| Written by Yggdrasil | |
| Tuesday, 06 November 2007 | |
| I dimly recall quite a fuss back in 1959 (I was quite young then) about Jack Kennedy and the question of "dual loyalty". The media declared loudly and publicly that many people questioned whether Kennedy owed his first allegiance to the United States, or to the Vatican. |
The Pope seemed a "lord spiritual" in every respect, lacking any of the normal appurtenances of a "lord temporal", such as a standing army. Indeed, if one listened to the Pope or any of his Bishops, it was awfully hard to discern any worldly objective which a president of that faith might entertain that conflict with the worldly interests of the United States.
After all, the Vatican did not receive $5 billions per year in aid from the U.S. Treasury.
Indeed, it was hard to understand why a Catholic should be treated differently from a Methodist or Presbyterian. Kennedy's religion (or lack thereof) seemed far more relevant to the question of his character and the kinds of moral values that might weigh in his decisions. The temporal interests of Rome seemed a bit distant.
Further, conspiracies cannot be concealed for long, and there was no hard evidence of any such thing by the Catholic Church.
Not so with the Jews!
There clearly is at least one international conspiracy, and it is run directly by the State of Israel.
Here is a short quote from the book "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky (St. Martin's, 1990), formerly a Colonel in the Israeli intelligence service "Mossad."
Beginning on page 86:
"The next day Ran S. delivered a lecture on the sayanim, a unique and important part of the Mossad's operation. Sayanim - assistants - must be 100 percent Jewish. They live abroad, and though they are not lsraeli citizens, many are reached through their relatives in Israel. An Israeli with a relative in England, for example, might be asked to write a letter saying the person bearing the letter represents an organization whose main goal is to help save Jewish people in the diaspora. Could the British relative help in any way?
"There are thousands of sayanim around the world. In London alone, there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on the list. They fulfill many different roles. A car sayan, for example, running a rental agency, could help the Mossad rent a car without having to complete the usual documentation. An apartment sayan would find accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank sayan could get you money if you needed it in the middle of the night, a doctor sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to the police, and so on. The idea is to have a pool of people available when needed who can provide services but will keep quiet about them out of loyalty to the cause. They are paid only costs."
Continuing on page 87
"Suppose during an operation a katsa suddenly had to come up with an electronics store as a cover. A call to a sayan in that business could bring 50 television sets, 200 VCRs - whatever was needed - from his warehouse to your building, and in next to no time, you'd have a store with $3 or $4 million worth of stock in it."
"Since most Mossad activity is in Europe, it may be preferable to have a business address in North America. So, there are address sayanim and telephone sayanim. If a katsa has to give out an address or a phone number, he can use the sayan's. And if the sayan gets a letter or a phone call, he will know immediately how to proceed. Some business sayanim have a bank of 20 operators answering phones, typing letters, faxing messages, all a front for the Mossad."
And on page 88:
"Katsas in the stations are in charge of the sayanim, and most active sayanim will be visited by a katsa once every three months or so, which for the katsa usually means between two and four face-to-face meetings a day with sayanim, along with numerous telephone conversations. The system allows the Mossad to work with a skeleton staff. That's why, for example, a KGB station would employ about 100 people, while a comparable Mossad station would need only six or seven."
On page 221, Ostrovsky gives an example of what a Sayan can be expected to do for Israel's Mossad:
"The Mossad already had considerable information about the Exocet, thanks in part to a sayan who worked at Aerospatiale and had passed along details. They had also conducted a small operation, sending a team to break into the plant accompanied by a missile expert flown in from Israel for the occasion. He was taken into the plant "with handles," and materials brought to him for his expert opinion. His task was to determine what they should photograph. The team spent four and a half hours inside the plant before leaving without a trace."
It is a crime, a felony, for a civilian to participate in spying operations in this manner.
Israel's Mossad is exposing tens of thousands of Jews around the world to considerable legal risk, and the sayanim, being sophisticated business people, surely know this. If that is so, then why does this system work? Why is the risk acceptable?
Here is Ostrovsky's answer from Page 87:
"One thing you know for sure is that even if a Jewish person knows it is the Mossad, he might not agree to work with you-but he won't turn you in. You have at your disposal a non-risk recruitment system that actually gives you a pool of millions of Jewish people to tap from outside your own borders. It's much easier to operate with what is available on the spot, and sayanim offer incredible practical support everywhere."
Now one might suggest that, for example, Great Britain could use a similar system and recruit among WASPS around the world. But they don't, because they can't. It takes an extraordinary degree of racial solidarity and racial motivation for such a "non-risk recruitment system" to work properly. Remember, all of these activities are spying, with long prison terms if caught. Americans of English, Irish and Italian ancestry may have some residual loyalties to the old "mother country." But this residue is nothing like the racial solidarity of the Jews. Such racial feelings are so strong and so pervasive among Jews that the Mossad knew in advance that their recruitment system was "non-risk." Britain, Ireland, Italy and the Vatican know better than to try.
While it may be true that Americans of English, Irish and Italian ancestry have dual loyalties, these white gentile dual loyalties are nothing like the degree of race-based loyalty possessed by the overwhelming majority of Jews. You have it on the authority of Mossad!
Ostrovsky explains, beginning at the bottom of page 122:
"We took the Brits seriously, but everyone in the building used to say they were probably deluded because of "the Bitch." That's what they always called Margaret Thatcher inside the Mossad. They had her tagged as an anti-Semite. There was one simple question asked when anything happened: "Is it good for the Jews or not?" Forget about policies, or anything else. That was the only thing that counted, and depending on the answer, people were called anti-Semites, whether deservedly or not."
The problem is that Jews do not have dual loyalties!
90% of Jews have a single loyalty. The loyalty is not necessarily to Israel, but to the welfare and power of Jews generally. That is the only thing that matters. The only question that ever gets asked is; "How will this affect Jews?" No other interests are taken into account at all!
Indeed a corollary of "dual loyalty" is the goyish notion that if you sacrifice to help others, they will reciprocate. If someone helps Jews, there should be a reward.
European gentiles assume that comity and reciprocity are inherent in the psychological makeup of all humanity. Not so, according to Ostrovsky (page 231):
"The relationship between the Mossad and Danish intelligence is so intimate as to be indecent. But it's not the Mossad's virtue that is compromised by the arrangement; it's Denmark's. And that's because the Danish are under the mistaken impression that because they saved a lot of Jews in World War II, the Israelis are grateful and they can trust the Mossad."
No matter what you do for Jews and no matter how assiduously you toady to their interests, they will never respect yours.
That explains why destructive welfare state policies thrive despite 40 years of soaring black illegitimacy rates and the deepening destruction of the black family and community in America. Does the policy harm blacks! Of course! But that is irrelevant. Welfare dependence has created a block that votes 90% for candidates friendly to the welfare state and to Israel. Would blacks be better off as tradesmen and entrepreneurs with stable families? Of course, but then there would be no easy way to control their votes. The hopeless dependency of most blacks increases the political power of Jews. That is why the policy continues.
There is no comity, reciprocity or sense of obligation (dual loyalty) that causes Jews to moderate their attack on America's blacks. Now you might ask why Clinton, the "best friend Israel has ever had at the White House", would sign welfare reform. The answer is the same. The white illegitimacy rate has reached 25%. Millions of white girls in suburban and rural areas are going on AFDC while their skin-head boyfriends camp with them at night. There is no way our masters are going to use the tax dollars at their disposal to finance the creation of Dr. Pierce's 10 million man army 20 years from now!
It is one thing to fool 40% of Euro-Americans who have jobs and pay taxes into believing they can get something out of the system. It is quite another to subsidize the creation of a dangerous subculture with real dollars. Jews just don't make those kinds of mistakes. Ways can be found within the bureaucracy to continue welfare to blacks. Hence Hillary Clinton's campaign to "fix" welfare reform.
A classic illustration of this phenomenon comes from a book entitled "Special Tasks" (Little-Brown, 1994, 1995) written by Pavel Sudoplatov and his son Anatoly.
Lieutenant General Pavel Sudoplatov was Joseph Stalin's NKVD director in charge of stealing atomic secrets. He reported directly to Beria.
From page 172:
"The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American Atomic Bomb - Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Leo Szilard."
Robert Oppenheimer was the director in charge of the Manhattan project.
From page 186-87:
"When it became clear that the atomic project was a heavily guarded, top-secret American priority, Eitingon and I suggested that we use our networks of illegals as couriers for our sources of information. Vassili Zarubin, our Washington rezident, instructed Kheifetz to divorce all intelligence operations from the American Communist party, which we knew would be closely watched by the FBI, and to have Oppenheimer sever all contacts with Communists and left-wingers."
On page 188:
"In 1943, a world-famous actor of the Moscow Yiddish State Art Theatre, Solomon Mikhoels, together with well -known yiddish poet Itzik Feffer, toured the United States on behalf of the Jewish Antifascist Committee. Before their departure, Beria instructed Mikhoels and Feffer to emphasize the great Jewish contribution to science and culture in the Soviet Union. Their assignment was to raise money and convince American public opinion that Soviet anti-semitism had been crushed as a result of Stalin's policies. Kheifetz made sure that the message they brought was conveyed to Oppenheimer. Kheifetz said that Oppenheimer, the son of a German-Jewish immigrant, was deeply moved by the information that a secure place for Jews in the Soviet Union was guaranteed. They discussed Stalin's plans to set up a Jewish autonomous republic in the Crimea after the war was won against facism."
Beria understood the psychology of unitary loyalty perfectly!
Continuing on page 189:
"In developing Oppenheimer as a source, Vassili Zarubin's wife, Elizabeth, was essential. She hardly appeared foreign in the United States. Her manner was so natural and sociable that she immediately made friends. Slim, with dark eyes, she had the classic Semitic beauty that attracted both men and women, and she was one of the most successful agent recruiters, establishing her own illegal network of Jewish refugees from Poland, and recruiting one of Szilard's secretaries, who provided technical data."
Oppenheimer's rationale was "fear that the Germans might produce the first atomic bomb." But all he had to do to beat the Germans to the punch was to build the bomb for America. And indeed, that would have been the natural result of "dual loyalties." He could have helped Jews and remained loyal to America at the same time.
But then helping America was not in the calculus at all. As Beria understood perfectly, he was concerned only with one unitary question; "How does this affect Jews?" And the answer was that just as organizing the blacks and browns to vote their antagonistic racial interests is critical to maintaining Jewish power over whites in the 1990's, giving the atomic secrets to Russia was the one way to reduce the power of whites in America in the 1940s and 50s. Oppenheimer's naive view (prior to the creation of the Israeli State) was that a nuclear armed Russia would provide one more possible haven for Jews with the power to protect them.
The goyim in our OSS (the forerunner of the CIA) would have assumed "dual loyalty" and concluded that Oppenheimer presented no security risk.
They were dead wrong, as Beria clearly understood.
So now the question becomes: - How many sayanim does it take to "occupy America"?
Is Madeline [Kerbel] Albright (nominee for Secretary of State) a Sayan?
Is William Cohen (nominee for Secretary of Defense) a Sayan?
Is William Berger (nominee for National Security Agency chief) a Sayan?
Is Anthony Lake (nominee to head CIA) a Sayan?
Is Robert Rubin (secretary of Treasury) a Sayan?
Is Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Federal Reserve) a Sayan?
Are these reasonable questions to ask?
In truth, of course, it is somewhat unlikely that these people, by far the most powerful group in the United States, would agree to spend their time schlepping TV sets for Mossad, or divulging secrets. They can do far more to serve Jewish interests by guiding U.S. economic, diplomatic and defense policies to serve Israel and Jewish interests than they ever could through risky behaviors like divulging classified data.
In fact, these people are in a far better position to put pressure on Israel than Israel is to put pressure them.
Are the people named above capable of articulating U.S. interests (as opposed to Jewish interests) on an intellectual level?
Of course! Quite skillfully, in fact!
Are they capable of acting upon those interests (our interests)?
That is a much tougher question. For a majority, it appears that the answer is clearly "no" if Jewish insterests might also be involved. The psychological and emotional ties within the group are so strong, and they are so powerfully alienated from the white gentile majority that their decisions and actions will never match their words. Just as Oppenheimer's actions failed to square with his words.
Clinton's cabinet and the media moguls who control him are likely to have their own strong views on the question "Is it good for Jews, or not?" And they are not likely to take orders from Israel. Does that mean there is no "conspiracy'?
Other than the publicly documented spying and extortion operations run by the State of Israel, there probably isn't one. Rather, what we have is an obsessive concern for the interests of Jews and a psychological inability to represent the interests of others that is shared by such an overwhelming majority of Jews, that their uncoordinated actions appear pre-planned.
Colonel Ostrovsky notes in "By way of Deception" that Israel and its supporters have a concept of the relation between media and government that is powerfully at odds with our own Anglo-Saxon tradition that inspired the First Amendment.
From page 290:
"As usual in these affairs, the journalism fraternity in Israel knew about the operation all along-or at least, they knew what the Mossad and the prime minister's office wanted them to know - but they agreed to withhold the story until they were given leave to print it. There is a committee of editors, called the Vaudat Orchim, of all the major media outlets in Israel that meets regularly with government officials for background briefing on current events. Israeli television is government controlled, as is all but one rogue radio station, so that broadcasting is never a problem to control."
The Jewish - SDS flirtation with "free speech" at Berkeley in the 1960's was a temporary romance of convenience. Culturally, they are more comfortable with a "Vaudat Orchim" and controlled news.
Is Laurence Tisch (CEO of CBS,) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Robert Sarnoff (RCA and NBC) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
How about Jeff Zuker (executive producer of NBC Nightly news)?
Is Jeff Sagansky (head of CBS entertainment division) a Sayan? A member of a Vaudat Orchim?
Is Stuart Bloomberg (head of entertainment programming at ABC) a Sayan? How about Vaudat Orchim?
Is Brandon Tartikoff (Paramount Pictures) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Gerald Levin (Time Warner Communications) a Sayan? Perhaps part of a Vaudat Orchim?
Is Michael D. Eisner (Walt Disney Co.) a Sayan? Or a Vaudat Orchim member?
Is Martin S. Davis (Paramount Communications) a Sayan? Or a Vaudat Orchim, perhaps?
Is Peter Chernin (20th Century Fox Film Corp.) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
How about Sandy Grushow (Fox Entertainment)? Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Peter Guber (Columbia Pictures Entertainment) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Sumner Redstone [Murray Rothstein] (Viacom, MTV, Nickelodeon) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
Is Lew Wasserman (MCA Inc.) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Ron Nessen (MBS radio news) a Sayan? - or a Vaudat Orchim?
How about Samuel and Donald Newhouse (31 newspapers, 12 broadcast stations, 87 cable systems, Parade, New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, etc.)?
Sayanim?
Is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (New York Times, 33 additional papers, 7 radio and TV broadcasters a cable company and three book publishers) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
Is Katherine Meyer Graham (Washington Post, Newsweek) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
Is Peter Kann (Dow Jones & Co, Wall Street journal) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
How about Mortimer B. Zuckerman (New York Daily News, U.S. News &World Report, Atlantic Monthly)?
Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Do these people, and dozens more in similar positions meet to discuss how to manage the news? Again, the truth is probably not. Why?
Simple. They already know what messages must be censored and what events are newsworthy. They already know what to cover and what to leave on the cutting room floor. Except on rarest occasions, they do not need to be told what to do.
Each of these men will have his own passionately held convictions about what kinds of news and entertainment for goyim will best serve Jewish interests. These are not the type of men who would obediently follow instructions from Isreal. But then the deep racial paranoia and the intense loathing of Christianity that is taught to most Jews as children at the dinner table ensures that many Jews will pursue careers in media (such careers are "good for Jews") and will know what to do when they get to the top of a network. They generally do not need to be told!
And that, gentlemen, is the significance of "unitary racial loyalty" that exists among 90% of this world's Jews.
Pat Buchanan once referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli Occupied Territory."
Can we justifiably say that we live in "Occupied America?"
No need to make up your minds yet. Might as well wait for parts two and three of the "Occupied America" series.
Then you can be the judge!
Source: ZioPedia.org
No comments:
Post a Comment