Jack Kennedy’s speeches and media encounters, it’s clear what a bright spark that man really was. I came to understand that as a boy, I had not just witnessed the killing of an average President. What I’d really watched was a brutal coup d’etat which had removed from office of a very special President, whose greatest initiatives have arguably been forgotten.

Instead of presenting Piper’s thesis here, I’ll go one better. Several years ago, Michael Collins Piper sent me a paper entitled: Final Judgment: the Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.

It’s a superb, very clear and quite short exposition of the case made in Final Judgment! I published at the time, but soon after ceased maintaining that website.

I trust Mike Piper will not mind me re-publishing it now. Although several years old, it rings as true for me as when I first read it. This is an important paper that should be on the web. My apologies it’s been missing so long.

Those of you who wish to know more can get hold of Piper’s book through this website. You can also listen to his regular weekday radio show on Republican Broadcasting Corporation.

Judas Goats; a recent book by Mike Piper

A word about Mike Piper. Like me, he seems to have developed strong anti-war sentiments early in life. Unlike me, he entered a political milieu on the right-wing of (American) politics. His unapologetic associations, past and present, with people such as David Duke have for long been an easy way to discredit him in left wing and liberal circles, as well as on the ‘mainstream’ right.

I don’t share all of Piper’s views, but having listened regularly to his radio program since it came on air in early 2006 – and having read a substantial amount of his written material – I simply don’t believe he’s xenophobic.

Piper certainly is a very strong critic of Zionism – and of the Jewish culture within which Zionism is embedded and from which it sprang. He’s very knowledgeable about those topics and always seems keen to correct the record if merited. From I’ve observed, he has a very honest approach to journalism. He’s also highly courageous. Some of the most courageous Jewish anti-Zionist are among his associates. Above all, Mike Piper is an indispensable source of information about US politics and recent history.

Betrand Russell: warned the Warren Commission Report was rubbish

It is an indictment of the unthinking and uncritical Judeophilia of the ‘western left’ that for so many decades the left was unable to find anyone within its ranks to piece the JFK assassination story together, as Piper did some 15 years ago (to my satisfaction at least). In a way, I think it’s illustrative of the malaise of the western left. Its adherents are so tamed, managed, diverted and bamboozled that all too often they simply can’t see the wood for the trees.

Piper saw the wood – and was able to breach the right-left ideological divide more easily than most left-wingers. After all, the President he wrote about – JFK – was a liberal icon, scarcely popular on the American right. Piper worked his way through an extraordinary labyrinth of information, misinformation and disinformation to solve the mystery and cast new light on the history of those momentous times.

As someone on the left with many years of interest in peace and the peace movement, I was staggered to learn two key things about JFK that I never, ever knew until my inquiries began afresh after 9-11.

First, Kennedy was breathing down the neck of the Israeli Government trying to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. These fierce debates were kept out of the public spotlight and came to light only after some significant archival releases in the early 1990s. Piper was not the first author to write about this new material – but he was the first to match motive with means and opportunity, closing the evidentiary noose.

JFK - directly addressed the UN General Assembly

Second, in 1961, despite the Cold War and swag of other problems lobbed Kennedy’s way in his first year of office, he spoke in person to the General Assembly of the United Nations and put a proposal entitled Freedom from War: United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

This far reaching proposal was the first and only time, as far as I’m aware, that the leader of a modern nation has made a sweeping disarmament proposal to the entire world community.

Ironically, I found this speech and the State Department paper that accompanied it, not by reading a history of Kennedy written by any of the popular authors or even in Piper’s book. I discovered it initially on the website of an ultra-right wing American group, who presented it, with some glee, as evidence of a UN-led global conspiracy!

The collective amnesia of the western peace movement over Kennedy’s bold disarmament initiative seems remarkable to me. In Dallas Texas, a President was killed who:

1. was determined to stop Israel from becoming a nuclear-armed threat to its neighbours.
2. advocated global disarmament – and had a detailed plan to achieve it.

Why the blind spot on this very significant history?

David ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister: a key conspirator?

Seeing Kennedy murdered, as a boy, I now realise I was witnessing a crucial and brutal landmark in an old saga, the existence of which I didn’t suspect for another 40 years. It was a ‘culling’ – and cover up – that demonstrated the immense power of the Zionist lobby and its close inter-relationship with elements in the US Government and the American military industrial complex. It proved also that other ‘satellites states’ in the western world, such as Britain and Australia, can be relied upon not to squeal.

After Kennedy was shot, the State of Israel, then only 15 years old, was able to resume its single-minded scramble to become a military superpower.

Comprehensive initiatives for world peace also have been off the mainstream agenda ever since (Gorbachev tried briefly, but without enduring success).

Like the current President of Iran, I believe that the State of Israel should be ‘removed from the pages of time’. This is partly because I believe that Israel was behind the murder of a US President, a murder carried out in full view of the world.

Through its support network in the USA, setting out layer upon layer of disinformation, with a little more culling here and there, it has managed to avoid mainstream exposure for this crime, at least to the present day.

RFK assassinated in 1968 - another hit orchestrated by the Mossad?

Grasp this – and the extent of Zionist violence and trickery before and after 1963 falls into place. It also becomes plain how, since the early 1960s, support for Israel on Capitol Hill has become so universal and institutionalized. The killing in Dallas, to be precise, was not a coup d’etat; it was a crucial stage in a slow takeover of the American body politic.

I believe the Zionist network, in November 1963, was powerful enough – and brutal enough – to slay a US President in plan view and cover it up. No other network would have had the power to do all of that, even it is wished. Plenty of interests had a motive for killing JFK – and some could perhaps have carried it off. But only one network could cover up the crime afterwards and successfully shield the perpetrators for so long. Only the Zionist movement has the necessary influence in the mass media – and in other western countries.

It’s a grim thought that the Zionist network is better-connected now than then. Yet the glass isn’t just nearly empty. It’s also filling up…

In the 1960s, no one outside a few rarified circles suspected the Zionist leadership of a crime se egregious as the Kennedy assassination(s?). That’s not the case today.

Barak Obama

Today, the world is watching. One might say that the Zionists have gained our full attention.

The Obama inauguration is a few days away. Not since JFK has America elected such a young and popular President who symbolizes the hope of a new generation.

At this time, it’s too early to tell the type of President Barak Obama will turn out to be. He faces unprecedented challenges on a range of fronts. But through its violent assault on Gaza, Israel is imposing the Palestine crisis on his attention from the outset.

It’s possible Obama will be a latter-day Lyndon Johnson, betraying America’s interests and playing stooge to the Zionists.

On the other hand, he may take the more principled road traveled by JFK and stand up to this aggressive foreign lobby – struggling to secure a fair deal for the Palestinians and to roll back America’s bloated war machine.

If so, a grateful world will be watching the new President’s back very closely. The Mossad, on this occasion, would be well advised to do everything in its power to ensure the President’s safety.

The next time a US President who stands up to the Zionist lobby is physically attacked, Israel won’t be the last suspect that springs to mind.

It’ll be the first.
__________________________________

See Final Judgment: the Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy by Michael Collins Piper

I read that the latest crop of Hollywood movies includes a swag of World War Two stories, including yet more ‘Holocaust’ stories.

LA Times Reporter Joel Stein: proud that Jews run Hollywood

Can this be explained by the fact that the Jews who run Hollywood are almost certainly Zionists and militarists too?

Shocked to read such a phrase?

Why?

Although fewer Americans believe it than in times past, it is now quasi-official that Jews DO, after all, run Hollywood!

The man who announced this apparently verifiable fact is reporter Joel Stein of the LA Times. He’s rather proud of it too – leaving the US Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman in a state of some confusion and uncharacteristically quiet.

Poor old Abe! After giving Marlon Brando the drubbing of a lifetime for daring to say essentially the same thing in the 1990s, he’s now faced with a Jewish American reporter who clearly can’t be branded either an ‘anti-Semite’ or a ‘self-hating Jew’.

Abe Foxman, opinion enforcer

This is from Mr Stein’s article (emphases added):

“I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.”

He continues:

“The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

“As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment.”

This reported dominance is a most interesting and important phenomenon and Mr Stein is due some thanks for putting the information on the record.

Here’s a socially and economically inter-connected group of people with considerable overlap in ideological and political agenda, who’ve achieved effective control of the major ‘dreams industry’ of the western world. They create the absorbing, emotional fantasies that untold millions experience in any given year. They thereby play a major role in fashioning the ideological mindset of most westerners, over the course of almost our entire lifetimes, from childhood to dotage.

Schindlers List: a Tale of Horror and Redemption

As a group, these people decide which themes are given prominence – and which are not.

The War that Didn’t End

Even as the bloody 1939-45 War recedes yet further into the past – they decide to bring it back to the forefront of our attention, again and again and again.

Why does Hollywood have a World War Two fixation? What’s going on?

Some aver that the main goal of the Hollywood magnates is to re-enforce the official narrative of the Jewish ‘Holocaust’. It certainly does seem to be one of their goals, possibly the pre-eminent one.

The suffering of European Jews during World War Two was the primary justification given at the time for supporting the establishment of a ‘Jewish State’ in Palestine, despite strong opposition from the indigenous Palestinians and many of their supporters in the Arab world and beyond. The post war period was, after all, allegedly the era of decolonization. A new colonial project seemed perverse to many people in that broader context.

This is from an account of a Speech to the House of Lords in July 1946, by Lord Victor Rothschild:

“(Rothschild) started by again denying that he was a Zionist or connected with its intelligence operations, and then proceeded to make a near-emotional (for him), but always rational case for Jews being allowed to have their part of the partition.

“He pointed out that, in the worldwide tradition of the past few hundred years, pogroms were still going on, the latest as recently as July 1946 in Kielce, Poland. Rothschild reminded their lordships that ‘almost all the young Jews in Palestine had fathers, mothers and relations who were among the six million Jews tortured or gassed to death by Hitler’.

Since 1946, the ‘Shoah’ (commonly called ‘The Holocaust’ in the English language from the 1970s) has been a crucial ideological weapon used by and on behalf of the Israeli State. It has used to explain, justify and excuse its aberrant behaviour at almost every turn. It has also been a quite phenomenal source of funding for the State of Israel and related charities.

A British bulldozer moves corpses at Belsen Concentration Camp following the German defeat

Keeping alive the Rothschild/Hollywood Holocaust narrative certainly maintains this weapon in a well-honed and potent state – the more so because scholars are deftly deprived of the opportunity to consider or discuss the veracity of the Hollywood Holocaust narrative (on pain of career damage or even imprisonment in some western jurisdictions).

Even so, I don’t think ‘The Holocaust’ alone is a complete explanation for Hollywood’s infatuation with World War Two. There’s more.

Making Sure War Doesn’t End

There are anti-war voices in the American movie industry, I’m sure – but I think it’s fair to surmise that the Zionist studio bosses – like their counterparts in the news and current affairs mass media – are ‘pro-war’ Americans. That’s the say, they probably endorse a bloated US military machine and American Empire. Support for US militarism is probably exceeded only by their reflexive support for the State of Israel.

They have a practical problem. How to sell these political commodities to the public? It’s a bad time to be selling militarism. After all, it’s the militarization of America that is arguably responsible for its near bankruptcy. All Americans, for years to come, face shouldering the burden for a multi-trillion dollar US Government debt, largely accumulated by putting the costs of imperial over-reach on the slate. As far as Israel is concerned, America has no greater external financial parasite.

World War Two: A Great War we can all agree about

An obvious remedy for America is to relinquish grandiose, world-dominating ambitions and make deep and rapid cuts in America’s military expenditure, diverting investment to new civilian infrastructure, R & D, education and health. A servant cannot serve two masters. The USA cannot be an unpopular, isolated Imperial military mega-power and invest adequately in its long-term socio-economic and ecological prosperity.

But the Hollywood bosses don’t want American militarism to end abruptly. They want plenty more from the old beast before she expires. War and Empire are unpopular goods to sell at this difficult time. America is bleeding from two unresolved bloody occupations as well as an economic implosion. What to do?

World War Two: Hollywood's 'No Regrets' War

From a Hollywood perspective, it makes sense to head back for inspiration to the last universally-acclaimed ‘good’ war, the war that ‘everyone accepts’ America and its western allies truly ‘had’ to fight and win: World War Two.

No complex mixed feelings here (unlike the deeply unpopular Great War, the Vietnam War or the current Iraq and Afghani debacles). World War Two was a good and just war, wasn’t it? Successful too! The allies fought the ultimate evil, didn’t we? And we wiped that dreadful evil from the face of the earth. That’s a universally accepted fact, isn’t it?

World War Two, Hollywood-style, is a great consensual framework within which to weave new ripping yarns of heroism, daring, passion and victory. When the public goes to see World War two movies, everyone can relax. We’re watching war movies we can all feel good about. Westerners – above all Americans – are reminded that yes, we in the west truly are on the ‘right side’ of history. We’re the ultimate good guys, who defeated the ultimate evil – even if we get it wrong from time to time in less black-and-white conflicts. We’re ‘The Allies’, victors of World War Two. We vanquished the ultimate manifestation of evil: Hitler and the Nazis.

World War Two movies remind us of something else, perhaps even more significant. We’re reminded that there truly are times that nations ‘must’ fight. Hence we, in the west, must maintain a strong military ‘capability. There’s no realistic alternative…

Even the Russians agree with this narrative, broadly speaking. It unites Britain and France. And Germany? Does it ever agree! German mainstream discourse is even more passionate about this narrative than its Anglo-Saxon equivalent… and enforces ideological conformity more ruthlessly

Bogus history, retold again and again

The Second World War has been spun as the Great War of Human Redemption. Hollywood retells the story again and again. It’s a war story that almost always has a happy ending (I acknowledge a handful of fine anti-war World War Two have been made by Hollywood, such as Catch 22).

Thse days, does anyone disagree with this comfortable consensus about the ‘self-evident decency’ of the Allied side in World War Two?

Yes, some people do. But they are given little if any access to the mass media. They make no big budget movies. Quite a few of them are in jail.

That’s really the huge, yet untold story of World War Two – and it’s a blockbuster! World War Two is a war that’s not really part of normal history any more. World War Two has become a religion. Now that’s a story!

The Redeeming War?

Over the decades since 1940, the Second World War has been packaged and repackaged as the Great Historical Myth of the ‘Just War’, the war we absolutely had to fight, the ‘Righteous War’ our immediate ancestors fought and won – to redeem humanity as a whole!

In my heretical opinion, this is no less a lie than the Hollywood myth that Israelis are always good guys and Palestinians always baddies (here’s a brain teaser: name one pro-Palestinian movie made by Hollywood in 60+ years!)

Defiance: one of Hollywood's latest crop of World War Two movies

Before the Second World War, there was no CIA or other centralized American ‘spy agency’ on the British model; afterwards, a plethora of US spook networks were established, eroding previously treasured personal and democratic freedoms.

Before the Second World War, there was no globally-extended American Empire. Today there are hundreds of US bases around the world.

Before the Second World War, there was no State of Israel. Nor was such an entity a likely prospect from the vatage point of early 1939. The British Mandatory power had come to view establishment of a separatist Jewish State in Palestine as mistaken and unjust. It developed plans for Palestine’s future, set out in a widely supported White Paper, that aimed to ensure respect for the human, cultural and religious rights of all its inhabitants.

In many, many ways, World War Two was a crucial geo-political upheaval – as well as a bloodbath on an unprecedented scale. It bears serious examination. As a pivotal historical event, it’s far too important to turn into mere fantasy.

A Better World Order is Overdue

I accept that not all the fruits of the Second World War were sour. It’s possible to regard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an outcome of the war. The United Nations is another generally benign post-war initiative, in my opinion.

The dramatic changes in international institutions implemented at the conclusion of World War Two proved durable. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the post-war world has been unequal – at least until now – to the task of reforming the international framework established at that time. The stasis has become intolerable. Strong pressures are building for some major changes – and since the 2008 financial meltdown, talk of fundamental reform of the financial institutions established at Bretton Woods has gained a sense of urgency. The Security Council is also in obvious need of reform.

One key initiative was inconceivable – on practical grounds alone – in 1945. Now it isn’t. It should be on the agenda, although the major nation states are unlikely to put it there without grass-roots pressure.

I have in mind establishment of a third chamber, that goes beyond the UN framework as such, since the United Nations by definition is a product of co-operation between nation states.

At present the core institutions of the UN are a General Assembly (of nations) and a Security Council (mainly a club for the most powerful nations).

The whole world in our hands

What’s missing is a third chamber elected by global popular vote that can obtain a direct mandate from the people of the world, proportionate to the actual population.

Over time, more responsibility for ecological and macro-economic management could – subject to appropriate safeguards – be ceded to this Global Popular Assembly.

It alone can be genuinely representative of humanity as a whole.

When raking over the coals of World War Two, there’s at least one other key decision of the era to revisit: the establishment of an apartheid Jewish State.

Abolish Apartheid Israel!

It was a historical wrong turning that must be looked at again – along with the history of the World War itself.

Humanity has no need for closed books or forbidden fruits.

Equally, while the past cannot be changed, there’s no past mistake that we cannot strive to undo in the interests of a better future.