Laurent
Laurent
Laurent
Laurent Guyénot
translated from French by
Kevin Barrett
CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1: THE PEOPLE OF SETH
The Birth of Israel
Ezra the Proto-Zionist
Hasmonean Literary Production
Kenites, Midianites, and Arabs
Cain and Abel as mirror images of Seth and Osiris
Osirism versus Judaism
Chapter 2: THE THEOCLASTIC GOD
Jealousy and Narcissistic Hubris
No Goddess for Yahweh
From Deicide to Genocide
The Plunder of the Nations
The Levitic Tyranny
Endogamy and Monotheism
Chapter 3: THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD
Death and Culture in the Antique World
Biblical Materialism
Biblical versus Heroic Cultures
The Eternal People
Chapter 4: THE LAST HERO
Jews, Greeks, and Romans
Jesus, Rome, and Jerusalem
Anastasis
The Return of Osiris and Isis
The Return of Yahweh
The Miracle of Constantine
The Levitical Vatican
Chapter 5: THE WANDERING CRYPTO-JEW
The Jews and Europe in the Middle Ages
Forced Conversions in Spain and Portugal
The Marrano Dispersion
Marranos and the Church
Assimilation or Dissimulation?
Chapter 6: THE IMPERIAL MATRIX
The Two Sides of Albion
The Triumph of Puritanism
The Disraeli Enigma
The Gestation of Zionism
The Balfour-Rothschild Declaration
The Treaty of Versailles
ENDNOTES
PREFACE
The book you are about to read is a major contribution not only to that overspecialized field
known as the History of Religions, but also to its more generalized sibling, the History of Ideas.
It is cultural critique of the first order. It is timely, of such relevance to current events as can
hardly be overstated. And yet it could never be published by a major publishing house in any
English-speaking country.
Why not? After all, in our Brave New World, destructive criticism of almost everything
under the sun is permissible, if not encouraged or even required. Brutal, not particularly
sophisticated attacks on Islam, Christianity, religion in general, the Pope, Mother Theresa, public
decency, and indeed almost every traditional value are ubiquitous, regularly appearing in
publishers’ catalogues and bestseller lists, and assigned as required reading in universities and
book clubs. How, in such an anything-goes atmosphere, can a scholarly interpretation of
ideological history be so controversial as to be virtually unpublishable? How can a book about
the history of the idea of God pose such problems in the year of our Lord 2018?
The answer is simple: This book traces the evolution of the concept of God through its
relationship to Jewish tribal power. And the rulers of our Western world have made one thing
abundantly clear: though God may be criticized, Jewish power must not be.
But what is Yahweh, the earliest known God of the Abrahamic monotheists and their
descendants, if not an embodiment and representation of Jewish tribal power in general, and that
of Jewish elites in particular? How can we think about what monotheism means in the era of the
clash of civilizations without considering this foundational question?
In From Yahweh to Zion, Laurent Guyénot uncovers a mind-virus endemic to Judaism, yet
present to greater or lesser degrees in Christianity and Islam as well: a conception of God that
stubbornly clings to tribalism and all that it entails, rather than surrendering absolutely to
universalism. This misconception of God as tribal shibboleth provides a powerful weapon in the
ideological arsenals of unscrupulous elites, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. And it may
have mutated and hidden itself inside the secularist fundamentalisms that are substitute religions
for the modern educated classes.
When an Iraqi Muslim bombs innocent civilians in a mosque or market, an American
Christian flies a drone bomb into a wedding party in Afghanistan, or a secular French policeman
forces a Muslim woman to remove her one-piece bathing suit, we may detect an atavistic
tribalism driving the perpetrators of these acts to defile, subjugate, or destroy other peoples and
their gods, as per the orders of the Old Testament god Yahweh. For though not all ethnocentric
intolerance derives from Yahweh—such episodes have occurred in the histories of all peoples—
the Yahwist cult has left its mark on the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic worlds, and thereby on
the world at large, in an especially destructive way. Outbreaks of Old Testament fundamentalism
have correlated with many of our worst conquests, subjugations, and genocides—from the Wars
of Religion to the Native American holocaust to the settler colonial annihilations and
subjugations of the peoples of Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and (more recently) Palestine.
And in today’s postreligious age—unofficially inaugurated by what National Medal of Science
winner Lynn Margolis called the “most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the
history of public relations” on September 11, 2001—a hidden Yahwism seems to guide the
hands of allegedly secular elites as they plot their new crusades.
Recognizing our own implication in such ideas and events can be difficult, even painful. But
it may also be necessary. Having come to Islam in 1993, and adopted its revisionist account of
Old Testament folklore and mythology as my own, I find Guyénot’s critique of Yahwism
disquieting and challenging. But I also find it useful, especially in understanding my
coreligionists’ lapses into tribalism and intolerance. ISIS, which lashes out at other religious
approaches and their adherents as if they were false gods and idolaters, is a facile example. But
many mainstream Muslims who would never dream of joining ISIS sometimes act as though
fellow Muslims who take a slightly different path to God are mushrikîn (idol worshippers) rather
than coreligionists and fellow human beings. The takfiris of ISIS and similar groups mirror the
self-righteous, Yahwistic sides of ourselves.
Though Guyénot’s argument could easily be caricatured as simplistically antimonotheistic
and propolytheistic, I would not subscribe to that reading. Guyénot draws a portrait of Yahweh
as psychopathic father whose war on idolatry amounts to an amoral, self-aggrandizing extinction
of the other. Though such a reading may be largely warranted by the Old Testament and the
Talmud, I don’t think it applies to the monotheistic religions of Christianity or Islam, at least not
to the same degree. And there are aspects of Biblical tradition that cut in the opposite direction,
notably those highlighted by René Girard in numerous writings such as The Scapegoat (1986).
Girard suggests that monotheism’s anti-idolatry impetus stems largely from its half-
conscious understanding that polytheistic “religions” are, in the final analysis, cults of human
sacrifice. Thus, according to the Girardian reading, the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his
son is less about inculcating blind obedience to Yahweh than about ending the polytheistic pagan
practice of sacrificing one’s own children to the likes of Moloch. We could extend Girard’s
insight to encompass Muhammad’s war on Meccan idolaters who buried their baby girls alive
and sacrificed to monstrous gods around a defiled Kaaba in search of wealth and power for
themselves and their cronies.
Such practices still exist, though they are no longer widespread. In today’s North and West
Africa, the practice of human sacrifice to gods or jinn by people seeking wealth and power
continues on the margins of society, where it has been consigned by the reigning monotheism.
Similar abominations apparently persist among so-called dark shamans in parts of Latin America
as well as in the satanic cults of Europe and America. Such are the “idol worshippers” denigrated
in the most reliable monotheistic scripture, in my view, the Holy Qur’an.
But if there is a positive or at least defensible side to monotheism’s hostility to polytheism
and idolatry, it does not form part of Guyénot’s analysis in this book—which could be accused
of one-sidedness in other ways as well. For example: Where, one may ask, are the countless
examples of noble, selfless Jewish behavior? What about all the wonderful Jewish high achievers
in science and the arts? Where are the standard accounts of the endless gratuitous persecutions
Jews have suffered everywhere they have settled? Is there not at least some truth to the
stereotype of the Jew as eternal victim?
The answer to such objections is simple: Those stories have been endlessly told and retold in
all the dominant media of the postwar West. Yet nowhere are they questioned; nowhere are
alternative accounts proposed; nowhere are the viewpoints of those who found themselves in
conflict with Jewish tribalism given fair consideration. Every historical conflict between Jews
and goyim is assumed to be the fault of the goyim. If a man quarrels with everyone in his life—
his neighbors, his boss, his coworkers, those he meets on the street—and then insists that all of
those people are persecuting him for no reason whatsoever, few of us would take him at his
word. Yet we unquestioningly accept such interpretations of interactions between Jewish and
non-Jewish communities, whether due to lack of curiosity or fear: fear of being called names, of
being socially ostracized, of possibly even being deprived of our livelihood.
It is long past time to stop fearing and start thinking. This book’s task is to provide a
plausible revisionist interpretation of critically important questions, not to echo conventional
tropes in hopes of appearing “fair and balanced.” By venturing boldly into forbidden territory,
Laurent Guyénot forces us to think, freshly and critically, in a way that our culture habitually
deems off-limits. A staunch antiracist, Guyénot makes it abundantly clear that he is critiquing
ideas, not biology. And unlike much of the shrill, even hysterical “anti-Semitic” writing lurking
in disreputable corners of the internet, this book is far less tendentious than the dominant
discourse it critiques. Fair-minded yet unflinching, it is a magisterial work by an uncommonly
erudite historian, and deserves the widest possible readership.
–Kevin Barrett
INTRODUCTION
“The destiny of the Jewish people appears to the historian as a paradoxical and incredible
phenomenon, almost beyond comprehension. It is unique and without equivalent in the history of
mankind,” writes French author Alexandre Roudinesco.1 Such commonplace assertions are hard
to refute.
To explain what makes the Jewish people so special, and Jewish identity so enduring,
without resorting to the notion of divine election, one has to agree that the Bible has played a
major role. (I use the word “Bible” for the Jewish Tanakh, the Old Testament of the Christians.)
Jews around the world have drawn from the Bible pride in their history and confidence in their
destiny, no matter what hardship they may endure.
Whether Jewishness is defined as religious or ethnic, its roots are in the Bible. Therefore, its
essence must be sought there. Whether he has read it or not, whether he judges it historical or
mythical, every Jew ultimately bases his Jewishness on the Bible—or whatever he knows about
the Bible. This venerable corpus—which includes the five “Books of Moses” (the Pentateuch, or
Torah), the Historical Books, and the Prophets—constitutes the unshakable foundation of both
Jewish religion and Jewish identity. (The Talmud is only a commentary on the Bible, and does
not fundamentally alter its core ideology). From a religious viewpoint, the Bible preserves the
memory and the essence of the Covenant with God that the believer internalizes. From an ethnic
viewpoint, the Bible is the foundational collective memory of the Jewish people, and the pattern
by which Jews interpret their whole subsequent history (the Dispersion, the Holocaust, the
rebirth of Israel, and so on). Any nation is a narration, and what makes the Jewish nation special
is ultimately what makes the biblical narration special. The Bible has always been the “portable
fatherland” of the Diaspora Jews, as Heinrich Heine once put it. But it also became and has
remained the heart of Israel, whose founders did not give it any other Constitution.
It is true that the earliest prophets of political Zionism—Moses Hess (Rome and Jerusalem,
1862), Leon Pinsker (Auto-Emancipation, 1882), and Theodor Herzl (The Jewish State, 1896)—
did not draw their inspiration from the Bible, but rather from the great nationalist spirit that
swept through Europe at the end of the nineteenth century. Pinsker and Herzl actually cared little
whether the Jews colonized Palestine or any other region of the globe; the former considered
land in North America, while the latter contemplated Argentina and later Uganda. More
important still than nationalism, what drove these intellectual pioneers was the persistence of
Judeophobia or anti-Semitism: Pinsker, who was from Odessa, converted to Zionism during the
pogroms that followed the assassination of Alexander II; Herzl, at the height of the Dreyfus
affair. Pinsker, a medical doctor, regarded Judeophobia as a hereditary and incurable “disease
transmitted for two thousand years,” and he characterized the Jews as “the people chosen for
universal hatred.”2 The most recent manifestation of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany was the
justification for the creation of Israel in 1948. And it is still today one of the pillars of Jewish
identity throughout the world, as documented in Yoav Shamir’s excellent film Defamation
(2009). Indeed, since the end of the 1960s the Holocaust has become the source of a new secular
version of the Election—the belief that Jews are God’s chosen people. Yet, as we shall see, the
Holocaust resonates deeply with the Bible.
Fundamentally, as its very name indicates, Zionism is a biblically inspired project: Zion is a
name used for Jerusalem by biblical prophets. Although officially a secular ideology, Zionism
was, from the start, biblical to the core. Avigail Abarbanel makes the point in a text meant to
explain to Israelis why she has given up her Israeli citizenship: “Let’s say you did ‘return home’
as your myths say, that Palestine really was your ancestral home. But Palestine was fully
populated when you started to covet it. In order to take it for yourself you have been following
quite closely the biblical dictate to Joshua to just walk in and take everything. You killed, you
expelled, you raped, you stole, you burned and destroyed and you replaced the population with
your own people. I was always taught that the Zionist movement was largely non-religious (how
you can be Jewish without Jewish religion is perplexing in itself). For a supposedly non-religious
movement it’s extraordinary how closely Zionism—your creator and your blueprint—has
followed the Bible. Of course you never dare to critique the stories of the Bible. Not even the
secular amongst you do that. None of my otherwise good teachers at my secular schools ever
suggested that we question the morality of what Joshua did. If we were able to question it, the
logical next step would have been to question Zionism, its crimes, and the rightness of the
existence of our very own state. No, we couldn’t be allowed to go that far. It was too dangerous.
That would risk the precarious structure that held us in place.”3
The founders of the Yishuv (Jewish communities settled in Palestine before 1947) and later
the founders of the new State of Israel were steeped in the Bible. From their point of view,
Zionism was the logical and necessary end of Yahwism. In Ben-Gurion, Prophet of Fire (1983),
the biography of the man described as “the personification of the Zionist dream,” Dan Kurzman
entitles each chapter with a Bible quote. The preface begins like this: “The life of David Ben-
Gurion is more than the story of an extraordinary man. It is the story of a biblical prophecy, an
eternal dream. […] Ben-Gurion was, in a modern sense, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, a messiah who
felt he was destined to create an exemplary Jewish state, a ‘light unto the nations’ that would
help to redeem all mankind.” For Ben-Gurion, Kurzman writes, the rebirth of Israel in 1948
“paralleled the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the land by Joshua, the Maccabean revolt.”
Yet Ben-Gurion had no religious inclination; he had never been to the synagogue, and ate pork
for breakfast. He liked to say that “God did not choose Israel; Israel chose God,” and he quoted
Joshua 24:22 to back it. According to the rabbi leading the Bible study group that he attended,
Ben-Gurion “unconsciously believed he was blessed with a spark from Joshua’s soul.” He had
been captivated by ancient history since his childhood, and changed his name David Grün to that
of a Jewish general fighting the Romans. “There can be no worthwhile political or military
education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible,” he used to say.4 He wrote in
his diary in 1948, ten days after declaring independence, “We will break Transjordan [Jordan],
bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight
—we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo,” then he adds: “This will be in revenge for
what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during biblical
times.”5 Three days after the Israeli invasion of the Sinai in 1956, he declared before the Knesset
that what was at stake was “the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon.”6
Prophecy is part of the biblical mindset. In a statement published in the magazine Look on
January 16, 1962, Ben-Gurion predicted that in the next twenty-five years: “All armies will be
abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United
Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this
will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated
continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”7 That program is running late, but it has not changed. How
could it? It is printed in Isaiah! Christians find hope in the prophecy that, one day, people “will
hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles. Nations will not lift sword
against nation, no longer will they learn how to make war” (Isaiah 2:4). But more important to
Zionists are the previous verses, which describe these messianic times as a Pax Judaica, when
“all the nations” will pay tribute “to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the god of Jacob,”
when “the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem,” so that Yahweh
will “judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples.”
Ben-Gurion’s attachment to the Bible was shared by almost every Zionist leader of his
generation and the next. Moshe Dayan, the military hero of the 1967 Six-Day War, wrote a book
entitled Living with the Bible (1978) in which he biblically justified the annexation of new
territory. Even the nuclear policy of Israel has a biblical name: the Samson Option. On March 3,
2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dramatized in front of the American Congress his
deep phobia of Iran by referring to the biblical book of Esther (the only Bible story that makes no
mention of God). It is worth quoting the heart of his rhetorical appeal for a US strike against
Iran: “We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly
to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the
book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy
the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther,
exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet
another Persian potentate to destroy us.”8 Netanyahu managed to schedule his address to the
Congress on the eve of Purim, which celebrates the happy end of the book of Esther—the
slaughter of 75,000 Persians, women and children included. This recent and typical speech by
the head of the State of Israel is clear indication that the behavior of that nation on the
international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible’s underlying
ideology. Such is the main objective of this book.
The first three chapters probe the heart of the Hebrew Bible. They set out to extract its
ideological substratum, unveiling the process by which Yahweh, through the voices of his
priests, prophets, and scribes (the “cognitive elite”)9 shaped the vision and collective psychology
of his chosen people. Christians have their own reading and particular conception of the Old
Testament—a “religious,” second-degree reading—that differs from the Jewish reading, and that
impedes their understanding of Jewish identity. We must consider the biblical tradition in its
original context in order to grasp its revolutionary and corrosive character.
Chapter 4 then examines the genesis of Christianity and its medieval evolution, while chapter
5 analyzes the evolution of the Jewish people in its relation to Christendom. The major turning
point of this story is the expulsion of Sephardic Jews from the Iberian Peninsula in the fifteenth
century, and their forced mass conversions to Christianity, followed by the pitiless hunt for the
“false Christians” thus generated. These traumatic events radicalized Jewish anti-Christianity,
and played a critical role in the upheaval of the old world, as Jewish historians alone have
correctly apprehended. Chapters 6 through 9 shed light on world events from the nineteenth to
the twenty-first centuries by focusing on the influence of Ashkenazi Jews in Central and Western
Europe and then in North America. The “deep history” of networks, secret diplomacy,
clandestine operations, psychological warfare, and propaganda reveals the decisive steps in this
process, which launched a struggle for the soul and destiny of humanity. This book will highlight
a “project” that has been ongoing for over a hundred years, marked by four world wars and
culminating in the programmed destruction of the Arab-Muslim Middle East, the final
installment. The two concluding chapters (10 and 11) provide a summary and synthesis,
proposing theoretical models capable of handling the empirical data, and presenting a conception
of history that recognizes the crucial role played by the Jewish people. These chapters, like the
preceding ones, will rely mainly on Jewish authors, whose views on these questions are often
much more relevant than those of conventional non-Jewish historians.
This book is a critical approach to “Jewishness” as a system of thought—a representation of
the world and the self—essentially an idea. I am critiquing this idea by exposing its dangerous
irrationality, nothing more. Even if it were as old as the world, any idea would deserve critique.
Since the first victims of a toxic idea are the men and women who believe it, they are the first I
wish to help liberate. Trying to understand Jewishness entails dealing with the nature of the
Election, the Holocaust, and Israel, for they are the three “invisible walls” of the “Jewish prison,”
according to French journalist Jean Daniel’s personal testimony.10 If there is a moral judgment in
the following pages, it is directed at the elite who have built this prison throughout the ages, and
kept its key.
For today, just like yesterday, Jewishness is an identity shaped by the elite, as it has always
been. The dominant ideology among world Jewry is, by definition, the ideology imposed by the
dominant Jews, the cultural and religious elite intimately associated with the political and
financial elite. “The evils of Israel are the evils of leadership,” wrote Jewish publisher Samuel
Roth in Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on All the
Frontiers of Civilization (1934). He blames all the suffering of the Jews on “the stupendous
hypocrisy and cruelty imposed upon us by our fatal leadership.” “Beginning with the Lord God
of Israel Himself, it was the successive leaders of Israel who one by one foregathered and guided
the tragic career of the Jews—tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations
who have suffered them. […] despite our faults, we would never have done so much damage to
the world if it had not been for our genius for evil leadership.”11 This book will show that the
submission of the Jewish people to the self-proclaimed representatives of Yahweh—and to their
ideology— is the essence of biblical ethics. Even though the biblical narrative itself presents the
Hebrew people as often rebellious and reverting to their “abominable” natural leaning toward
fraternization with their neighbors, Yahwist ideology, which forbids intermarriage with the
goyim, always seems to have the final say.
Today, under the influence of a new elite, composed mostly of sons and grandsons of rabbis,
Jewishness tends to merge with Zionism. Being Jewish had always been synonymous with being
part of “Israel,” but now “Israel” has taken on a new meaning. Jewish identity is no longer
defined as belonging to a people or a religion, but as loyalty to a particular Middle Eastern state.
The efforts of Jewish authorities to condemn anti-Zionism as a disguise for anti-Semitism (Israel
has become “the Jew of nations,” claims Paul Giniewski in Antisionisme: le nouvel
antisémitisme, 1973) are only the counterpart of their efforts to convince all Jews that Zionism is
a nonnegotiable part of their Jewishness. When Rabbi Josy Eisenberg writes in an editorial for
the French magazine L’Information juive, “Except for a few Jews—alas sometimes negationists
—love for the State of Israel is today the only common point of all Jews,” he means it less as an
observation than as an injunction: each Jew is required to love Israel or he will be deemed traitor
to his own Jewish identity, that is, a “self-hating Jew.” At minimum, adds Eisenberg, “there is
today a moral imperative not to add our voice to the detractors of Israel, and to always temper
our critiques.”12
I do not ignore the fact that, like the ghettos of bygone days, the “Jewish prison” has also
been a refuge. As an even greater paradox, it can be argued that the prison has incited great
creativity among the prisoners most determined to free themselves; true freedom is, perhaps,
only available through escape. If so many Jews have left their mark on worldwide cultural
history, it is obviously not in spite of their Jewishness. Instead it is often in an antagonistic
relationship to it, or at least in a determined effort to move beyond it. These Jewish geniuses are
very different from the communitarian elites, even though the latter try to appropriate and profit
from the posthumous fame of the former. The archetypal example is Baruch Spinoza,
excommunicated by the rabbis during his lifetime, now lionized as the greatest Jewish thinker.
Almost without exception, the Jewish geniuses have been anticommunitarian, critical of Judaism,
and, in the twentieth century, anti-Zionist. Today the Jewish mental prison consisting of
victimization (Holocaust worship and fear of anti-Semitism) and guilt (blackmail-driven loyalty
to Israel) has become so oppressive that those who wish to escape must first exhaust themselves
breaking down the walls.
This book is, above all, the result of a sincere effort at cognitive empathy. I have read from a
wide range of schools of thought, but among them I have given the greatest importance to Jewish
writings. These have greatly influenced my vision of Jewish culture and its worldwide impact,
leaving me today with the dispassionate conviction that Judaism and the Jewish people have
been, throughout history, in their very antagonism to Gentile cultures, and sometimes in a brutal
and tragic way, a dynamic factor of evolution. No Christian, indeed, could deny that fact without
ignoring Jesus’s background.
This book will deal with Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history, Jewishness, and Jewry
(the Jewish community). I adopt for all these terms nominalist definitions, the only ones that
suffer no objection: “A Jew is a person who considers him/herself a Jew and is so considered by
others,” to quote Raphael Patai.13 Likewise, Jewishness is nothing but what Jews think of it. I am
dealing with these notions exclusively from a cognitive viewpoint; my research is about beliefs,
ideology, mental frameworks, and representations. For example, the fact that the majority of
modern Jews define their Jewishness as ethnic rather than religious is, from the standpoint
adopted here, a cognitive fact, nothing more. Whether genetic studies prove them right or wrong
is not the point, for ideology is independent from biology.
The thesis of this book is also independent from the question of the Bible’s dating. That the
majority of Jews and non-Jews think it is three thousand years old is just another cognitive fact.
The nature of the Bible is in its content, not its age. Yet the historical context of its birth and
growth, as informed by scholarly research, can be enlightening. Such is the subject of the first
chapter.
Finally, the argument of this book is independent from the question of the existence of God
—a question that presupposes a consensual definition of “God,” an impossible task. Let it be
said, however, that the author holds as self-evident that the Universe is endowed with
Intelligence; for how could man, otherwise, be intelligent? Philosophers figured that out more
than two thousand years ago.14 The unfathomable mystery of that Cosmic Power of Truth and
Love, without which human brotherhood is a vain idea, cannot be contained in a book or a set of
dogmas. As for Yahweh, I consider him nothing more than the main character of a saga written
by several generations of priests and scribes for their own advantage. Yet, as an idea cultivated in
the collective psyche of millions of people for tens of centuries, it is certainly endowed with
great spiritual power.
All Bible quotes are taken from the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible, which has not altered the
divine name YHWH into “the Lord,” as most other English translations have done for
unscholarly reasons. I make only one alteration to this authoritative translation, for reasons that
will be apparent later: I write “god” rather than “God” when the word is used as a noun rather
than a name, as in “the god of Israel.” For example, where the NJB arbitrarily differentiates
“Chemosh, your god” from “Yahweh, our God” in Judges 11:24, I do not.
Chapter 1
THE PEOPLE OF SETH
“I shall shake all the nations, and the treasures of all the nations
will flow in, and I shall fill this Temple with glory, says Yahweh
Sabaoth. Mine is the silver, mine the gold! Yahweh Sabaoth
declares.”
Haggai 2:7–8
Biblical Materialism
Unlike the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman traditions, the Hebrew religion is
hostile to any imaginary form of the hereafter. In the Hebrew Bible, one would search in vain for
the idea that the dying man will meet his Creator: the life of each of the patriarchs ends simply
by mentioning their place of burial. About Jacob, it is said that, “breathing his last, he was
gathered to his people” (Genesis 49:33), but nothing suggests here anything more than a
conventional euphemism. Jacob, in any case, does not join Yahweh. In fact, Yahweh does not
seem to reside in any other place than the earthly Jerusalem Temple. Reflecting a Sethian vision
of life and death, the Judaic tradition knows nothing of the funerary myths so popular in other
cultures, whose heroes explore the Other World.
Hope of a better life and fear of divine retribution in the hereafter are absent from the Bible.
When, in Isaiah 38, King Hezekiah “fell ill and was at the point of death,” he supplicates
Yahweh to lengthen his physical life, not to welcome his spirit. “I have heard your prayer and
seen your tears,” Yahweh answers. “I shall cure you: in three days’ time you will go up to the
Temple of Yahweh. I shall add fifteen years to your life” (38:5). The Song of Hezekiah that
follows clearly states that Sheol holds no promise of any real life and that it is not even under the
rule of Yahweh. Once dead, Hezekiah laments, “I shall never see Yahweh again in the land of
the living.” “For Sheol cannot praise you, nor Death celebrate you; those who go down to the pit
can hope no longer in your constancy. The living, the living are the ones who praise you, as I do
today” (38:11–19).
We note in passing that biblical materialism goes together with the absence of any
transcendent conception of the complementarity of the sexes. In the Bible, the male-female
relationship is entirely absorbed in the conjugal and the parental, that is, the social realm.
Yahweh does not say to Adam and Eve, “Let love open your hearts and unite your souls,” nor
anything of the kind, but instead, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis
1:28). Such an implicit devaluation of Eros, elsewhere celebrated as potentially magical,
initiatory, or mystical, puts a damper on one of the most beautiful promises of the human
experience. This is in turn, of course, related to the injunction of endogamy, since the
transcendence of Eros is one of the foundations of exogamy. Consanguinity is not conducive to
rapturous infatuation.
The so-called polytheistic peoples place their fundamental hopes in an otherworldly
Promised Land. It may be represented as a remote island, a high mountain, a subterranean or
underwater world, but the point is that it is not accessible to mortals, to fleshly beings, except for
the handful of mythical heroes who have ventured there and come back alive. This otherworldly
Paradise is often endowed with a miraculous spring or a “tree of life,” that provides eternal life
and youth. It is Mag Mell, “the Plain of Happiness” where we remain young and beautiful, in
Irish mythology; or the “World of the Living, where there is no death, no lack, no sin.”83 No such
hope is given by Yahweh to his people. The Promised Land of the Jews is an accessible
geographical place situated between the Nile and the Euphrates; it is a destiny that is exclusively
terrestrial and collective. Yahwism has focused all his people’s hope on this earth, where,
obviously, neither milk nor honey really flows. After the Jealous God and the Chosen People, the
Promised Land is the third pillar of biblical Judaism.
In fact, the Yahwist scribes have taken the universal mythic theme of the blessed afterlife for
the virtuous dead and turned it on its head; they have transferred this paradise (Pardès, the
Garden) and its tree of life, the future hope of each man, into a past lost forever for all mankind.
And there they have staged the drama introducing into the world the double scourge of death and
labor; for death in their eyes bears no promise, and labor produces no spiritual merit. It is only in
punishment of his transgression in the Garden that Yahweh declares to Adam: “By the sweat of
your face will you earn your food, until you return to the ground, as you were taken from it. For
dust you are and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). By the same spirit of contradiction, the
serpent, associated throughout the Near East with the chthonian divinities but also with revealed
or intuitive knowledge (the gnosis of the Greeks), is likewise the object of an inversion: when it
offers to the first humans the means of acquiring knowledge and to “be like gods” (Genesis 3:5),
it borrows the language of initiatory mysteries; but the Bible presents the serpent as a liar.
Yahweh is hardly a god, if we define a god as a creature of the Other World. He is heard
strolling in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8), but that’s because the Garden is an earthly place,
just like the Promised Land. Yahweh is more a king than a god, which is precisely why the
biblical Levites are always in conflict with the Judean and Israeli kings. According to the
Levites, Yahweh alone, ideally, should be king (an invisible king speaking through his appointed
ministers); human kings are tolerated as long as they strictly conform to Yahweh’s will (that is,
to the Levites’ command).
The Yahwist denial of the afterlife is linked to the Egyptophobia that permeates the Torah.
But it is also historically linked to the rejection of Baal, who was for the inhabitants of Syria
what Osiris was for the Egyptians: both god of fertility and lord of the dead. This is why the
persistence of the cult of Baal is associated in the Bible with necromancy: “The history of the
ancient Israelite conceptions of afterlife is closely related to the struggle between Yahwism and
Baalism,” Klass Spronk explains. The absence of any speculation on the afterlife in the Hebrew
Bible is due “to the fear of becoming entangled in the Canaanite religious ideas about life and
death.”84
Nevertheless, these religious ideas seem very much alive among Hebrews resisting Levitical
orthodoxy. It is said that the Israelites worshiped and offered sacrifices to a bronze serpent called
Nehushtan, supposedly built by Moses, until Hezekiah “smashed” it (2 Kings 18:4). “They
committed themselves to serve Baal-Peor, and ate sacrifices made to lifeless gods,” we read in
Psalm 106:28. The prophet Isaiah condemns those who “consult ghosts and wizards that whisper
and mutter” or “the dead on behalf of the living” (8:19). Yahweh chastises his people for
“constantly provoking me to my face by sacrificing in gardens, burning incense on bricks, living
in tombs, spending the night in dark corners” (65:3–4). Deuteronomy expressly forbids the
activity of “soothsayer, augur or sorcerer, weaver of spells, consulter of ghosts or mediums, or
necromancer. For anyone who does these things is detestable to Yahweh your God” (18:11–12).
Leviticus confirms: “Do not have recourse to the spirits of the dead or to magicians; they will
defile you. I, Yahweh, am your God” (19:31). Whoever breaks this rule must be put to death
(20:6–7 and 27).85 In the eyes of the historian, the prohibition proves the practice; all these
passages leave no doubt about the reality of the cults of the dead condemned in derogatory terms
by the priests and prophets of Yahweh. These practices included offerings of food to the dead,
incubation on graves, and other means of communicating with the hereafter.
According to a likely etymology, “religion” (from Latin religare, “to bind”) serves to bind
man to the transcendent. It holds him upright by pulling him heavenward. Man therefore exists in
vertical tension between the natural and supernatural worlds, between his biological destiny
(survival through progeny) and his spiritual destiny (survival through death). Yahweh is the god
who cut this vertical bond and turned man’s attention exclusively toward the material world.
This fundamentally materialistic nature of ancient Hebraism has often been pointed out by
historians of religion: the rewards promised by Yahweh to those who “fear” him are entirely
material—to be “full of days,” to have numerous offspring and a great fortune. Man’s only
survival is through generation, or blood descent, according to the Torah. This explains the
asymmetry between the myth of Osiris and its biblical reflection in the story of Cain and Abel: it
is not Abel’s soul that suffers, but rather his blood “crying out to God from the ground” (Genesis
4:10). Nor is there any resurrection, since Seth-Yahweh is the god of death—meaning
annihilation, not resurrection. Therefore the assassinated Abel must be “replaced” by a third
offspring of Adam and Eve.
Circumcision reinforces this primacy of the physical. God said to Abraham: “You for your
part must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you, generation after generation.
This is my covenant which you must keep between myself and you, and your descendants after
you: every one of your males must be circumcised. You must circumcise the flesh of your
foreskin, and that will be the sign of the covenant between myself and you. As soon as he is eight
days old, every one of your males, generation after generation, must be circumcised, including
slaves born within the household or bought from a foreigner not of your descent. Whether born
within the household or bought, they must be circumcised. My covenant must be marked in your
flesh as a covenant in perpetuity. The uncircumcised male, whose foreskin has not been
circumcised—that person must be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant” (Genesis
17:9–14). Circumcision, as “the sign of the covenant,” perfectly symbolizes the unspiritual
nature of Yahwism. As a mark in the flesh somehow transmitted from father to son, it is like a
superimposed genetic trait, a Yahwist gene. Spinoza was on the mark when he wrote: “I attribute
such value to the sign of circumcision, that it is the only thing that I esteem capable of assuring
an eternal existence to this nation.”
Certainly, in the Hellenistic period, Greek dualism infiltrated the so-called Jewish “wisdom
literature,” which features the voice of Sophia, sometimes assimilated to the Logos. Thus, the
Book of Wisdom, written in Greek in Alexandria in the first century BCE, asserts that “God
created human beings to be immortal,” and criticizes those who “do not believe in a reward for
blameless souls” (2:22–23). But such texts are the exceptions confirming the rule. They form
part of the brief parenthesis of Hellenistic Judaism, which was vigorously repressed by
Talmudism and would only be saved from oblivion by Christian copyists. And even within this
Hellenistic Judaism, the materialist viewpoint prevailed. According to Ecclesiastes, “The living
are at least aware that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing whatever. No more wages
for them, since their memory is forgotten. […] there is neither achievement, nor planning, nor
science, nor wisdom in Sheol where you are going” (9:5–10). In fact, “the fate of humans and the
fate of animals is the same: as the one dies, so the other dies; both have the selfsame breath. The
human is in no way better off than the animal—since all is futile. Everything goes to the same
place, everything comes from the dust, everything returns to the dust” (3:19–20).
The book of Job conveys the same message: there will be no hoped-for consolation when
Job’s suffering finally ends. “If man once dead could live again, I would wait in hope, every day
of my suffering, for my relief to come” (Job 14:14).86 Alas! “There is always hope for a tree:
when felled, it can start its life again; its shoots continue to sprout. […]. But a human being? He
dies, and dead he remains, breathes his last, and then where is he? […] A human being, once laid
to rest, will never rise again, the heavens will wear out before he wakes up, or before he is roused
from his sleep” (14:7–12). As the only reward for his fidelity to Yahweh, Job gets a 140 year
reprieve on earth, numerous offspring, “fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a
thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand she-donkeys” (42:12).
It is true that between the first century BCE and the first century CE, the idea of the
“resurrection” of the dead made its entry into Maccabean literature, written in Greek for the
greater glory of the Hasmonean dynasty founded by the Maccabees. The Greek word anistanai
literally means “to rise, awaken, get up,” and anastasis means awakening. It is therefore the
opposite of “to lie down/fall asleep,” the conventional Hebrew euphemism evoking the death of
kings (“he fell asleep with his ancestors,” 1 Kings 14:31, 15:24 and 16:6, or 2 Kings 14:29),
while the Greek texts prefer koimao, also “fall asleep” (as in the case of the stoned Stenus of
Acts 7:60). The notion of resurrection was applied to the horribly tortured martyrs of the
resistance against the Seleucid emperor Antiochus. Then it was extended to all mankind and
postponed till the end of time in the book of Daniel: “Of those who are sleeping in the Land of
Dust, many will awaken, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting disgrace. Those
who are wise will shine as brightly as the expanse of the heavens, and those who have instructed
many in uprightness, as bright as stars for all eternity” (12:2–3). Such a vision is taken directly
from the Greco-Roman ideal of the hero, right down to its vocabulary. The transfiguration of the
good dead into a “body of light” is a common religious motif in Hellenistic culture and beyond.
But the rabbinic imagination will mostly ignore that aspect, and rather stick to the idea of the
coming back to life of the physical corpse out of its tomb, with its limbs reconstituted. In such a
grossly materialistic expectation, there is no need, and hardly any space, for an immortal soul.
Besides, even the resurrection at the end of the world has always remained somewhat marginal
within the rabbinic tradition, which accepts the authority of the book of Daniel, but rejects the
books of Maccabees. In the twelfth century, the great Maimonides evokes the “resurrection of
the dead” at the end of time, in the last of his thirteen articles of faith, but this belief has never
been developed in the Talmud.
Eventually, by another of these inversions, which are the trademark of Judaism, after the
birth of Christianity, Talmudic rabbinism adopted by imitation the belief in the immortality of
the soul, but in a restrictive form: only Jews have a divine soul, the soul of Gentiles being
“equivalent to that of animals” (Midrasch Schir Haschirim). If “God created the akums [non-
Jews] in the form of men” rather than beasts, says the Talmud, it is “in honor of the Jews. The
akums were created only to serve the Jews day and night without being able to leave their
service. It would not be appropriate for a Jew to be served by an animal; instead, it should be by
an animal with a human form” (Sepher Midrasch Talpioth).87 There were always Jewish scholars
to defend the immortality of the soul in a less polemical form, but they still borrowed it from
Christianity. Here is what Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz said of one of them, Joseph Albo, a
native of Soria in Spain in the first half of the fifteenth century: “It is a remarkable fact that Albo,
who thought that he was developing his religio-philosophical system exclusively in the native
spirit of Judaism, placed at its head a principle of indubitably Christian origin; so powerfully do
surroundings affect even those who exert themselves to throw off such influence. The religious
philosopher of Soria propounded as his fundamental idea that salvation was the whole aim of
man in this life, and that Judaism strongly emphasized this aspect of religion.” On the other
hand, Albo is fully Jewish when he gives obedience to 613 religious prescriptions as a recipe for
eternal happiness.88
Finally, when in the eighteenth century Moses Mendelssohn defended belief in the
immortality of the soul—a necessary condition for the elevation of humanity according to him—
he would in no way rely on the Jewish tradition. Instead he produced a dialogue in the style of
Plato, entitled Phaedo or the Immortality of the Soul (1767).
Biblical versus Heroic Cultures
One of the most important aspects of man’s relationship to his dead is hero worship. No better
definition has been given of the hero than Lewis Farnell’s: “The hero in the Greek religious
sense is a person whose virtue, influence, or personality was so powerful in his lifetime or
through the peculiar circumstances of his death that his spirit after death is regarded as of
supernatural power, claiming to be reverenced and propitiated.”89 Basically, a hero is a man to
whom a community acknowledges its debt, and worshipping the hero is the way it pays off its
debt. There are as many types of heroes as types of debts. A heroic cult can be born directly from
popular fervor or from an official institution, such as the oracle of Delphi in Greece or the Senate
in Rome.
Greece is the heroic civilization par excellence. Heroic cults can be traced back to the birth of
the polis in the eighth century. They persisted during the Hellenistic period and continued
thereafter.90 At the time the Gospels were written, Carla Antonaccio writes, Greece was
“saturated with heroes.”91 And it was not just Greece: the divinized dead exist in all traditional
cultures, and certainly throughout the Mediterranean.
Heroes embody their societies’ contradictions and traumas, and open the way for
transcending them. Every heroic legend affirms human freedom in its dialectical relationship
with divine power. Heroism is a humanism insofar as it glorifies the man who surpasses his
limits, transgresses the established human rules, and sometimes even goes so far as to defy the
gods. That is why the heroic is intimately linked to the tragic. But heroism is also the affirmation
of the presence of the divine in the human, which is why the heroic paradigm is the cloth from
which myth is woven. By the will of the gods, the hero has escaped death-as-annihilation, and
various versions of his legend present different narrative representations of that victory:
resurrection (he “wakes up” after falling “asleep”); transfiguration (his body is supernaturally
transformed); or simply ascension (he is miraculously transported to the hereafter). The mythic
vision is always paradoxical, since it affirms that the dead are alive.
The heroic ideology implies that certain beings are not only the children of their parents, but
also possess something extra, a supplement of soul, that comes to them from a special bond with
divinity. This bond is often understood as adoptive: the hero is the twice-born man whose second
birth is by the grace of a god. But the legendary process, working backwards, often brings the
miraculous back to the conception of the hero. His connection with the divinity, which
distinguishes him from ordinary men, is then imagined as genetic: it is the god himself who
conceived the hero with a mortal. The term “son of god” thus becomes a synonym of “demigod”
in Greek mythography since Hesiod. Myth-making can go one step further and make the hero a
god temporarily descended among men.
Quite logically, the Hebrew Bible ignores the religious concept of the immortal hero, with a
single exception: Elijah, who is seen by his disciple Elisha carried in a “chariot of fire drawn by
horses of fire” and “ascending to the heavens in a whirlwind,” to never reappear again (2 Kings
2:11). But the classical motif of the hero transfigured by death, resplendent with light, is here
clearly atrophied, a mere fossil or residue of heroic ideology covered by biblical antiheroism.
We also find traces of a belief in immortality in the mention of a cult on Samuel’s tomb, to
which Saul resorts, in order to have the prophet’s ghost “rise from the earth” and “disclose the
future” (1 Samuel 28:3–19). This episode recalls Ulysses conjuring up the spirit of the
clairvoyant Tiresias in the Odyssey (Song XI). But the biblical author has covered this story with
reprobation: not only has Saul already been condemned by Yahweh at this stage, but the priestess
attached to the tomb of Samuel (pejoratively termed a sorceress) only bends to his demand
against her will.
It is significant that both Elijah and Samuel are heroes from the northern kingdom of Israel.
The tomb of Samuel in Shiloh was a famous place of worship and pilgrimage. All the burial
places of the judges mentioned in the book of Judges, whose references hint at their importance
as religious sanctuaries, are also located in the North.92 Samaria also hosts Joseph’s tomb, as well
as the well of Jacob known to Jesus (John 4:6), located precisely where Jacob’s bones were
buried according to Joshua 24:32. This is evidence that before the usurpation of Israel’s cultural
heritage by the Yahwist priests of Judea, the people of Israel worshiped their heroic dead, and
that such rites still survived in the North despite prohibition by the Jerusalem priesthood.
There are also in the Bible residual stories of heroes being conceived by gods. The most
obvious case is the nephilim of Genesis 6, those giants conceived by the “sons of the gods” with
the “daughters of men.” Who are “the heroes of the past, those famous men”? This passage is
evidently an echo of the “fortunate heroes” mentioned by Hesiod in Works and Days (172). What
is therefore significant is that the passage seems written expressly to deny their immortality,
since Yahweh reacts to these hybrid unions by proclaiming: “My spirit cannot be indefinitely
responsible for human beings, who are only flesh; let the time allowed each be a hundred and
twenty years” (6:3).
The biblical redactors integrated other legendary narratives of supernaturally conceived
heroes, but they did so in a demythologized and satirical fashion. One example is the story of
Samson—another hero of the North—a sort of Hercules capable of defeating a thousand men
with the “jawbone of a donkey” (Judges 15:15). An “angel of Yahweh” announces to Samson’s
future mother, the wife of Manoah: “You are barren and have had no child, but you are going to
conceive and give birth to a son.” The wife goes to find her husband to tell him of this visit from
a “man of God […] who looked like the Angel of God, so majestic was he.” Suspicious as any
husband would be in such circumstances, Manoah asks to see the stranger, and when his wife,
visited again, calls him to introduce him to her visitor, Manoah asks him: “Are you the man who
spoke to this woman?” (“speaking” sounds like a euphemism). Manoah then invites him to share
a meal, “for Manoah did not know that this was the Angel of Yahweh” (13:3–15).
The conception of Isaac, son of Abraham and Sarah, is strangely similar. Again, it is hard to
resist the impression that we are dealing here with a parody of Greek nativities of demigods.
Abraham is sitting near his tent in the middle of the day when he saw a noble man and his two
companions standing by. He greets them respectfully: “‘My lord,’ he said, ‘if I find favour with
you, please do not pass your servant by. Let me have a little water brought, and you can wash
your feet and have a rest under the tree. Let me fetch a little bread and you can refresh yourselves
before going further, now that you have come in your servant’s direction.’ They replied, ‘Do as
you say.’ Abraham hurried to the tent and said to Sarah, ‘Quick, knead three measures of our
best flour and make loaves.’ Then, running to the herd, Abraham took a fine and tender calf and
gave it to the servant, who hurried to prepare it. Then taking curds, milk and the calf which had
been prepared, he laid all before them, and they ate while he remained standing near them under
the tree. ‘Where is your wife Sarah?’ they asked him. ‘She is in the tent,’ he replied. Then his
guest said, ‘I shall come back to you next year, and then your wife Sarah will have a son’”
(Genesis 18:1–10).
We see here Abraham offering hospitality to a powerful man, and the man proposing to
return the favor by conceiving with Sarah a son for Abraham, knowing the couple to be sterile.
Such a reading is not far-fetched, since a little further, Judah asks his son Onan to sleep with his
sister-in-law Tamar “to maintain your brother’s line” (Genesis 38:8). It is only later in Isaac’s
conception story that the guest is identified with Yahweh, and his companions with “angels”
(malachim): “Yahweh treated Sarah as he had said, and did what he had promised her. Sarah
conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the time God had promised” (21:1–2).
Meanwhile, the very same two “angels” were sent to Sodom and received hospitality from
Lot, Abraham’s nephew. Hearing of it, “the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people
without exception” wanted to seize them, saying to Lot: “Send them out to us so that we can
have intercourse with them” (19:4–5). To which Lot answered: “Look, I have two daughters who
are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, for you to treat as you please, but do nothing to
these men since they are now under the protection of my roof” (19:8). It is hard to decide
whether we should read this story as an obscene parody of the belief in angels and spirits. It is
strange in any case that the heroic motif of the fertile union of a god with a mortal is associated
with a story of angels targeted for sodomy.
In conclusion, the biblical scribes strongly disliked the heroic ideology that grants the noble
dead a blessed immortality and a role in enhancing the welfare of their community. Yahwist
religion erased this ideology from ancient legends, but not to the point of making it undetectable
by historical criticism. Contrary to a widespread idea, the denial of the individual soul in the
Hebrew Bible is not an archaism dating back to a stage when men had not yet developed this
concept. On the contrary, it is a revolutionary ideology, aggressively set against a universal
belief that is probably as old as humanity, judging by funerary archeology. Critical analysis of
the biblical legends proves that the Yahwist editors deliberately eliminated every notion of heroic
immortality from the traditions that they appropriated from the ancient kingdom of Israel. This is
easily seen in the account of Abel’s death, when Yahweh says to Cain, “Listen! Your brother’s
blood is crying out to me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). Spilled blood crying for vengeance is
metaphorical, but the metaphor is not the product of poetic skill; rather, it is a distortion of the
common motif of the murdered soul crying for vengeance. Abel has no soul, no eternal spirit; his
blood is all that is left of him. Therefore, it must be his blood that cries out.
Biblical antiheroism is profoundly antihumanist. The heroic imagination, while admitting the
communion of the human with the divine, grants man great freedom in relation to the gods.
Heroes are the authors of their own accomplishments, whether as warriors, conquerors,
legislators, builders, or simply thinkers. But the Moses of Exodus, the perfect man according to
Yahwism, takes no initiative; he merely repeats slavishly what Yahweh tells him (like Abraham,
who does not object to the divine order to sacrifice his son). Far from drawing from his own
wisdom the laws that he gives to his people, Moses contents himself with receiving them from
Yahweh already engraved in stone. (His only contribution, in fact, is to break the tablets).
The materialism inherent in Judaism has profound consequences in Jewish mentality. Among
these consequences, Karl Marx identifies the immoderate pursuit of financial power: “Money is
the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods
of man—and turns them into commodities.”93 By their perfection of usury, which has now
resulted in the transformation of money into debt and its complete dematerialization, Jews have
somehow endowed money with a virtually supernatural power. It is as if the spiritual world in
which the Jew does not believe has been replaced by a spiritual world of his own making: a
spiritualization of matter that is actually an inverted spiritual world, since instead of linking man
to heaven, it chains him to earth. Jewish political adviser Jacques Attali, who credits the Jewish
people with making money “the single and universal instrument of exchange, just as he makes
his God the unique and universal instrument of transcendence,” also points out that in Hebrew,
“currency” (DaMim) is the same word as “blood” (DaM, plural DaMim), and rejoices in this
“dangerous and luminous proximity.”94
The Eternal People
The heroic ideology implies that man, at his best, is not merely the fruit of his parents; his soul is
partly extragenetic. Blood and soul are different things. But Judaism sacralizes genetics above
everything else. An so it is the entire chosen people, acting “as one man” (Judges 20:1), who is
somehow heroized in the Bible. It is significant that the name “Israel” is both that of a person
(Jacob) and of the people who descend from him.
The Hebrew Bible binds the individual to his collective racial origin rather than to his
personal spiritual destiny. The immortality that is denied the individual is reinvested entirely on
the collective: only the people is eternal. (“I instituted an eternal people” Isaiah 44:7). This is
why endogamy assumes the character of a sacred law, the transgression of which merits death.
“There is in the fate of the race, as in the Semitic character, a fixedness, a stability, an
immortality that strike the mind,” writes Isaac Kadmi-Cohen in Nomads: An Essay on the Jewish
Soul (1929). The author describes Judaism (more generally “Semitic religions”) as “the
spiritualization that deifies the race, jus sanguinis [blood law].” Through Yahweh, therefore, it is
the people who are deified: “Thus divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity
represented by the race … It is therefore in this exclusive love, in this jealousy, one might say, of
the race that the deep meaning of Semitism is concentrated and that its ideal character appears.”95
Through the beginning of the twentieth century, many Jewish thinkers likewise understood
Judaism as a kind of tribal soul. The American rabbi Harry Waton, writing in his A Program for
Jews and Humanity in 1939, summarized this analysis quite well: “Jehovah differs from all other
gods. All other gods dwell in heaven. For this reason, all other religions are concerned about
heaven, and they promise all reward in heaven after death. For this reason, all other religions
negate the earth and the material world and are indifferent to the well-being and progress of
mankind on this earth. But Jehovah comes down from heaven to dwell on this earth and to
embody himself in mankind. For this reason, Judaism concerns itself only about this earth and
promises all reward right here on this earth.” “Hebrew religion, in fact, was intensely
materialistic and it is precisely this that gave it persistent and effective reality.” “The Bible
speaks of an immortality right here on earth. In what consists this immortality? It consists in this
: the soul continues to live and function through the children and grandchildren and the people
descending from them. Hence, when a man dies, his soul is gathered to his people. Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the rest continue to live in the Jewish people, and in due time they
will live in the whole human race. This was the immortality of the Jewish people, and it was
known to the Jews all the time.” “The Jews that have a deeper understanding of Judaism know
that the only immortality there is for the Jew is the immortality in the Jewish people. Each Jew
continues to live in the Jewish people, and he will continue to live so long as the Jewish people
will live.”96
The purity of blood, that is, of lineage, is the great preoccupation of Deuteronomic legislators
and historians. It has been pointed out that blood plays the same role with the ancient Hebrews as
language among the Greeks. For the Greeks, the archetypal figure of the foreigner is the
barbarian, an onomatopoeia designating those whose language is incomprehensible; whereas in
biblical history, apart from the history of the Tower of Babel, everyone seems to speak the same
language. There is almost no mention of any interpreters. The only exception is when Aaron
makes himself the interpreter of Moses to his people; but he does this not because Moses,
brought up in the royal palace, does not speak Hebrew, but only because he is “slow and hesitant
of speech” (Exodus 4:10).97 Today, even if language has taken on a specific identity function in
modern Israel, it is always blood that prevails.
Ultimately, since eternity is granted only to the people as a race, it is as if the Jews were
united by a collective, ethnic, genetic soul. Thus it is said that a Jew’s soul is the Jewish people.
Or should this collective soul be named Yahweh? Maurice Samuel writes in You Gentiles (1924):
“The feeling in the Jew, even in the free-thinking Jew like myself, is that to be one with his
people is to be thereby admitted to the power of enjoying the infinite. I might say, of ourselves:
‘We and God grew up together.’”98 Likewise, Harry Waton writes: “The Jews should realize that
Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth.”99 This is
reminiscent of the anthropological truth of religion as set forth by Ludwig Feuerbach in The
Essence of Christianity (1841), according to which God is the objectified human essence: “The
consciousness of God is the self-consciousness of man.”100 Feuerbach was concerning himself
with Christianity and its universal God, but his insight can also be applied to Judaism and its
supremacist God. The profound truth of Judaism is that Yahweh is objectified Jewishness.
The Jewish people is haunted by its past, totally absorbed in it. That is the basis of its
incomparable resistance to dissolution. It is inhabited by a unique destiny, and each Jew carries
within himself a portion of that destiny. From an Osirian or spiritual point of view, the
explanation for this peculiarity is the denial of the survival of the individual soul. The Jewish
people’s collective character displays a form of monomania resembling the folkloric vision of
dead men who haunt this world, stuck in their past earthly life, because, refusing the possibility
of an afterlife, they do not even know that they have passed through death.
And yet, what appears horribly missing from Yahwism is at the same time its source of
strength. For the individual has only a few decades to accomplish his destiny, while a whole
people has centuries, even millennia. Thus can Jeremiah reassure the exiles of Babylon that in
seven generations they will return to Jerusalem. Seven generations in the history of a people is
not unlike seven years in the life of a man. While the goy awaits his hour on a scale of a century,
the chosen people see much further. This explains the peculiar development of Jewish thought
called “apocalyptic eschatology,” compared to which the hope of an individual future life is
referred to as “minor eschatology.” The transfiguration that, in Greek culture, refers to the fate of
the individual after his death, becomes in the Jewish apocalyptic literature of the intertestamental
period (between the second century BCE and the second century CE) applied to the whole
Jewish people, symbolized by the heavenly Jerusalem.
Many modern Jewish thinkers have identified this feature of Jewish religion as the source of
its incomparable strength. For Moses Hess (Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question,
1862), the father of modern Jewish nationalism, “Jewish religion is, above all, Jewish
patriotism.” “Nothing is more foreign to the spirit of Judaism than the idea of the salvation of the
individual which, according to the modern conception, is the corner-stone of religion.” The
essence of Judaism is “the vivid belief in the continuity of the spirit in human history.” This
brilliant idea, “which is one of the fairest blossoms of Judaism,” is not, according to Hess,
derived from a denial of individual immortality. On the contrary, it “has, in the course of ages,
shrunk to the belief in the atomistic immortality of the individual soul; and thus, torn from its
roots and trunk, has withered and decayed.”101
On this point Hess is mistaken, but only in part, for it is probably true that an exclusively
individual conception of immortality tends to weaken the group spirit, and that before the great
universalist religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam), the notion of individual immortality was
not completely separated from the idea of a spiritual attachment of man to his clan (a clan soul).
From that point of view, Christianity’s strictly individual notion of the soul (a new soul deposited
by God in each new body) can be viewed as a cognitive limit: it sheds no light on the ancestral
depths of the psyche.
The emphasis on the individual eternal soul (eternal even in hell) is also unconducive to a
holistic vision of human destiny. Socialists of religious inclination, such as Jean Jaurès, have
pointed out this weakness. In his view, there can be no purely individual salvation, because each
man’s soul is linked to all other souls.102 This dialectic of individual versus collective soul is well
encapsulated by Jim Casy in John Steinbeck’s masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath. Casy, a
disillusioned preacher, finds a new faith in humanity through social activism. He takes comfort
in the idea that, “Maybe all men got one big soul ever’body’s a part of.”103 This narrowness of
the Western concept of the soul, which may be the ultimate source of Western individualism, is
best perceived in contrast with Buddhist philosophy, which asserts the impermanence and
interconnectedness of all individual souls.
Chapter 4
THE LAST HERO
“Rebekah took her elder son Esau’s best clothes, which she had
at home, and dressed her younger son Jacob in them. […] Jacob
said to his father, ‘I am Esau your first-born.’”
Genesis 27:15–19
“O Lord, You made the world for our sakes. As for the other
people, which also come of Adam, You have said that they are
nothing, but like spittle.”
Fourth Book of Ezra 6:55–56
Neoconned
As we have seen, the end of the 1960s marked a decisive turning point in the United States’
relationship with Israel. One key factor was the emergence of a new American Jewish elite who,
under the misleading name of “neoconservatives,” was gradually gaining considerable influence
over American foreign policy. The neoconservative movement was born in the editorial office of
the monthly magazine Commentary, the press organ of the American Jewish Committee. “If
there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim,
neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman in The Jewish Daily Forward, January 6, 2006. “It
is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish
immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”528
The founding fathers of neoconservatism (Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Donald Kagan,
Paul Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky) are disciples of Leo Strauss. Born into a family of German
Orthodox Jews, Strauss taught mainly at the University of Chicago and was a specialist in
Thomas Hobbes. Strauss’s thought is often elliptical because he believes that truth is harmful to
the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds (while religion
is for the rest, as the necessary opium of the people). For this reason, Strauss rarely speaks in his
own name, but rather expresses himself as a commentator on such classical authors as Plato or
Thomas Hobbes. Though Strauss is difficult to read, three basic ideas can easily be extracted
from his political philosophy. First, nations derive their strength from their myths, which are
necessary for government and governance. Second, national myths have no necessary
relationship with historical reality, but rather are socio-cultural constructions that the state has a
duty to disseminate. Third, to be effective, any national myth must be marked by a clear
distinction between good and evil, for it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an
enemy nation.529
Strauss greatly admired Machiavelli, the fifteenth-century political philosopher who rejected
the classical tradition that sought to make virtue the foundation of power, and asserted that only
the appearance of virtue counts, and that the successful prince must be a “great simulator” who
“manipulates and cons people’s minds.” In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, Strauss parts from the
intellectual trend of trying to rehabilitate the author of The Prince, and instead agrees with the
“simple opinion” that regards his political theory as immoral, for it is precisely in this immorality
that resides “the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of
his speech.” Machiavelli, writes Strauss, “is a patriot of a particular kind: He is more concerned
with the salvation of his fatherland than with the salvation of his soul.”530
Strauss, like his disciples, could be qualified as a meta-Zionist in the sense that, while he is
an ardent supporter of the State of Israel, he rejects the idea that Israel as a nation should be
contained within borders; Israel must retain her specificity, which is to be everywhere. In his
1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews,” Strauss quotes, as “the most profound and radical
statement on assimilation that I have read,” Nietzsche’s Dawn of Day aphorism 205, a sort of
prophecy of the Jews’ conquest through integration: “It only remains for them either to become
the lords of Europe or to lose Europe […] at some time Europe may fall like a perfectly ripe fruit
into their hand, which only casually reaches out. In the meantime it is necessary for them to
distinguish themselves in all the areas of European distinction and to stand among the first, until
they will be far enough along to determine themselves that which distinguishes.”531
Second, the neoconservatives of the first generation mostly came from the left, even the
extreme Trotskyist left for some luminaries like Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of
Commentary. It was at the end of the 60s that Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin
Balint, “the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the neoconservative
right.”532 Sexual liberation, which they had largely supported, suddenly seemed decadent; and
pacifism, irresponsible. Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary from 1960 to 1995,
changed from anti-Vietnam War activist to defense budget booster, leading the rest of the
magazine along with him. He gave the explanation of this turning point in 1979: “American
support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs—from
which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood [. . .] that now
looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of
Israel.”533 Since the survival of Israel depends on American protection and help, US military
might and global involvement must be reinforced. This is why Irving Kristol committed
members of the American Jewish Congress in 1973 to fight George McGovern’s proposal to
reduce the military budget by 30 percent: “This is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. [. . .]
Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and
powerful military establishment in the United States. [. . .] American Jews who care about the
survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is
important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”534 It is therefore good
for Israel that American Jews become, as American citizens, ardent interventionists. But it was
also necessary that this interventionism should appear on the national public scene as American
patriotism. This explains why the neoconservatives take such special care to forbid any public
mention of their Jewishness. Even Carl Bernstein, though a Jew himself, provoked a scandal by
citing, on national television, the responsibility of “Jewish neocons” for the Iraq war.535 The truth
is that the neoconservatives are crypto-Zionists. The “neoconservative” label they have given
themselves is a mask. (Most “neo” things are fake).
Crypto-Zionism is a phenomenon that goes far beyond neoconservatism, and can even be
compared to the crypto-Judaism of the sixteenth century. If, after June 1967, as Norman
Podhoretz recalls, Israel became “the religion of the American Jews,”536 it goes without saying
that this religion should remain discreet, if possible even secret, since it was incompatible with
American patriotism, at least as conceived by those who, in a similar way, consecrate an almost
religious worship to America. The loyalty of American Jews to Israel, of course, naturally
engendered the fear of being accused of allegiance to a foreign state, and thus aroused in them,
as protective camouflage, increased patriotism in their public proclamations. The more American
Jews became Israelis, the more they felt the need to be American in the public square. It was not
just about being a Jew in the tent and a man in the street, according to the saying of the Haskalah,
but of being “an Israeli within the Jewish community, and an American on the public goy stage.”
For most of today’s American Jews, this dual identity has become almost an unconscious
reflex, as the interests of Israel and the United States seem to coincide in their mind. But to get
there, it was necessary that this habit of thought be inculcated into them by their ruling elites.
The neoconservatives were the spearhead of this ideological struggle, gradually dragging along
with them almost all the Jewish representative elites of America. They highlighted a new form of
US patriotism profitable to Israel, just as the sixteenth-century crypto-Jews had encouraged a
new pro-Judaism form of Christianity (Calvinism).
The Hijacking of the Republican Party
The neoconservatives initially operated in the Democratic camp because, until the 1980s,
interventionism was a Democratic tradition, linked to a “progressive” utopian discourse. It was
Woodrow Wilson who had declared in 1912, “We are chosen and prominently chosen to show
the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the path of liberty.”537 Richard Perle,
one of the most influential and most Machiavellian neocons, was from 1969 to 1980
parliamentary assistant to Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who succeeded Johnson as the leader
of the militarist and pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party. In 1970, Perle was caught red-
handed by the FBI while transmitting to the Israeli embassy classified information obtained from
Hal Sonnenfeldt, a member of the National Security Council.538
Perle skillfully took advantage of the Watergate hurricane to bring his two associates, Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, into the Republican camp. The two would remain the main
mercenaries or “Sabbath goys” of the neoconservatives, placed in strategic posts to open the
doors of the kingdom. After succeeding Nixon, Gerald Ford (who had been a member of the
Warren Commission) appointed Donald Rumsfeld as his chief of staff; Rumsfeld then chose
Dick Cheney as his deputy. Having inspired Ford in the cabinet reshuffle that became known
journalistically as the “Halloween Massacre,” Rumsfeld then seized the position of secretary of
defense, while Cheney replaced him as chief of staff. Thus there appeared for the first time the
explosive combination of Rumsfeld at Defense, Cheney in the White House.
After America evacuated its troops from Vietnam in 1973, the Cold War calmed down, partly
thanks to the diplomatic initiatives of Nixon and Kissinger. The CIA produced reassuring
analyses of the USSR’s military capabilities and ambitions. It was then that, with the help of a
powerful lobby financed by weapons manufacturers—the Committee on the Present Danger—
Rumsfeld and Cheney persuaded Ford to appoint an independent committee, known as Team B.
Its mandate was to revise upward the CIA estimates of the Soviet threat, and reactivate a war
atmosphere in public opinion, Congress, and the administration. Team B was composed of
twelve experts chosen from among the most fanatical cold warriors. It was chaired by Richard
Pipes and cochaired by Paul Wolfowitz, two protégés of Perle. The committee produced a
terrifying report claiming Moscow possessed not only a large and sophisticated arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction, but also the will to dominate all of Europe and the Middle East—
and the readiness to start a nuclear confrontation. Pointing to a “window of vulnerability” in the
US defense system, Team B’s report advocated a broad and urgent increase in the defense
budget, which began under Carter and then accelerated under Reagan.
Thus those who were later called the neoconservatives entered the state apparatus for the first
time—in the baggage of Rumsfeld and Cheney—and bound their fate to the Republican party.
Those previously called “conservatives,” who were non-interventionists, were gradually pushed
to the margins and described as paleo-conservatives, while the neoconservatives took over the
reins of the Republican Party. During the parenthesis of Democratic president Jimmy Carter
(1976–80), the neoconservatives reinforced their influence within the Republican Party. In order
to unify the largest number of Jews around their policies, they founded the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA), which became the second-most powerful pro-Israel lobby
after AIPAC. One of its stated aims was: “To inform the American defense and foreign affairs
community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in
the Mediterranean and the Middle East.”539
Mimicking true conservatives, neoconservatives built their reputations for defending
American traditional values. The best-known example is that of Allan Bloom, a disciple of Leo
Strauss, who published The Closing of the American Mind in 1988. This moralistic posture,
along with their warlike anti-communism, allowed the neocons to rally the Christian right. In
1980 evangelical Christians became for the first time a major electoral force mobilized to support
Israel in the name of the struggle against communism. They had the advantage of being
extremely manipulable, quaffing as “gospel truth” the inflamed sermons of the stars of their
mega-churches, who assumed ever-more-assertive pro-Israel positions. Exemplifying this trend,
televangelist Jerry Falwell received the Jabotinsky Centennial Medal from Menachem Begin in
1980 for services rendered to Israel, declaring “he who stands against Israel stands against
God.”540
Pastors such as Falwell help influence US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. But even
more importantly, they serve as camouflage for the neoconservatives. The obtrusive presence of
Christians makes Jewish influence less visible. In reality, evangelical Christians do represent an
electoral force, but have no coherent political agenda and therefore no direct political power.
When, in 1980, the evangelical Christians voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan, none of
their representatives acceded to any position of responsibility.
On the other hand, the neoconservatives were paid with a dozen posts in national security and
foreign policy: Richard Perle and Douglas Feith to the Department of Defense, Richard Pipes at
the National Security Council, and Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Michael Ledeen
in the State Department. They helped Reagan escalate the Cold War, showering billions of
dollars on the military-industrial complex. Thanks in particular to the Strategic Defense
Initiative, a space shield better known as “Star Wars,” the defense budget exploded, reaching for
the first time the landmark of a trillion dollars. Reagan created CENTCOM, the US military
command center in the Middle East, and consolidated the American alliance with Israel,
declaring: “Israel has the democratic will, national cohesion, technological capacity and military
fiber to stand forth as America’s trusted ally.”541 In 1981, the two countries signed their first
military pact, then embarked on several shared operations, some legal and others not, as
evidenced by the network of arms trafficking and paramilitary operations embedded within the
Iran-Contra affair. Militarism and Zionism had become so linked in their common cause that in
his 1982 book The Real Anti-Semitism in America, the director of the Anti-Defamation League,
Nathan Perlmutter, could portray the pacifism of the “peacemakers of Vietnam vintage,
transmuters of swords into plowshares,” as a new form of anti-Semitism.542
It was in this context that Israeli strategists planned the next stage of the project for a Greater
Israel extending “from the Nile to the Euphrates” according to the promise of Yahweh to
Abraham (Genesis 15:18), and to the vision of the founding fathers of Zionism, including
Theodor Herzl.543 One of the most explicit documents on this project, known through its
translation from Hebrew into English by Israel Shahak, is a text entitled “A Strategy for Israel in
the Eighties,” written for the World Zionist Organization in February 1982 by Oded Yinon, a
former senior official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and contributor to The Jerusalem Post.
The author presents the pluri-ethnic character of Middle Eastern states as offering “far-reaching
opportunities for the first time since 1967” for opening “a new epoch in human history.” He
advocates a strategy of control of the Middle East by fragmenting all of Israel’s neighbors on the
model of what was partially accomplished in Lebanon by a “civil war” which, from 1975 to
1990, ravaged that nation of seventeen religious communities plus Palestinian refugees—a
country, in other words, that formed an inverted reflection of the mono-confessional and
endogamic nation that is Israel: “The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional localized
governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arab
peninsula, in a similar fashion. The dissolution of Egypt and later Iraq into districts of ethnic and
religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is the main long-range objective of Israel
on the Eastern Front. The present military weakening of these states is the short-term objective.
Syria will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and sectarian structure, as is
happening in Lebanon today.” In this process, “Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist
us in the short run.”544
But it wasn’t happening fast enough. The fate of Lebanon, home of the Palestinian resistance
since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, had not yet been sealed. In June 1982,
Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon launched the invasion of Lebanon (Operation “Peace in
Galilee”) and pulverized the prestigious capital, Beirut, under a carpet of bombs that had been
graciously furnished by the United States, killing 10,000 civilians and creating half a million
refugees. The massacre of more than 1,500 women, children, and old people in the two
Palestinian refugee camps of Beirut gave Sharon the nickname “the Butcher of Sabra and
Shatila.” Israel’s aggression brought new chaos to Lebanon, but after the retreat of Israeli troops,
Syrian and Iranian influence in the region grew stronger. Though the PLO was militarily
weakened, another resistance group was born: Hezbollah, a Shi’ite movement financed by Iran
and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
Under the Israel-friendly presidency of Reagan, America could only respond with feeble
gestures. What is euphemistically called the “Israeli lobby”—actually a gargantuan power
machine using corruption and blackmail against the US elite—kept the number one global power
on a tight leash. The 1988 election of George Bush Sr., Reagan’s vice president, changed things
slightly. Bush was less a friend to Israel than to Saudi Arabia, where he had business ties since
the 1970s. James Baker, his campaign manager appointed secretary of state, used economic
pressure to force Israeli Prime Minister Yitshak Shamir to participate in the Madrid Conference
in November 1991, and appeared receptive to Arab proposals during the Conference.545
Bush mostly purged neoconservatives from his government, but nonetheless accorded the
secretary of defense post to Dick Cheney, who brought along Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz.
The latter was then able to strengthen his position at the Pentagon, where he had already served
as deputy assistant secretary of defense under Carter before migrating to the State Department
under Reagan. When Bush unleashed Operation Desert Storm in January 1991, he did it to
liberate Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and annihilate the Iraqi army. He held to his UN Security
Council mandate, resisting demands from the neoconservatives—he called them “the crazies”—
to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime. On March 6, 1991, he stood before
Congress and declared the war had ended. When he mentioned in his speech “the very real
prospect of a new world order,” it was for the purpose of underlining his trust in the mission of
the United Nations organization. What he called for was “a world where the United Nations,
freed from the Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders.”
This was when a competing doctrine, the so-called “Wolfowitz doctrine,” was formulated in
a secret report dated February 1992 and fortuitously “leaked” to The New York Times, which
published extracts on March 7. Under the title Defense Planning Guidance, the report, written by
Wolfowitz and Libby, vaunted American hegemony: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-
emergence of a new rival,” and to enforce “the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by
the U.S.” In opposition to Bush’s public discourses, the Wolfowitz report advocated
unilateralism, denigrating the role of the United Nations and stating the US cannot “allow our
critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries
whose interests may be very different from our own.” Therefore, “we should expect future
coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies.” Finally the report, which would become official policy under
Bush Jr. in 2001, promotes the need for preemptive war “for deterring potential competitors from
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The document also makes a specific
commitment to the security of Israel.546
Bush’s opposition to the neoconservative agenda probably caused his defeat in the 1992
elections, just as the Democrat Jimmy Carter paid for his dovish policies and his critiques of
Israel in 1980. It is a disconcerting fact that, since the end of World War II, the only American
presidents deprived of a second term in office (including the partially deprived Nixon) were
those who resisted Israel the most. The only exception is Johnson, whose unpopularity was
irreversible.
Setting the Stage for the Clash of Civilizations
The Clinton Administration (1993–2000) was itself “full of warm Jews,” in the words of an
influential rabbi quoted by the Israeli newspaper Maariv. He deemed that the United States no
longer possessed “a government of goyim.” In the National Security Council, for example, “7
out of 11 top staffers are Jews.”547
The clan of the neoconservatives, for their part, entrenched themselves in the opposition.
They reinforced their influence on the Republican party and on public opinion, thanks to a press
more and more subservient to their crypto-imperial version of American patriotism. They
indirectly influenced foreign policy in the Middle East by creating or taking control of a large
number of think tanks: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), where Richard
Perle has served since 1985; the Middle East Forum (MEF) founded in 1990 by Daniel Pipes
(son of Richard); and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), founded by Meyrav
Wurmser in 1998. William Kristol, son of Irving, founded in 1995 a new magazine, The Weekly
Standard, which immediately became the dominant voice of the neoconservatives thanks to
funding from the pro-Israel Rupert Murdoch. In 1997 it would be the first publication to call for
a new war against Saddam Hussein. The neocons also flooded the book market with propaganda
portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to America. Besides Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to
Defeat Saddam Hussein by David Wurmser (1999), let us mention Laurie Mylroie’s Study of
Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America (2000), which is about “an
undercover war of terrorism, waged by Saddam Hussein,” that is nothing more than “a phase in a
conflict that began in August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and that has not ended.” Richard
Perle has described this book as “splendid and wholly convincing.”548
In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded Shimon Perez as Prime Minister in 1996.
Netanyahu is the grandson of a Lithuanian rabbi who immigrated to Palestine in 1920. His
father, like many settlers in Eastern Europe, traded his original name for a local one: Benzion
Mileikowsky became Benzion Netanyahu. Benzion, whom we have already quoted in earlier
chapters, was from 1940 onward the assistant to Zeev Jabotinsky, whose heroic portrait he
painted in his book The Founding Fathers of Zionism (alongside Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl,
Max Nordau, and Israel Zangwill). Jabotinsky, creator of the first Israeli armed forces and
inspirer of the Irgun, is also the founder of “revisionist Zionism,” a current that broke with
Weizmann’s World Zionist Organization in 1925. Convinced that the Zionist project could never
be achieved by diplomacy alone, he wrote in 1923, in an article entitled “the Iron Wall”: “All
colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native
population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force, comprising an
Iron Wall that the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To
formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy. […] Zionism is a colonizing adventure and
therefore it stands or it falls by the question of armed force.”
Hypocrisy was the strategic choice of Weizmann as well as Ben-Gurion. The latter was
reserved in his public statements, but privately expressed his desire to expel the Arabs from
Palestine; whereas revisionist Zionism, an unrepressed movement that wears its violence on its
sleeve, is more honest. The coming to power of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 thus marked the
hardening of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. In 2009, Netanyahu appointed as minister of
foreign affairs and deputy prime minister Avigdor Lieberman, the founder of the Yisrael
Beiteinu party, which presents itself as “a national movement with the clear vision to follow in
the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky.”549 During the assault on Gaza in January 2009, Lieberman
advocated “fighting Hamas just as the United States fought the Japanese during the Second
World War.”550
Benjamin Netanyahu also symbolizes the increasingly important role played by
neoconservatives and American Jews in general concerning the fate of Israel, which currently
enjoys unprecedented support from American Jewish billionaires. He himself lived, studied, and
worked in the United States from 1960 to 1978, between his 11th and his 27th year—except
during his military service—and again after the age of 33, when he was appointed deputy
ambassador to Washington and then permanent delegate to the United Nations. His political
destiny was planned in the United States; in that sense, Netanyahu is a creature of the
neoconservatives. The only thing that distinguishes him from them is that, for public relations
reasons, he does not possess American nationality. Indeed, a significant number of
neoconservatives are Israeli citizens, have family in Israel, or have resided there themselves.
Elliott Abrams wrote in 1997, before becoming deputy national security adviser in the Bush II
administration: “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the
covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is
the very nature of being Jewish to be apart—except in Israel—from the rest of the population.”551
In 1996 the neoconservatives threw all their weight behind their ultimate think tank, the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), directed by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.
PNAC recommended taking advantage of the defeat of communism to reinforce American
hegemony by preventing the emergence of any rival. Their Statement of Principles vowed to
extend the current Pax Americana, which entailed “a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges.”552 In its September 2000 report entitled Rebuilding
America’s Defenses, PNAC anticipated that US forces must become “able to rapidly deploy and
win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” This required a profound transformation, including
a new military corps, the “US Space Forces,” to control both space and cyberspace, and the
development of “a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military
requirements.” Unfortunately, according to the authors of the report, “the process of
transformation […] is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—
like a new Pearl Harbor.”553
PNAC’s architects played the American hegemony card by draping themselves in the super-
patriotic discourse of America’s civilizing mission. But their duplicity is exposed in a document
brought to public knowledge in 2008: a report published in 1996 by the Israeli think tank
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), entitled A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm, written specifically for the new Israeli prime minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu. The team responsible for the report was led by Richard Perle, and included
Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who figured the same year among the signatories of PNAC.
As its title suggests, the Clean Break report invited Netanyahu to break with the Oslo Accords of
1993, which officially committed Israel to the return of the territories it occupied illegally since
1967. The new prime minister should instead “engage every possible energy on rebuilding
Zionism” and reaffirm Israel’s right to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.554
One thing has not changed since the time of Ezra: Israel needs a foreign empire. Since its
founding in 1948 and even more so since its expansion in 1967, Israel’s security and
sustainability have depended totally on American support. America must therefore remain
imperial. But the fall of communism meant the end of the Cold War. And the end of the Cold
War would inevitably trigger a refocusing of the United States on internal politics, a return to the
founding principles defended by the traditional conservatives (fallen to the rank of
“paleoconservatives”). These principles include this famous warning from George Washington
during his farewell speech: “The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a
habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either
of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. […] Sympathy for the
favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real
common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a
participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
[…] And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the
favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium,
sometimes even with popularity.”555
Israel needed to prevent at all costs an isolationist turn by the United States, which would
lead to the abandonment of its “passionate attachment” for Israel. It was therefore necessary to
boost the imperialistic spirit of the United States, relying on internal forces already predisposed
to such a mission. These historically tended to be on the Democratic side, among the members of
the Council on Foreign Relations, notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security
adviser and member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations. Brzezinski was basically
Russophobic due to his Polish origins. He was the figurehead of the geostrategic current
advocating a modern version of the Great Game, which he summarizes in his book The Grand
Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative (1998). His vision, inherited
from the British theorists of the end of the nineteenth century, consists essentially of preventing
Russia from allying itself with Europe by digging a “blood trench” between the Slavic and Latin
peoples and controlling everything from Central Asia to Ukraine. Afghanistan has always played
an important role as a buffer state, and it was Brzezinski who, under Carter, had instigated the
destabilization of the pro-Soviet secular regime through the financing and arming of the
mujahideen (favoring the radical Islamic allies of Pakistan over the moderates like the pro-
Iranian Ahmed Massoud).556 However, Brzezinski was far from sharing the neoconservative
passion for Israel; he even spoke out against Bush Sr.’s Gulf War I. In any case, he remained on
the sidelines of the Clinton government and no longer had much influence in Washington in the
1990s.
The alliance of Brzezinski and his friends at the Council on Foreign Relations was therefore
far from sufficient to bring America into a major military adventure in the Middle East. For this,
the United States needed an enemy. Just as the First and Second World Wars were necessary to
found Israel, the Cold War (or Third World War) provided the necessary context for the
implementation of the Zionist program; the 1967 annexations would never have been possible
without this context. After the dislocation of the Communist bloc, Israel needed a new world
war, or at least a new threat of world war, to retain the support of the United States. So a new
enemy, perfectly fitted to Israel’s needs, magically appeared. The new paradigm developed by
the masters of hasbara (Israeli propaganda) is summarized in two slogans: the “war on terror”
and the “clash of civilizations.”
The first was already widely disseminated since the 1980s, especially by Benjamin
Netanyahu himself. During his years at the Washington embassy and the United Nations,
Netanyahu contributed more than anyone else to introducing into the American consciousness
the idea that Arab terrorism not only threatened Israel, but also the United States and the
democratic world in its entirety. It is the central message of his books, International Terrorism:
Challenge and Response (1982); Terrorism: How the West can Win (1986); and A Place Among
the Nations: Israel and the World (1993). In the latter, he drew a systematic analogy between
Arafat and Hitler, and introduced the farfetched claim that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-
Husseini, had been “one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry” by
advising Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler (a claim without historical substantiation, but already
current in Israeli propaganda). He also wrote: “Violence is ubiquitous in the political life of all
Arab countries. […] International terrorism is the quintessential Middle East export and its
techniques are those of the Arab regimes and organisations that invented it..”557 In Fighting
Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists (1995), he
coined the term “war on terror.”
Netanyahu appeared regularly on CNN in the early 1990s, contributing to the transformation
of the world’s leading news channel into a major Zionist propaganda tool.558 As Kevin Barrett
explains, “The effect of the ubiquitous terror trope is to delegitimize the exercise of power by
Muslims, and to legitimize the exercise of power against them. Above all, it delegitimizes any
Muslim resort to violence—even in self-defense—while offering carte-blanche legitimacy to
violent aggression against Muslims.”559
The term “clash of civilizations,” which refers to a broader process encompassing “the war
on terror,” was used for the first time by one of the most influential thinkers of the
neoconservative current, Bernard Lewis (holder of Israeli, British, and American passports) in an
article in the September 1990 issue of Atlantic Monthly, entitled “The Roots of Muslim Rage.”
The concept was taken up in a manifesto by Samuel Huntington in Commentary magazine in the
summer of 1994 and then in a book by the same author published by the Olin Foundation, a
neoconservative think tank. After the Soviet peril, prophesied Huntington, here comes the
Islamic peril. And do not be mistaken: “The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic
fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority
of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.” Huntington functioned as a
liaison between Brzezinski (with whom he co-wrote articles) and the neoconservatives. He
shared Brzezinski’s pragmatism and vision of the Great Game: “The West won the world not by
the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying
organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”560 This was
music to the ears of the neoconservatives, who make Huntington a true intellectual star.
Never in history has a book of geopolitics been the subject of such international media hype.
Between 1992 and 1994 a parody of intellectual debate was acted in the press, opposing, on one
side, Francis Fukuyama and his prophecy of the “end of history”—meaning “the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”—and, on the other side,
Samuel Huntington and his vision of the “clash of civilizations.” Interestingly, like Brzezinski,
Fukuyama and Huntington are members of the Trilateral Commission, and Fukuyama is a
member of PNAC. Both were token goys, with Fukuyama playing the role of Huntington’s
stooge, until the attacks of September 11, 2001, validated the latter’s prophecy in an appallingly
dramatic way. Huntington’s book, meanwhile, has been translated into fifty languages and
commented on by the entire world’s press. At the same time, the “clash of civilizations” has been
implanted in mass consciousness by Hollywood, as Jack Shaheen explains in Real Bad Arabs:
How Hollywood Vilifies a People (Olive Branch Press, 2012), based on the analysis of more than
a thousand films over thirty years.561
The neocons pressured the Clinton administration to intervene in Iraq, helped by a network
of Zionist moles within the FBI and other secret services. On February 26, 1993, a bomb
exploded under the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people, injuring more than
a thousand and causing $300 million damage. In the course of the trial it was revealed that an
FBI informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem, had been asked to supply
the conspirators with explosives he believed to be fake and destined for a sting operation. As
reported in The New York Times, October 28, 1993: “Law-enforcement officials were told that
terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and
they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives,
an informer said after the blast. The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and
supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas
about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.”562
The neocons nevertheless called for a global war on terrorism, but Clinton did not relent. In a
possibly unrelated incident, on September 11, 1994, a drunken pilot by the name of Frank
Eugene Corder crashed his Cessna 150 L into the White House lawn two floors below Clinton’s
bedroom, killing himself in the process.
Next came the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995. It was, according to investigator
Michael Collins Piper, orchestrated or perhaps simply monitored and diverted by the Mossad:
“The Mossad’s intent was for the tragedy to be linked to the Iraqi government of Saddam
Hussein and that this ‘false flag’ could be used to force then-president Bill Clinton to invade Iraq
and bring down Saddam, Israel’s hated enemy.” But “President Bill Clinton refused to go along
with the Zionist agenda and directed those responsible for the investigation—namely the Justice
Department and the FBI—to cover up the false flags.”563
As late as 2004, a book by former television journalist Jayna Davis, The Third Terrorist,
acclaimed by pro-Zionist elements in the monopoly media, purported to demonstrate that
Saddam and bin Laden, were involved in a highly unlikely alliance to blow up the Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City and blame it on American white supremacists. It is in this context
that Monica Lewinski was hired as a White House intern, and has sex with President Clinton
from November 1995 to March 1997. After the Clinton administration successfully thwarted the
Israeli psychological operation, on January 17, 1998, the first revelation of the President’s affair
with 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky appeared in Newsweek. Lewinsky, the daughter of Zionist
east European immigrants, and a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was a Queen Esther of a
new kind. She had confided in her coworker Linda Tripp, who then proceeded to secretly record
her torrid phone conversations with Clinton, while Lewinsky kept, unwashed for two years, her
blue dress with the incriminating sperm stains. Syrian newspaper Tishrin Al-Usbu’a speculates
that “her goal was to embarrass President Clinton, to blackmail him and weaken his status before
Netanyahu’s government.”564
Indeed, on January 21, 1998, while The Washington Post published an article on the
Lewinsky case, Clinton urgently received Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for an
unannounced 90-minute interview. On January 26, 1998, Clinton received a real ultimatum, in
the form of a letter signed by Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz, and other neoconservatives urging him to use his State of the Union address to make
removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military
action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged to “offer our
full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.”565 Clinton did nothing: his speech was
entirely centered on the economy (the central theme of his election campaigns and his
presidency). In the months that followed, the “Monicagate” scandal became an ordeal for
Clinton, who was charged with perjury and threatened with impeachment.
The “New Pearl Harbor”
In November 2000, Bush Jr. was elected under conditions that raised protests of electoral fraud.
Two dozen neoconservatives took over key positions in foreign policy. The White House
spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was a neocon, as was the president’s main speechwriter David Frum,
who co-authored in 2003 a book with Richard Perle, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on
Terror. Dick Cheney, after leading the victorious Bush campaign, chose for himself the vice
presidency, picked Scooter Libby as his deputy, and took the leading role in forming Bush’s
government. He entrusted the State Department to Colin Powell, but surrounded him with
neocon aides such as David Wurmser. Another “Sabbath goy” was National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, a Russia specialist with no expertise in the Middle East, which made her
entirely dependent on her neocon adviser Philip Zelikow. William Luti and Elliot Abrams, and
later Eliot Cohen, were also tasked with steering Rice. But it was mainly from within the
Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld that the most influential neocons were able to
fashion US foreign and military policy. Richard Perle occupied the crucial position of director of
the Defense Policy Board, responsible for defining military strategy, while Paul Wolfowitz
became the “soul of the Pentagon” as deputy secretary with Douglas Feith as under secretary. As
for President Bush, he once declared to journalists: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about
foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.”
Sharansky is a radical Zionist, founder of the party Yisrael Ba’aliya (“Israel for aliyah”) and
chairman of One Jerusalem, which advocates Israeli sovereignty over a unified Jerusalem.566
After eight months in the presidency (almost half of them on vacation) Bush was confronted
with the “catastrophic event” that PNAC had called for a year earlier. The culprit was
immediately identified as Osama bin Laden. It was a real “Hanukkah miracle” for Israel,
commented Haaretz journalist Aluf Benn: “Osama bin Laden’s September 11 attacks placed
Israel firmly on the right side of the strategic map with the US, and put the Arab world at a
disadvantage as it now faces its own difficult decisions about its future.” On the day of the
attacks, acting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced at a press conference: “The war against
terror is an international war. A war of a coalition of the free world against all of the terror
groups…This is a war between the good and the bad, between humanity and those who are
bloodthirsty. The criminal attack today on innocent civilians in the United States, is a turning
point in war against international terror.”567 As for Netanyahu, he commented: “It’s very good
[…] it will generate immediate sympathy […], strengthen the bond between our two peoples,
because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now
experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.”568
The first to publicly announce the name of bin Laden was Ehud Barak, the outgoing Israeli
prime minister (1999–2001), in an interview with the BBC just one hour after the destruction of
the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (and again the following day). He concluded: “It’s a
time to launch an operational, complete war against terror.”569 The world’s media proclaimed the
new era of the clash of civilizations and the war on terrorism. “It is the day that will change our
lives. It is the day when the war that the terrorists declared on the US [. . .] has been brought
home to the US,” proclaimed Lewis Paul Bremer, chairman of the National Commission on
Terrorism, on NBC the same day, pointing to bin Laden as “a prime suspect.”570
The message was hammered day after day into the minds of traumatized Americans. On
September 21, Netanyahu published an op-ed in the New York Post entitled “Today, We Are All
Americans,” in which he delivered his favorite propaganda line: “For the bin Ladens of the
world, Israel is merely a sideshow. America is the target.” Three days later The New Republic
responded with a headline on behalf of the Americans: “We are all Israelis now.” Americans
experienced 9/11 as a product of anti-US hatred from an Arab world engendered by terrorist
Islamism, and they felt an immediate sympathy for Israel, which the neoconservatives
relentlessly exploited. One of the goals was to encourage Americans to view Israel’s oppression
of the Palestinians as part of the global fight against Islamic terrorism.
It was a great success. In the years preceding September 11, Israel’s reputation on the
international stage had bottomed out; condemnations had been raining from around the world for
its policy of apartheid and annexation, and increasing numbers of American voices questioned
the merits of the special relationship between the United States and Israel. Only a few hours after
the attacks, former CIA analyst George Friedman could write on his website stratfor.com: “The
big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel. Israel has been under siege by suicide
bombers for more than a year. It has responded by waging a systematic war against Palestinian
command structures. The international community, particularly the United States, has pressured
Israel heavily to stop its operations. The argument has been made that the threat of suicide
bombings, though real, does not itself constitute a genuine threat to Israeli national security and
should not trigger the kind of response Israel is making. Today’s events change all of this. […]
There is no question, therefore, that the Israeli leadership is feeling relief.”571 As Americans now
intended to fight Arab terrorists to the death, they would stop demanding from Israel more
proportionate retaliation.
The signatories of the PNAC letter to President Bush on April 3, 2002, (including William
Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, and James Woolsey)
went so far as to claim that the Arab world hates Israel because it is a friend of the United States,
rather than the reverse: “No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common
enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an ‘Axis of Evil.’ Israel is targeted
in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles
—American principles—in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.”572 Once again, it was a
matter of writing history upside down: in reality, America had no enemy in the Middle East
before its alliance with Israel in the late 1960s. But this big lie became the heart of Israel’s new
strategy for controlling the West. It would be repeated and illustrated as often as necessary:
“Extremist Islam does not hate the West because of Israel; it hates Israel because Israel is an
integral part of the West and its values of freedom,” asserted Benjamin Netanyahu in Paris after
the Charlie Hebdo attack of January 2015, an event that bore the marks of a staged terror attack
designed to illustrate precisely this message.573
The secondary objective of September 11 and the other pseudo-Islamist attacks perpetrated
on American and European soil is to persuade as many Jews as possible that they are not safe in
the West and that they would do well to settle in Israel. Zionist propaganda making Israel a
refuge for the Jews of the world is finding a second wind. Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi
echoed this view in the October 15, 2001, issue of the pro-Israel New Republic: “In the last year,
it had become a much-noted irony that Israel was the country where a Jew was most likely to be
killed for being a Jew. For many, the United States had beckoned as the real Jewish refuge; in a
poll taken just before the bin Laden attacks, 37 percent of Israelis said their friends or relatives
were discussing emigration. That probably changed on September 11. I was among the
thousands of Israelis who crowded Kennedy Airport on the weekend after the attack, desperate to
find a flight to Tel Aviv. ‘At least we’re going back where it’s safe,’ people joked.”574
Thanks to a few skeptical and courageous investigators, many anomalies in the politicians’
and media’s explanation of the events of 9/11 were transmitted on the internet during the
following months, providing evidence that this was a false flag operation, and that Osama bin
Laden was innocent, as he repeatedly affirmed in the Afghan press and on Al Jazeera.575 The
proofs of this appalling fraud have been accumulating ever since, and are now accessible to
anyone who takes the trouble to spend a few hours of research on the internet. The scientific
evidence is unimpeachable: for example, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
(AE911Truth.org) have demonstrated that it was impossible for plane crashes and jet fuel fires to
trigger the collapse of the Twin Towers. The so-called pancake collapse theory initially invoked
by the government institutes in charge of the investigation—like the completely different
subsequent official theories—was a farce. It is enough to carefully watch the destruction of the
Towers to see that they do not collapse, but literally explode, pulverizing concrete and projecting
pieces of steel beams weighing several hundred tons hundreds of meters laterally at high speeds.
The pyroclastic dust that flooded through the streets at high speed after the collapse, not unlike
the dust from a volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot gasses and relatively dense
solid particles, an impossible phenomenon in a simple collapse.576 It is also impossible that
WTC7, another skyscraper (47 stories), which had not been hit by a plane, collapsed into its own
footprint at near free-fall speed, unless by “controlled demolition.”577 “No steel building has ever
been destroyed by fire,” noted Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine in the January
2002 issue, calling the government investigation “a half-baked farce.”578
From their side, members of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth protest that the fires in the Twin
Towers were of low intensity and cannot explain their collapse. In 2005, the New York Fire
Department (FDNY) released 503 recorded oral testimonies given by firefighters shortly after the
events. One hundred and eighteen of them describe sequences of synchronized explosions just
before the collapse, well below the zone of impact.579 Firemen were fighting fires at ground zero
for ninety-nine days after September 11. The presence of molten metal in the wreckage, observed
by countless witnesses for more than three weeks after the attack, is inexplicable within the
framework of the official theory, but is easily explained by the presence of incompletely burned
explosives, their combustion slowed by lack of oxygen. Firefighter Philip Ruvolo testified before
Étienne Sauret’s camera for his film Collateral Damages (2011): “You’d get down below and
you’d see molten steel—molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry
—like lava.”580
Aviation professionals from the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth also report many impossibilities
in the official thesis. And then there are the Shanksville and Pentagon sites: anyone who
examines the available photos can see that no crashed jetliners are visible. As for the Twin
Towers, opinions differ, but it is in any case established that the charted speeds of the two
aircraft, 443 mph and 542 mph respectively, and the precision of the strikes exclude Boeing
767s, because these speeds are virtually impossible near sea level. In the unlikely event such
speeds could be attained without the aircraft falling apart, the planes could not be flown
accurately, especially by the “terrible pilots” blamed for the attacks. Recall that neither of the
black boxes of the jetliners alleged to have hit the World Trade Center was ever found, an
incomprehensible situation.
Alleged telephone calls from passengers are equally problematic. Two calls were allegedly
made from AA77 by Barbara Olson to her husband Ted Olson. The Olsons are both public
figures: Barbara was a well-known CNN reporter, and Ted had been solicitor general during the
first Bush term (after defending Bush in the disputed 2000 election, and then Dick Cheney when
he refused to submit to Congress Enron-related documents during that investigation). Barbara
Olson’s calls, reported on CNN in the afternoon of September 11, contributed to crystallizing
some details of the official story, such as the “box cutters” used by the hijackers. Repeatedly
invited on television shows, Ted Olson frequently contradicted himself when questioned about
the calls from his wife. In a 2006 report, the FBI attributed only one call from Barbara Olson,
and it was an unconnected call lasting 0 seconds. Barbara Olson, born Kay Bracher of Jewish
parents, had studied at Yeshiva University School of Law. After her studies she was hired by the
legal firm WilmerHale, of which Jamie Gorelick, a future member of the 9/11 Commission, was
a member, and whose clients include many Israeli firms, such as Amdocs, one of the two digital
communications companies (with Comverse Infosys) involved in Israeli espionage in the United
States.581
The two phone calls from airline flight attendant Amy Sweeney of AA11 also deserve
scrutiny. In a first call, oddly passed to the American Airlines reservation service, air hostess
Amy Sweeney identified “the” hijacker as the passenger in seat 9B, before correcting herself in a
second call to designate the passenger in 10B instead. Seat 9B was that of Daniel Lewin, a
former officer in Sayeret Matkal, a special unit in the Israel Defense Forces specializing in
counterterrorism—in other words a professional assassin. The official story claims that the
passenger in 10B was the terrorist Satam Al Suqami (whose famous passport would
miraculously escape from the plane to be found on a street in Lower Manhattan) and that Al
Suqami killed Daniel Lewin, who was sitting immediately in front of him. It should be
remembered that, unlike Lewin, Suqami was not included in the flight manifest published by the
airlines. Indeed, none of the four passenger lists included a single Arab name.
Researchers who believe Israel with its American Zionist supporters orchestrated 9/11 cite
the behavior of a group of individuals who have come to be known as the “dancing Israelis”
since their arrest. Their aim was to pass themselves off as “dancing Arabs.” Dressed in
ostensibly “Middle Eastern” attire, they were seen by various witnesses on the roof of a van
parked in Jersey City, cheering and taking photos with the Twin Towers in the background, at
the very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. Alerted by witnesses, the police
immediately issued an all-points bulletin. The van was intercepted around 4 pm, with five young
men inside: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari. The
Kurzberg brothers were formally identified as Mossad agents, and all of them officially worked
for a moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving Systems, whose
owner, Dominik Otto Suter, quickly fled the country for Tel Aviv.582 These five Israelis, the only
suspects arrested on the very day of the attacks, were undoubtedly part of a vast network.
Indeed, on that date, the federal police were busy dismantling the largest Israeli spy network
ever uncovered on American soil. An official report by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
reported that 140 spies had been apprehended since March 2001, most of them posing as art
students selling cheap “made in China” reproductions. Aged from twenty to thirty years old and
organized in twenty teams of four to eight members, they visited at least “36 sensitive sites of the
Department of Defense.” Many of them were identified as members of the Mossad, and six were
in possession of phones paid for by a former Israeli vice consul. Sixty arrests occurred after
September 11, bringing the total number of Israeli spies arrested to 200. “A majority of those
questioned have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or
explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military.
One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli
Army, one served in a Patriot mission unit.” Another, Peer Segalovitz, officer in the 605
Battalion of the Golan Heights “acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and
anything else that he needed to.”583 Yet all were finally released. These young Israelis probably
played only subordinate roles, but their numbers testify to the important logistics put in place by
Israel.
The DEA report also mentions that “the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point
for these individuals.”584 More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before 9/11
lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And this city also happens to be the place where fifteen
of the nineteen alleged 9/11 Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the
vicinity), including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight AA11. What was the
relationship between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? We were told by mainstream
media that the former were monitoring the latter, but simply failed to report suspicious activities
of these terrorists to American authorities. From such a presentation, Israel comes out only
slightly tainted, since a spy agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the
country it is spying in. At most, Israel can be accused of “letting it happen”—a guarantee of
impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were certainly not just monitoring the future “hijackers,”
but financing and manipulating them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan
Serfaty, who rented two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least $100,000 in three months.
And we also learned from The New York Times on February 19, 2009, that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin
of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the
Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah since
1983.585
Artist cover seems popular with Israeli spies. Shortly before September 11, a group of
fourteen “artists” under the name of Gelatin installed themselves on the ninety-first floor of the
North Tower. There, as a work of “street art,” they removed a window and extended a wooden
balcony—a piece of scaffolding posing as an art work. To understand what role this balcony may
have played, it must be remembered that the explosion supposedly resulting from the impact of
the Boeing AA11 on the North Tower took place between the ninety-second and the ninety-
eighth floors. It should be added that floors ninety-three to one hundred were occupied by Marsh
& McLennan, whose CEO was Jeffrey Greenberg, son of wealthy Zionist (and financier of
George W. Bush) Maurice Greenberg, who also happens to be the owner of Kroll Inc., the firm
in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex on 9/11. The Greenbergs were
also the insurers of the Twin Towers and, on July 24, 2001, they took the precaution of having
the contract reinsured by competitors.
In November 2000, the board of directors of Marsh & McLennan was joined by Lewis Paul
Bremer, the chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, who, on September 11, 2001,
would appear on NBC to name bin Laden as prime suspect. In 2003, Bremer would be appointed
administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to level the Iraqi state to the ground
and oversee the theft of almost a trillion dollars intended for its reconstruction. With the only
film of the impact on the North Tower being that of the Naudet brothers, who are under
suspicion for numerous reasons, many researchers are convinced that no aircraft hit this tower,
and that the explosion simulating the impact was provoked by pre-planted explosives inside the
tower.
It is still impossible to precisely name the masterminds of the operation. But it should be
noted that both Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were temporarily out of the Israeli government in
September 2001, just like Ben-Gurion at the time of Kennedy’s assassination: Barak replaced
Netanyahu as prime minister in July 1999, but stepped aside in March 2001 in favor of Ariel
Sharon, who brought back Netanyahu as minister of foreign affairs in 2002 (with Netanyahu
again becoming prime minister in 2009). A few months before 9/11, Barak, the former head of
Israeli military intelligence (Salait Makal), had been “recruited” as a consultant to a Mossad front
company, SCP Partner, specializing in security and located a few kilometers from Urban Moving
Systems.586
A large number of influential Jewish personalities, working inside or outside the government,
were important contributors to the operation’s orchestration or subsequent manipulation. I shall
cite here only two representative examples. The first is Larry Silverstein, the real estate shark
who, with his partner Frank Lowy, leased the Twin Towers from New York City in the spring of
2001. The head of the New York Port Authority, who granted Silverstein and Lowy the lease,
was none other than Lewis Eisenberg, another member of the United Jewish Appeal Federation
and former vice president of AIPAC. It appeared that Silverstein had made a very bad deal,
because the Twin Towers had to be decontaminated for asbestos. The decontamination process
had been indefinitely postponed since the 1980s because of its cost, estimated at nearly $1 billion
in 1989. In 2001, the New York Port Authority had been all too happy to shift responsibility to
Silverstein.587
Immediately after acquiring the Twin Towers, Silverstein renegotiated the insurance
contracts to cover terrorist attacks, doubling the coverage to $3.5 billion, and made sure he
would retain the right to rebuild after such an event. After the attacks, he took his insurers to
court in order to receive double compensation, claiming that the two planes were two separate
attacks. After a long legal battle, he pocketed $4.5 billion.588 A leading member of the United
Jewish Appeal Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, the biggest fundraiser for
Israel (after the US government, which pays about $3 billion per year in aid to Israel), Silverstein
also maintained “close ties with Netanyahu,” according to Haaretz (November 21, 2001). “The
two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu’s stint as Israel’s ambassador to the United
Nations. For years they kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu
would call Silverstein.”589
The second example is Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission created in
November 2002. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who officially led the commission, revealed
in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006), that the
commission “was set up to fail” from the beginning. Zelikow had already written a synopsis and
a conclusion for the final report before the first meeting. Zelikow controlled all the working
groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them the singular
mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to “tell the story of Al-
Qaeda’s most successful operation—the 9/11 attacks.” All information, and any request for
information, had to pass through him.
Zelikow is a pure Straussian, a self-proclaimed specialist in terrorism and the creation of
“public myths” by “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and,
therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.”590 In
December 1998, he co-signed with John Deutch an article for Foreign Affairs entitled
“Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which they speculated on what would have happened if the 1993
WTC bombing (already arbitrarily attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb:
“An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or
disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a
watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented
for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders
in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. […] Like Pearl
Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States
might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance
of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.”591 Such is the man who controlled the
governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Controlled Opposition
A majority of conspiracy groups and sites avoid discussing the role of Israel in 9/11 and prefer to
point the finger at President Bush and his clan. Yet the situation in which the president found
himself at the time of the attacks—reading The Pet Goat with primary schoolchildren in Florida
—dramatically illustrates how he was removed from direct control of ongoing operations. In my
view, the interminable eight minutes during which Bush remains unresponsive after learning that
the second WTC tower had just been hit, made famous by Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit
9/11, are to 9/11 what the Zapruder film is to the Kennedy assassination: the moment when Bush
was turned into a dummy—the next best thing to a corpse—while Cheney was taking over the
real government (as Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein have shown in Vice: Dick Cheney and the
Hijacking of the American Presidency).592
If the president was taken by surprise on the day of the attacks, why did he cover for the real
culprits by validating the bin Laden-Al Qaeda thesis? It was necessary that a means of blackmail
against the president and, more generally, against the American state, be prepared in advance.
Indeed, as with the JFK assassination, the difficulty was not so much the logistics of the
operation itself as the obstruction of the investigation. A large number of very high-ranking
people needed to be sufficiently implicated to have an interest in the truth not seeing the light,
and to understand instantly that lying (the false flag) also served to cover for them. The best way
to create such a situation is the “hijacked conspiracy.” This is the hypothesis I developed in my
previous book JFK-9/11: that decision-makers in the US deep state had planned a false flag
attack on a limited scale (for example, fake aircraft events at the Pentagon and Shanksville) with
the limited purpose of justifying the invasion of Afghanistan; but that they were taken over by
the infiltrated Zionist network, whose goal was much more ambitious. The invasion of
Afghanistan to liquidate the Taliban regime, which had become an obstacle to the UNOCAL
(Union Oil of California) pipeline project, was prepared in July 2001 after the failure of the final
negotiations (it could not have been launched just one month after the 9/11 attacks without
having been planned long before). A false attack blamed on Osama bin Laden, a friend and guest
of the Taliban, was ordered to justify this intervention on the international scene and in public
opinion. In this way the invasion could be disguised as a manhunt.
But this goal did not in itself interest the neoconservatives. What did they care about
Afghanistan? What they wanted was a new war against Iraq and then a general conflagration in
the Middle East leading to the crumbling of all the real or potential enemies of Israel. So, with
the help of their New York super-sayanim (with Larry Silverstein in the lead), they outbid
everyone and gave the operation the scale they wanted, taking everyone by surprise. To trigger a
war of civilization against the Middle East, there needed to be something visually dramatic and
traumatic, like the explosion of the Twin Towers and several thousand deaths. I cannot address
here the technical investigation of these attacks, and would encourage the reader to view the
documentary by Ace Baker entitled 9/11: The Great American Psy-Opera593 and to read my
articles.594
Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media, the neoconservatives won the game
against small players like George W. Bush, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, who,
unintentionally embroiled in geopolitical machinations of global scope, only had to save face. On
September 19 and 20, Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board met in the company of Paul
Wolfowitz and Bernard Lewis (inventor of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the “clash of
civilizations”) but in the absence of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Those assembled
agreed on the need to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the initial phase of the war in
Afghanistan. They prepared a letter to Bush, written on PNAC letterhead, to remind him of his
historic mission: “Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming
at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early
and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”595 This, again, was an
ultimatum. Bush was certainly aware of the leverage that the neocons had acquired over the
major print and television media. He was obliged, under penalty of ending in the proverbial trash
bin of history, to endorse the invasion of Iraq that his father had refused the Zionists ten years
earlier.
As for Brzezinski and other US imperialists, their support for the invasion of Afghanistan
made their timid protests against the Iraq war ineffective. It was a little late in February 2007
when Brzezinski denounced before the Senate “a historical, strategic and moral calamity […]
driven by Manichaean impulses and imperial hubris.” Anxious to stop the infernal machine he
helped set in motion, the former national security advisor publicly worried that the failure in Iraq
would soon be “followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some
provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S.
military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening
quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”596 In 2012 he
declared, regarding the risk of conflagration with Iran, that Obama should stop following Israel
like a “stupid mule.”597
After 9/11, the media played the same double game as after the JFK assassination. Most of
the major newspapers and television channels presented the official thesis as verified and
incontestable. But some people simultaneously voiced an indirect suspicion of possible
complicity of George W. Bush and his father, questioning their relations with the major Saudi
families. It was The New York Times of July 26, 2003, that first revealed President Bush had
requested that a section of 28 pages be classified secret and withdrawn from the report of the
9/11 Commission—a section detailing possible involvement of specific Saudi officials. One of
the key men in this blackmail operation was Senator Bob Graham (brother of Philip Graham,
son-in-law and successor to the founder of The Washington Post Eugene Meyer), who as
president of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a member of the Joint Congressional Inquiry
on 9/11. In his book Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of
America’s War on Terror (2004), and in articles, interviews, and conferences, Graham claimed
that these 28 pages contained “proofs” that members of the Saudi royal family financed Al-
Qaeda, and that they had been censored because of “the special personal friendship between the
[Saudi] royal family and the highest levels of our national government [meaning the president].”
Graham made his first revelation on Democracy Now, the Pacifica network show founded by
Amy Goodman,598 who, according to Wikipedia, is “of Orthodox Jewish heritage; her maternal
grandfather was an Orthodox rabbi.” Democracy Now, which regularly invites Noam Chomsky,
is a typical example of controlled opposition whose aim is to maintain dissent within the
dominant paradigm (bin Laden’s guilt) while giving the illusion of adversarial debate. But the
threat of disclosing the classified pages, which have since been regularly mentioned by the press,
also maintained the pressure on Bush and his clan and prevented them from pointing the finger at
Israel.
Simultaneously, the neoconservatives blackmailed the Saudi dynasty. Speaking in an
interview with PBS in December 2002, Graham sent a message to Saudi Arabia with his
“evidence that foreign governments have helped to facilitate the activities of at least some of the
terrorists in the United States.” David Wurmser had already opened hostilities with an article in
the Weekly Standard of October 29, 2001, entitled: “The Saudi Connection: Osama bin Laden’s a
lot closer to the Saudi royal family than you think.” In June 2002, the Hudson Institute, a bastion
of neoconservative doctrine, sponsored a seminar on the theme “Discourses on Democracy:
Saudi Arabia, Friend or Foe?”—most guests suggesting that “foe” is the correct answer—then
promoted the book Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism
by Dore Gold, who has served as advisor to Netanyahu and Sharon as well as ambassador to the
United Nations. On July 10, 2002, the Franco-American neoconservative Laurent Murawiec, a
member of the Hudson Institute and the Committee on the Present Danger, appeared before
Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board to explain that Saudi Arabia is “the kernel of evil, the
prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” and recommend that the United States invade,
occupy, and fragment the state. He summarized his “Grand Strategy for the Middle East” with
these words: “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.”599 In
their book published in 2003, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, Richard Perle and
David Frum, Bush’s speechwriter, argue that “the Saudis qualify for their own membership in
the axis of evil,” and implore President Bush to “tell the truth about Saudi Arabia,” namely that
the Saudi princes finance Al-Qaeda.600 These repeated threats were highly effective, judging by
the evolution of Saudi policy, which in the following decades played Israel’s game by redirecting
its jihadist networks against Libya and Syria.
In the quest for the truth about September 11 as in the Kennedy case, controlled opposition
operates on many levels, and many honest scholars now realize that the 9/11 truth movement
itself is largely channeled to hide the role of Israel. The half-truth of the exclusively “inside job”
thesis, which denounces 9/11 as a false flag operation perpetrated by the American state on its
own citizens, functions like a secondary false flag, insofar as it protects the real masters of the
operation, who are in fact agents in the service of a foreign nation. One of the aims of this
“inside job” maneuver is to force American leaders to maintain the “bin Laden did it”
masquerade, knowing that raising the mask would reveal the features of Uncle Sam. No longer
controlling the media, they would not have the means to raise this second veil to reveal the face
of the real culprit. Any effort to get at the truth would be political suicide. Everyone understands
the issue: if one day, under mounting pressure from public opinion or for some other strategic
reason, the mainstream media abandons the official bin Laden story, the well-rehearsed slogan
“9/11 was an inside job” will have prepared Americans to turn against their own government,
while the neocon Zionists will remain untouchable. And God knows what will happen, if the
government has not by then succeeded in disarming its citizens through Sandy Hook-type psy-
ops. Government officials have little choice but to stick to the Al-Qaeda story, at least for the
next fifty years.
After reaching this conclusion, which I defended in a long Internet article,601 I had the
satisfaction of finding that Victor Thorn, in a book that had eluded me, had expressed it much
earlier, and in harsher terms:
“In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of
suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002–2003, ‘truthers’ began appearing at
rallies holding placards that read ‘9-11 was an inside job.’ Initially, these signs provided hope for
those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then
an awful realization emerged: The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest
example of Israeli propaganda ever devised. […] The mantra, ‘9-11 was an inside job’ is only
partially true and is inherently damaging to the ‘truth movement’ because it shifts all attention
away from Israel’s traitorous assault against America. […] Leaders of these fake 9-11 groups
know the truth about Israel’s 9-11 barbarity. Their willingness to perpetuate or cover it up
ultimately makes them as guilty and vile as those who launched the attacks. There are no degrees
of separation in this matter. It’s a black-and-white issue. Tell the entire truth about Israel’s
Murder, Inc. cabal, or sleep in the same infected bed as these murdering dogs lie in. […] Faux
conspiratologists complain about the government and news sources not telling the truth, yet
they’ve erected an utter blackout on data regarding Israel and 9-11.”602
There is evidence that the 9/11 truth movement was infiltrated and infected very early in
order to divert it from the Mossad job track and fix it on the inside job track: the possible forgery
of a top-secret memorandum entitled Operation Northwoods, the blueprint for a false flag
operation conceived to serve as a casus belli against Cuba in 1962. General Lyman Lemnitzer,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is said to have presented it to Kennedy’s defense secretary
Robert McNamara, who rejected it. The project consisted of a wave of terrorist acts falsely
attributed to Cuba, culminating in the explosion over Cuban waters of a plane allegedly carrying
vacationing American students. The explosion would have been preceded by distress signals
indicating an attack by a Cuban fighter. The actual passengers would be secretly transferred to
another plane, and a state funeral would be held in their remembrance. This planned operation
was revealed to the public by James Bamford in May 2001 in his book Body of Secrets,603 then
immediately reported on ABC News, so it was fresh in the public mind on 9/11. The film Loose
Change (2005), the most widely watched dissident documentary in the world, opens with a
presentation of Operation Northwoods, making its thesis of a plot emanating from the US
government extremely compelling. Operation Northwoods is sufficient to prove that in 1962 the
US military had the will and the capacity to organize a false flag attack to trigger a war, and that
such an operation would have involved the use of drones and fictitious victims.
It should be noted that the three young Jews who produced this film (Dylan Avery, Corey
Rowe, and Jason Bermas), associated with Alex Jones, hitched their whole thesis to an operation
that was never carried out. They failed to mention the attack on the USS Liberty, which actually
took place. They did not breathe a word about the double loyalty of the neoconservatives, and
treated anyone who cited the Israeli role in 9/11 as anti-Semitic. The Operation Northwoods
revelations killed two birds with one stone. The scandal was also picked up by recent books on
the Kennedy assassination incriminating the CIA, the Pentagon, and the military-industrial
complex, thus illustrating the Machiavellianism of the military elites and their conflict with the
president, who ostensibly sacked Lemnitzer for daring to imagine Operation Northwoods.604
There is even a reasonable chance that the document is a forgery, as Carol Valentine has
suggested by pointing out a few anachronistic British colloquialisms.605 When asked about it in
2006, at a time when he spoke openly of many other dark secrets, Robert McNamara, to whom
the Northwoods memo was supposedly given, declared: “I have absolutely zero recollection of
it.”606 Moreover, in 1962, Lemnitzer was not dismissed but promoted to supreme commander of
NATO forces in Europe. The Northwoods document is not listed on any government site. It is
apparently Bamford who provided it to the National Security Archive Project at George
Washington University, where it is searchable.607 Random House informs us that, to write his
book, Bamford—an ex-Navy employee gone into journalism after Watergate, just like Bob
Woodward—was granted “unprecedented access to Crypto City (the NSA campus in Ft. Meade,
MD), senior NSA officials, and thousands of NSA documents,” by none other than NSA director
Michael Hayden.608
In other words, it was Hayden who supplied Bamford with his sources, including,
presumably, the Northwoods memorandum. We do not know where he found it since this memo
is supposed to be the copy found in the personal papers of Lemnitzer (who, we are told,
destroyed all his archives at the Pentagon himself). After moving to the CIA, Hayden retired as a
principal at the Chertoff Group, the security consultancy founded by Michael Chertoff.609
Chertoff, son of a rabbi and a pioneer of Mossad, is one of the key moles placed to obstruct any
genuine inquiry into 9/11. For example, it was Chertoff who stopped the FBI’s investigation into
the five “dancing Israelis,” repatriating them back to Israel for mere “visa violations.” So we
should reasonably consider the possibility that Operation Northwoods was invented four months
before 9/11 for the purpose of predisposing truth seekers toward the hypothesis of a US rather
than Israeli false flag operation, and toward the hypothesis of US military drones crashing into
the WTC.
In my opinion, the Northwoods memo, which appeared out of nowhere four months before
September 11, is one of the false clues planted before and after the event in order to put skeptics
on the trail of an American conspiracy rather than an Israeli one. It was probably with the same
aim of preconditioning the protest movement that the Fox TV channel (a sounding board for
neoconservative-Zionist propaganda) broadcast on March 4, 2001, the first episode of The Lone
Gunmen TV series, seen by 13 million Americans, in which computer hackers working for a
secret cabal within the government hijack a jet by remote control with the intention of crashing it
into one of the Twin Towers, while making it appear to have been hijacked by Islamic terrorists,
with the purpose of triggering a global war on terrorism.610
The Fourth World War
In the days that followed 9/11, the president’s speeches (written by the neoconservative David
Frum) would characterize the terrorist attack as the trigger for a world war of a new type, one
fought against an invisible enemy scattered throughout the Middle East. First, vengeance must
come not only against bin Laden, but also against the state harboring him: “We will make no
distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them” (September
11). Second, the war extends to the world: “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does
not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped
and defeated” (September 20). Seven countries were declared “rogue states” for their alleged
support of global terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea (September
16). Third, any country that does not support Washington will be treated as an enemy: “Every
nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists” (September 20).611 These new rules would provide a pretext for endless aggression
against any and all Muslim countries: it would be enough to claim that they harbor terrorists. By
equating the “war on terrorism” with a “crusade” (September 16), Bush validated the concept of
a war between civilizations.
In an article in The Wall Street Journal dated November 20, 2001, the neoconservative Eliot
Cohen dubbed the war against terrorism as “World War IV,” a framing soon echoed by other
American Zionists. In September 2004, at a conference in Washington attended by Norman
Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz entitled “World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How
We Fight,” Cohen said: “The enemy in this war is not ‘terrorism’ […] but militant Islam.” Like
the Cold War (considered to be WWIII), this imminent Fourth World War, according to Cohen’s
vision, has ideological roots, will have global implications, and will last a long time, involving a
whole range of conflicts. The self-fulfilling prophecy of a new World War centered in the
Middle East has also been popularized by Norman Podhoretz, in “How to Win World War IV”
(Commentary, February 2002). It was followed by a second article in September 2004, “World
War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win,” and finally in 2007 in a
book called World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.612
General Wesley Clark (son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and proud descendant of a lineage of
rabbis), former commandant of NATO in Europe, writes in his book Winning Modern Wars
(2003) that one month after September 11, 2001, a Pentagon general showed him a memo from
neoconservative strategists “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five
years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off
with Iran.”613 In his September 20 speech, President Bush also cited seven “rogue states” for their
support of global terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea. It is curious
to note in this list the presence of Cuba and North Korea, which replace Lebanon and Somalia on
Clark’s list. One possible explanation is that Bush or his entourage refused to include Lebanon
and Somalia, but that the number seven was retained for its symbolic value, perhaps as an
encrypted signature. Indeed, the motif of the “Seven Nations” doomed by God forms part of the
biblical myths instilled in Israeli schoolchildren. According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh says that
he will deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly
destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not
make marriages with them…” (7:1–2). It is further prophesied to Israel: “And he will give their
kings into your hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (7:24). In the
twelfth century, Maimonides affirmed in his Book of Commandments that the injunction to “let
not a single Canaanite survive” was binding for all time, adding: “Putting the seven nations to
the sword is a duty incumbent on us; indeed, it is an obligatory war.”614
Iraq was the first nation attacked by the Anglo-American coalition. The justification given by
the government and the media was the stock of “weapons of mass destruction” held by Saddam.
CIA director George Tenet was reluctant to confirm this threat. He knew that Saddam no longer
had any such arms, thanks to information provided by his son-in-law Hussein Kamel who fled
Iraq in 1995 after being in charge of Iraq’s military industry. But the CIA, accused of
incompetence for not being able to prevent September 11, was under intense pressure; Britt
Snider, a close professional associate of Tenet’s, had already been forced to resign as staff
director of the joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the 9/11 attacks,
due to the claim of a conflict of interest made by Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for
Security Policy (CSP) founded by William Kristol. Cheney and Rumsfeld could then renew their
winning Team B strategy, essentially overtaking the CIA with a parallel structure set up to
produce the alarmist report they needed: the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a special unit within
the Near East and South Asia (NESA) offices at the Pentagon. Nicknamed “the Cabal,” the OSP
was controlled by neoconservatives William Luti, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, and Paul
Wolfowitz. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked for the NESA at this time,
testified in 2004 to the incompetence of members of the OSP, whom she saw “usurp measured
and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence
analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of
the president.”615 Either convinced or pretending to be, the president then announced to the
nation, on October 7, 2002, that Saddam Hussein could at any time “provide a biological or
chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.” Bush further claimed that Saddam
also possessed the aircraft and drones necessary to “disperse chemical or biological weapons
across broad areas [. . .], targeting the United States”; even worse, “the evidence indicates that
Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.” Time was running out, for Saddam “could
have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would
be crossed. [. . .] Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking
gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”616
Despite his initial reluctance, Secretary of State Colin Powell pleaded for war before the
United Nations General Assembly on February 5, 2003. In 2005, after resigning to give way to
Condoleezza Rice, he publicly regretted his speech to the UN, calling it “a blot on my record”
and claiming to have been deceived.617 His chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, likewise
would confess in 2006, soon after resigning: “My participation in that presentation at the UN
constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American
people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.”618 In 2011,
Wilkerson openly denounced the duplicity of neoconservatives such as David Wurmser and
Douglas Feith, whom he considered “card-carrying members of the Likud party. […] I often
wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing
that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more
reflective of Israel’s interest than our own.”619
The fact that the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of all its state structures was carried out
on behalf of Israel is now widely accepted. Even the best liars betray themselves sometimes, and
Philip Zelikow let slip the secret during a conference at the University of Virginia on September
10, 2002: “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what
I think the real threat is and actually has been since 1990: it’s the threat against Israel. And this is
the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat,
I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it
rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”620
And thus did Israel get rid of its worst enemy without losing a single human life or spending
a single penny. The cost to Americans was valued at $3 trillion in 2008 by economist Joseph
Stiglitz, and would likely exceed $5 trillion.621 The resulting impoverishment was not felt until
2008, and then with extreme violence, because Americans had been artificially immersed in a
bubble of economic euphoria. Such was the contribution of Alan Greenspan, president of the
Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, who, through excessive deregulation, favored the growth of
subprime mortgage companies and caused the overall rate of individual property ownership to
explode. It was, according to the relevant analysis of Gilad Atzmon, a crucial aspect of the
neoconservative plan: “These figures led Americans to believe that their economy was indeed
booming. And when an economy is booming nobody is really interested in foreign affairs,
certainly not in a million dead Iraqis.”622
The Iraq War represented, for the crypto-Zionists who launched it, a decisive step toward the
ever-closer goal of Greater Israel. It was in this context that the October 2003 “Jerusalem
Summit” was held in the symbolically significant King David Hotel. It was meant to forge an
alliance between Zionist Jews and evangelical Christians around a “theopolitical” project. This
project would consider Israel, in the words of the “Jerusalem Declaration” signed by its
participants, “the key to the harmony of civilizations,” replacing the United Nations that had
become “a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships”: “Jerusalem’s
spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of
world’s unity. [. . .] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is
to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and
prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.” Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit,
including Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the
Henry Scoop Jackson Award.623
The evangelical Christian support for this project should not come as a surprise. With more
than fifty million members, the Christians United for Israel movement, founded by John Hagee,
had become a considerable political force in the United States. Its president, Pastor John Hagee,
author of Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude to War (2007), called without hesitation for “a
preemptive military strike against Iran.”
Iran, in fact, is the ultimate target of the neoconservatives. An Iran armed with the atomic
bomb is indeed the nightmare of Israel. “Never let an enemy country acquire nuclear weapons” is
a fundamental principle formulated since the 60s by the leaders of Israel. Netanyahu has for ten
years demonized Tehran by accusing it of the darkest designs, before the General Assembly of
the UN (September 27, 2012) and before the US Congress (May 24, 2011 and March 3, 2015).
“The United States should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran to spur the country to end its nuclear
program,” proposed American billionaire Sheldon Adelson in 2013. Adelson is one of the
biggest donors to both the American Republican party and the Israeli Likud. In 2015 he
threatened to use all his money to humiliate and prevent the re-election of any Congressional
representative who boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in the US
Congress.624
The second fundamental principle of Israel’s foreign policy is known as “the Samson
Option.” Formulated in the 1970s, when Israel had acquired a sufficient stock of atomic bombs,
it is summarized by Ron Rosenbaum in How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War
III (2012): “Abandonment of proportionality is the essence of the so-called Samson Option in all
its variants. A Samson Option is made possible by the fact that even if Israel has been
obliterated, it can be sure that its Dolphin-class nuclear missile submarines cruising the Red Sea,
the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf at depths impervious to detection, can carry out a
genocidal-scale retaliation virtually anywhere in the world.” Israel could easily “bring down the
pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals, for instance)” as well as the “holy
places of Islam.”625
A third, tacit principle determines the character of twenty-first-century Israeli proxy wars in
the Middle East: the abandonment of the distinction between soldiers and civilians through the
category of “terrorist”—which justifies, moreover, contempt for all the “laws of war” by which
men have attempted to civilize barbarism. Inhuman treatment in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq will
remain in history as one of the most sinister symbols of this total degradation. Is it a coincidence
that, according to the great reporter Robert Fisk of The Independent of London: “The head of an
American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures [at Abu Ghraib], it now
turns out, attended an ‘anti-terror’ training camp in Israel and, earlier this year, was presented
with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister.”626
“Color revolutions” are regime changes that give the appearance of a revolution, in that they
mobilize large segments of the people, but are actually coups d’état, in that they do not aim at
changing structures, but rather at substituting one elite for another to lead a pro-US economic
and foreign policy. In 2009 the first “green revolution” was launched against Iran. It was
puppeteered by Washington and led by expatriated Americanized bloggers. Though a failure,
carbon copies succeeded two years later with the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia and Egypt. In 2009 it
was revealed that several of the Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Yemeni, Syrian, and Egyptian
internet users who triggered the disturbances had taken a training course in 2009 on techniques
of peaceful revolutions offered by CANVAS, the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and
Strategies, funded by Freedom House. Freedom House is an organization funded 75 percent by
the federal government (via the National Endowment for Democracy and the State Department),
which according to its statutes “assists the development of freedoms in the world,” on the
assumption that “The American predominance in international affairs is essential for the cause of
human rights and freedom.” Led by James Woolsey, director of the CIA between 1993 and 1995,
it has included the famous “philanthropists” Samuel Huntington, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
After Egypt it was Libya’s turn. Dictator Muammar Gaddafi had committed the double
mistake of trying to get closer to Europe and the United States while refusing any compromise
with Israel. Tribal, ethnic, and religious rivalries are the Achilles heel of the countries of the
Middle East, as a result of their arbitrarily drawn borders on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.
The strategy of destruction consists of encouraging, arming, and financing the groups opposed to
the regime, augmented by fanatics and mercenaries of various types, and then casting the
resulting disturbances as “repression” in the eyes of Western public opinion. This then justifies
armed intervention to “support the rebels.” The decisive role played by the French government in
convincing the UN Security Council to validate such aggression will remain an indelible stain on
the history of France. The former chief of staff of the French Armed Forces, Admiral Édouard
Guillaud, declared on January 26, 2014, one week before his retirement: “The South of Libya has
become a real black hole [. . .] a place for the regeneration of terrorism, of supplying arms to
terrorists, it is the new center of gravity for terrorism.”627
The hordes of jihadists recruited to destroy Libya (many of them from Iraq) would then be
redirected toward Syria to launch the same type of “Arab Spring.” Threatened with destruction,
Syria was offered as an alternative a puppet government whose president, Burhan Ghalioun,
promised in 2011 to “end the military relationship to Iran and cut off arms supplies to Hezbollah
and Hamas, and establish ties with Israel.”628 The true nature of the Syrian “rebels”—stateless
barbarians, drug addicts, and Al Qaeda allies—could not be hidden for long from the public.
They had to be supported discreetly, as for example by delivering them weapons by way of
phantom “moderate rebels,” or directly but “by mistake.” Meanwhile Israel was taking care of
their wounded and sending them back into combat, while occasionally bombing Syrian
government positions. As an additional bonus, the image of black-masked medieval butchers
served to demonize Islam in the eyes of a public opinion paralyzed by confusion.629
Such is the contribution of this new genre of “Marranos.” Consider the case of Adam
Pearlman, grandson of an administrator of the Anti-Defamation League, who under the
pseudonym Adam Yahiye Gadahn, unconvincingly bearded and beturbaned, broadcast anti-
American Islamic diatribes in 2009 before being unmasked; or Joseph Leonard Cohen, member
of the Revolution Muslim group under the name of Youssef al Khattab.630 Meanwhile, the FBI
and other Zionist-infiltrated secret services continue to foster terror attacks on American soil
under the pretext of thwarting them.631
Chapter 10
THE GREAT GAME OF ZION
48–49.
50 Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, New York, 1924 (archive.org), pp. 74–75.
51 Samuel Noah Kramer, History Begins at Sumer, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988, pp. 144–150.
52 Jan Assmann, The Price of Monotheism, op. cit., k. 698.
53 Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values and the Jewish State, Harvard University Press, 1995, p. 18.
54 www.gilad.co.uk/writings/on-idfs-failure-and-jewish-ethics.html.
55 Quoted in Robert Edward Edmondson, The Jewish System Indicted by the Documentary Record, 1937 (archive.org), p. 15.
56 Bernard Lazare, L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes (1894), Kontre Kulture, 2011, p. 12.
57 Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, 3rd ed., Wayne State University Press, 1990, p. 34.
58 Gérard Chaliand, Les Voix du Sacré, Robert Laffont, 1992, p. 32.
59 Jean-Pierre Chevillot, D’Isis au Christ: Aux sources hellénistiques du christianisme, L’Harmattan, 2010, kindle, k. 27–33.
60 Françoise Dunand, Isis, mère des dieux, Actes Sud, 2008, p. 232.
61 Stehanie Lynn Budin, The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
62 Laurent Guyénot, La Mort féerique. Anthropologie du merveilleux (XIIe-XVe siècle), Gallimard, 2011.
63 Heinrich Zimmer, The King and the Corpse: Tales of the Soul’s Conquest of Evil, 1948.
64 Jean Soler, Qui est Dieu?, op. cit., p. 23.
65 Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence, Princeton University Press, 2006, pp. 122–125, 4.
66 Emmanuel Levinas, Difficile Liberté, quoted in Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p.
308.
67 Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, op. cit., p. 301.
68 Also Exodus 22:24 and Leviticus 25:35–37.
69 Lawrence Wills, Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends, Cornell University Press, 1995, p. 189.
70 Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (archive.org), vol.1, p. 331.
71 Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, John Knox Press, 1998, p. 110.
72 Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Praeger, 1994,
1.
92 Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, Routledge, 2007, p. 410.
93
Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question, 1843, on www.marxists.org/archive
94 Jacques Attali, Les Juifs, le monde et l’argent, Fayard, 2002, p. 36.
95 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, Felix Alcan, 1929 (archive.org), pp. 115, 98, 143, 27–28.
96 Harry Waton, A Program for The Jews, An Answer To All Anti-Semites: A Program for Humanity, 1939 (archive.org), pp. 52,
125, 132.
97 Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, John Knox Press, 1998, p. 111.
98 Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, New York, 1924 (archive.org), pp. 74–75.
99 Harry Waton, A Program for The Jews, op. cit., p. 148.
100 Ludwig Feurbach, L’Essence du christianisme (1841), François Maspéro, 1973, p. 129.
101 Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (archive.org), pp. 48, 64–65.
102 Henri Guillemin, L’arrière-pensée de Jaurès, Gallimard, 1966.
103 John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath (1939), Penguin Classics, 2000, p. 26.
104 Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011, pp. 58–61.
105 Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, op. cit., p. 121.
106 Quoted in Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University
1975.
116 I Apologies V.3, quoted in Martin Hengel, La Crucifixion dans l’Antiquité et la folie du message de la croix, Cerf, 1981, p.
13.
117 Christopher Jones, New Heroes in Antiquity: From Achilles to Antinoos, Harvard University Press, 2009, p. 84.
118 Stefan Czarnowski, Le Culte des héros et ses conditions sociales, Félix Alcan, 1919, p. 27.
119 Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, op. cit., p. 228.
120 Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934), Sigler Press, 1996; Robert I. Moore, The Formation of a
Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe, 950–1250, Blackwell Publishing, 1987.
121 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979, p. 16.
122 Simon Légasse, L’Évangile de Marc, Le Cerf, 1997, vol. 2, pp. 535–536.
123 Royston Lambert, Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous, Phoenix Giant, 1984 ; Christopher Jones, New
Heroes in Antiquity, op. cit., pp. 75–83.
124 Silvestro Fiore, “Les origines orientales de la légende du Graal,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 10 (1967), pp. 207–219.
125 Bojana Mojsov, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God, Wiley-Blackwell, 2005, p. 116.
126 F. Pommerol, “Origine du culte des Vierges Noires,” Bulletin de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris, 1901, vol. 2, pp. 83–88,
on www.persee.fr.
127 Françoise Dunand, Isis, mère des dieux, Actes Sud, 2008, pp. 280–286.
128
Claire Lalouette, Contes et récits de l’Égypte ancienne, Flammarion, 1995, p. 110.
129 Bojana Mojsov, Osiris, op. cit., p. 16.
130 See for example James Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, SPCK, 1989.
131
Acts 2:19–20, 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 2 Peter 3:7, Revelation 1:7 and 8:10–12.
132 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, op. cit., pp. 17–18.
133 Walter Bauer, Orthodoxie et hérésie au début du christianisme (1934), op. cit., p. 51.
134 Richard Rubenstein, Le Jour où Jésus devint Dieu, La Découverte, 2004, p. 256.
135
Michael Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973, pp. 283–284.
136 Amon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Wayne State University Press, 1987.
137 Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation,
165.
144 Read Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, Schocken, 1989.
145 Robert de Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople, Champion Classiques, 2004, p. 171.
146 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades (1954), Penguin Classics,
2016, p. 123.
147 Innocent III, paraphrased by Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, Hambledon Continuum, 2003, p. xiii.
148 Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, op. cit., p. 50.
149 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3, op. cit, p. 130.
150 Edwin Hunt, The Medieval Super-Companies: A Study of the Peruzzi Company of Florence, Cambridge University Press,
1994.
151 Sylvain Gouguenheim, Aristote au mont Saint-Michel. Les racines grecques de l’Europe chrétienne, Seuil, 2008.
152 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3, op. cit., p. 391.
153 John Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, op. cit., p. 10.
154 Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911) Batoche Books, 2001.
155 Abraham Léon, La Conception matérialiste de la question juive (1942), Kontre Kulture, 2013, p. 109.
156 Norman Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy: A Social and Intellectual History, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
157 Edward Freeman, The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry the First, Clarendon Press, 1882, vol. 1, pp. 160–
161.
158 Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Praeger, 1994, kindle 2013,
k. 7218–26.
159 Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe: the Khazar Empire and its Heritage, Hutchinson, 1976.
160 For a refutation of the Khazar hypothesis, read Shaul Stampfer, “Did the Khazars convert to Judaism,” Jewish Social Studies,
vol. 19-3, spring/summer 2013, on the net.
161 Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, Jews in Poland: A Documentary History; the Rise of the Jews as a Nation from Congressus
Judaicus in Poland to the Knesset in Israel, Hippocrene Books, 1993, pp. 13–14.
162 Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007, pp. 82–93.
163 Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History, Fidelity Press, 2008, pp. 118–123.
164 Yirmiyahu Yovel, L’Aventure marrane. Judaïsme et modernité, Seuil, 2011, p. 395.
165 Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An account of the persecution of the world by Israel on all the frontiers of civilization, 1934
04_331.pdf
204 Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger,
1998, kindle 2013, k. 4732–4877.
205 Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (archive.org), pp. 43, 74, 71.
206 Quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), 50th Anniversary Edition, Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 14.
207 Kaufmnann Kohler, Jewish Theology, Systematically and Historically Considered, Macmillan, 1918 (www.gutenberg.org), p.
290.
208 Lucien Wolf, Report on the “Marranos” or Crypto-Jews of Portugal, Anglo-Jewish Association, 1926.
209 Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, Yale University Press, 1998, p. 31.
210
Stephen Greenblatt, Hamlet in Purgatory, Princeton University Press, 2001.
211 Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (archive.org), pp. 82, 86.
212
Cecil Roth, A History of the Marranos (1932), Meridian Books, 1959, p. 100.
213 Cecil Roth, A History of the Jews in England (1941), Clarendon Press, 1964, p. 148.
214 Isaac Disraeli, Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles the First, King of England, 2 vols., 1851, quoted in Archibald
on purl.oclc.org/emls/02-2/halemil2.html.
219 Tudor Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002; Cecil Roth, A History of the
Richmond and Paul Smith, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 106–130.
231 Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, Harper & Brothers, 1949, p. 192.
232 Stanley Weintraub, Disraeli: A Biography, Hamish Hamilton, 1993, pp. 579, 547.
233 André Pichot, Aux origines des théories raciales, de la Bible à Darwin, Flammarion, 2008, pp. 124–143, 319.
234 Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, Constable & Co., 1922 (archive.org), p. 223.
235 YouTube, “Brzezinski: US won’t follow Israel like a stupid mule.” (https://youtu.be/ifEGiJ2ZxDM).
236 Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden (1949), Books In Focus, 1981.
237 The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Raphael Patai, Herzl Press & Thomas Yoseloff, 1960, vol. 1, pp. 163–170.
238 Jill Duchess of Hamilton, God, Guns and Israel: Britain, the First World War and the Jews in the Holy City, History Press,
2013, k. 1731–52.
239 On www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/pinsker.html.
240 Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, on www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.
241 The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 362–363, 378–379, and vol. 3, p. 960.
242 Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism (1938), Balfour Books, 2012, k. 2575.
243 Theodor Herzl, Zionism, state edition, 1937, p. 65, quoted in Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism, op. cit.,
k. 1456–9.
244 Quoted in Ben Hecht, Perfidy, 1961 (www.hirhome.com), p. 224.
245 Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism, op. cit., k. 1614–20.
246 Joachim Prinz, The Secret Jews, Random House, 1973, p. 122; Wayne Madsen, “The Dönmeh: The Middle East’s Most
Whispered Secret (Part I),” Strategic Culture Foundation, October 25, 2011, on www.strategic-culture.org.
247 Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence, Princeton University Press, 2006, pp. 122–125.
248 Read also Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War (1914–1918), Penguin Books, 2009, and Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor,
Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Mainstream Publishing, 2013.
249 Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, op. cit., pp. 16–17, 142.
250
Quoted in Don Heddesheimer, The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns With Holocaust Claims During and
After World War One, Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003 (archive.org), p. 38.
251
Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 21, 18.
252 Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henri Holt & Company, 2007, kindle ed.
253 Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism (1600–1918), vol. 2, 1919, pp. 79–80, quoted in Alison Weir, Against Our Better
Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, 2014, k. 387–475.
254 Gene Smith, When the Cheering Stopped: The Last Years of Woodrow Wilson, William Morrow & Co, 1964, pp. 20–23.
255 Bruce Allen Murphy, The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices,
(archive.org), p. xxix.
261 Alan Hart, Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 1, op. cit., pp. 85–87.
262 Niall Ferguson in, The Pity of War, op. cit., k. 9756–66.
263 John M. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919, on gutenberg.org.
264 Robert Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs, George H. Doran Co., 1920 (archive.org), pp. 392–393.
265 Bernard Lazare, L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes (1894), Kontre Kulture, 2011, p. 173.
266 Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, Constable & Co., 1922 (archive.org), pp. 167–185.
267 Michel Bakounine, “Aux compagnons de la Fédération des sections internationales du Jura,” 1872, quoted in Henri Arvon,
Les Juifs et l’Idéologie, PUF, 1978, p. 50.
268 Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question, 1843, on www.marxists.org/archive
269 Abraham Léon, La Conception matérialiste de la question juive (1946), Kontre Kulture, 2013.
270 Read Bakounine’s answer, “Aux citoyens rédacteurs du Réveil,” on Wikisource.org
271 Alfred M. Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Grosset & Dunlop, 1962, p. 7.
272 “Says Jews of World will back League,” New York Times, August 28, 1922, on query.nytimes.com.
273 Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, Princeton University Press, 2004.
274 Alexandre Soljénitsyne, Deux siècles ensemble (1795–1995), tome I : Juifs et Russes avant la Révolution, Fayard, 2003, pp.
26–36.
275 Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, Jews in Poland: A Documentary History, Hippocrene Books, 1993, pp. 13–15.
276 Alexandre Soljénitsyne, Deux siècles ensemble, tome I, op. cit., pp. 50–54, 154.
277 Erich Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-century Russia, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 253–254.
278 Read Alexandre Soljénitsyne, Deux siècles ensemble (1795–1995), tome II: Juifs et Russes pendant la période soviétique,
Fayard, 2003.
279 Angelo Solomon Rappoport, The Pioneers of the Russian Revolution, Brentano’s, 1919 (archive.org), p. 250.
280 On en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism.
281 Louis Marschalko, The World Conquerors: The Real War Criminals, 1958 (archive.org), p. 50.
282 Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, Fidelity Press, 2008, p. 747.
283 Bertie Charles Forbes, Men Who Are Making America, 1917 (archive.org), p. 334; Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the
Bolshevik Revolution (1976), Clairview Books, 2011.
284 Read on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Hebrew. See other similar press articles on YouTube, “‘Six million Jews’
64–67, 200.
304 Letter to Martin Bormann dated February 3, 1945, quoted in Gunnar Heinsohn, “What makes the Holocaust a uniquely unique
genocide?,” Journal of Genocide Research, November 2000, pp. 411–413, on migs.concordia.ca.
305 Quoted in Heinz Höhne, The Order of the Death’s Head: The Story of Hitler’s SS, Penguin Books, 2001, p. 133.
306 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941 (archive.org), pp. 447–448.
307 The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Raphael Patai, Herzl Press & Thomas Yoseloff, 1960, vol. 1, p. 118.
308 Isaiah Friedman, Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897–1918, Transaction Publishers, 1998, p. 17.
309 Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust reader, Behrman House, 1976, p. 150–155.
310 Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Penguin, 2006, pp. 136–138.
311 Alan Hart, Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 1: The False Messiah, Clarity Press, 2009, pp. 211–213.
312 David Irving, Churchill’s War, vol. 2: Triumph in Adversity, Focal Point Publications, 2001, pp. 76-77.
313 Vladimir Jabotinsky, The War and the Jew, Dial Press, 1942 (archive.org).
314 Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 1, op. cit., pp. 115–116, 155–159.
315 Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld, Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony of Jewish War Criminals, Bnei Yeshivos, 1977
(netureikartaru.com/Holocaust_Victims_Accuse.pdf), p. 25.
316 Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 1, op. cit., p. 164.
317 Florent Brayard, Auschwitz. Enquête sur un complot nazi, Seuil, 2012, pp. 34, 254–256.
318 Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy – Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust, Harvard University Press,
2008.
319 Florent Brayard, La « Solution Finale de la Question Juive ». La technique, le temps et les catégories de la décision, Fayard,
2004, pp. 380–381, 396–399, and 16–21.
320 David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, Focal Point, 1996.
321 Quoted in Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn Publishing, 1983, pp. 236–238.
322 Maurice Bardèche, Nuremberg, Kontre Kulture, 2016, p. 271–360.
323 Benton Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, Authorhouse, 2012, p. 6.
324 Adolf Hitler, in his political testament written April 29, 1945, the day before his suicide, on www.historylearningsite.co.uk.
325 These articles are easily found on the Internet.
326 Bernard Baruch, Baruch: The Public Years, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960, p. 347.
327 Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy, op. cit.
328 Quoted in Robert Edward Edmondson, The Jewish System Indicted by the Documentary Record, 1937 (archive.org), p. 14.
329 Theodore Kaufman, Germany Must Perish, Argyle Press, 1941 (archive.org), p. 30.
330 “‘Hitler Will Be Nothing But a Rosebud,’ Says the Author of ‘Germany Must Perish’,” The Canadian Jewish Chronicle,
September 26, 1941, quoted in Brandon Martinez, Grand Deceptions: Zionist Intrigue in the 20th and 21st Centuries, Progressive
Press, 2014, kindle, k. 226.
331 Florent Brayard, Auschwitz, op. cit., pp. 42–43.
332 Louis Nizer, What to do with Germany?, Brentano’s, 1944 (archive.org), pp. 98–107.
333 Ben Hecht, A Guide for the Bedeviled, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1944, p. 120.
334
Louis Marschalko, The World Conquerors, op. cit., p. 105.
335 Richard Brickner, Is Germany Incurable? J. B. Lippincott Co., 1943, pp. 30, 56 and 163.
336
Quoted in David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, op. cit., p. 20.
337 James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944–1950, Little, Brown &
Company, 1997 (archive.org). Read also the report by Ralph Franklin Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Costly Attempt To
Exterminate The People of Germany, Institute of American Economics, 1947.
338 John Sack, An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945, Basic Books, 1993.
339 Beata de Robien, “Eleanor Roosevelt, une femme influente sous influence,” La Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire, no 69, November-
366.
344 Antoine Capet, “‘The Creeds of the Devil’: Churchill between the Two Totalitarianisms, 1917–1945,” on
www.winstonchurchill.org.
345 David Irving, Hess: The Missing Years, 1941–45, Macmillan 1987.
346 “Alliance with Russia,” on www.winstonchurchill.org.
347 Political Testament of Adolf Hitler, on archive.org.
348 Unless mentioned otherwise, this section is based on Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henri
Holt & Company, 2007, kindle ed.
349 Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 1, op. cit., p. 115-116, 155-159.
350 Martin Gilbert, “Winston Churchill and the foundation of Israel,” May 2, 2016, www.martingilbert.com/blog/winston-
churchill-and-the-foundation-of-israel/
351 Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews, op. cit., k. 3705-53.
352 Nahum Goldman, Le Paradoxe juif. Conversations en français avec Léon Abramowicz, Stock, 1976 (archive.org), pp. 17–18.
353 Stephen Isaacs, Jews and American Politics, Doubleday, 1974, p. 244.
354 Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 50.
355 Harry Truman, Years of Trial and Hope, vol. 2, Doubleday, 1956 (archive.org), p. 158.
356 Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? op. cit., pp. xix-xx.
357 Sidney Zion, “Truman did it to save his own skin,” Jewish World Review, July 21, 2003, quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What
Price Israel? op. cit., pp. xix-xx; Richard McKinzie, “Abraham Feinberg Oral History Interview,” Truman Library, August 23,
1973, on www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/feinberg.htm.
358 Alan Hart, Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 92.
359 Norman Finkelstein, Knowing Too Much: Why the American Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End, OR Books, 2012, p.
278.
360 Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, South End Press, 1983, p. 161; Idith
Zertal, Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 186–190.
361 Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, op. cit., p. 22.
362 Quoted in Joseph Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel, Twayne Publishers, 1960, p. 156.
363 Menachem Begin, The Revolt: Story of the Irgun, Henry Schuman, 1951, quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel ? op.
cit., p. 81.
364 Arthur Koestler, “The Rise of Terrorism,” in Promise and Fulfilment – Palestine 1917–1949, MacMillan, 1949.
365 Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 90; Roger Garaudy, Les Mythes fondateurs de la politique israëlienne, La Vieille
Taupe, 1995, p. 153.
366 Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld, Holocaust Victims Accuse, op. cit., pp. 28 and 24.
367 Quoted in Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, Hill and Wang, 1993, pp. 27, 129.
368 John Mulhall, America and the Founding of Israel: an Investigation of the Morality of America’s Role, Deshon, 1995, p. 109.
369 Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? op. cit., pp. 148–150.
370 Idith Zertal, Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 44–51.
371 Quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? op. cit., p. 151.
372 Naeim Giladi, Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews (1992), Dandelion Books, 2003.
373 Ella Shohat, Le Sionisme du point de vue de ses victimes juives : Les juifs orientaux en Israël, La Fabrique, 2006.
374
Laurent Rucker, Moscow’s Surprise: The Soviet-Israeli Alliance of 1947–1949, Cold War International History Project,
Working Paper #46, on www.cwihp.org, pp. 1–4.
375
Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, op. cit., k. 5197.
376 Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle
2013, k. 2503–10.
377 Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, 2014, p.
20.
378 “Eisenhower Says Israel is Democracy’s Outpost in Middle East,” October 6, 1952, on www.jta.org.
379 Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, op. cit., p. 227.
380 Dan Kurzman, Ben-Gurion, Prophet of Fire, Touchstone, 1983, p. 372.
381
Quoted in Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle, op. cit., p. 467.
382 Alan Hart, Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 118.
383 Alan Hart, Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2, op. cit., page 117.
384 Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary and Other Documents,
97.
394 Douglas Martin, “Myer Feldman, 92, Adviser to President Kennedy, Dies,” The New York Times, March 3, 2007, on
www.nytimes.com.
395 The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/.
396 Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012.
397 Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present,
266, 287.
407 Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed.,
ebook 2005, pp. 133–155, 226.
408 jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/ex-flame-says-jack-ruby-had-no-choice-but-to-kill-oswald/.
409 William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer, Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, “Lee Harvey Oswald’s Killer
‘Jack Ruby’ Came From Strong Jewish Background,” The Forward, November 17, 2013, on forward.com.
410 Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 279.
411 Patrick Howley, “Why Jack Ruby was probably part of the Kennedy conspiracy,” The Daily Caller, March 14, 2014,
on dailycaller.com.
412 Read Ruby’s deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm.
413 Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit., pp. 271–80.
414 See on YouTube, “Jack Ruby Talks.”
415
David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007, pp. 262–263.
416 Quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit., p. 17.
417
Latest book following this line of inquiry: Roger Stone, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, Skyhorse,
2013.
418 James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. 300.
419
Read articles “John Connally” and “Fred Korth” on spartacus-educational.com.
420 Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit., p. 372.
421 Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit., p. 513–514, 619.
422 On YouTube, “Phone call: Lyndon Johnson & Richard Russell.”
423
Natasha Mozgovaya, “Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82,” Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on
www.haaretz.com.
424
Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200.
425 Natalie Ornish, Pioneer Jewish Texans, The Texas A&M University Press, 2011.
426 John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An American Coup d’État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.
427 Read my earlier book JFK-9/11, Progressive Press, 2014. My interpretation has changed on minor details.
428 On JFK Library, www.jfklibrary.org/
429 Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit., p. 638.
430 LBJ Library: www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/nsams/nsam273.asp.
431 Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, Potomac Books, 2007.
432 Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed.,
2005, pp. 290–297; False Flag: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 81; and Ch. 44 of Gary Wean, There’s a Fish
in the Courthouse, Casitas, 1987, www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Critical_Summaries/Articles/Wean_Chap_44.html.
433 Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., pp. 85–87.
434 Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.
435 Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., pp. 67–77.
436 Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of Counterintelligence, University of Massachusetts
on educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7534.
442 “Harry Truman Writes: Limit CIA Role to Intelligence,” Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last
Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK, Skyhorse Publishing, 2011, p. 246.
443 Thomas Troy, “Truman on CIA,” September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov.
444 Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President’s Alter Ego, Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997, publisher’s presentation.
445 Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., p. 67.
446 James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, op. cit., p. 46.
447 George de Mohrenschilldt, I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm.
448 Read the Sheriff’s Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt.
449 Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation: A Former Federal Investigator Reveals the Man behind the Conspiracy to Kill JFK,
1993, Skyhorse, 2013, k. 405–76.
450 Listen to Kantor on YouTube, “Ruby at Parkland Hospital.”
451 CIA Dispatch #1035–960, on www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html, reproduced in Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in
America, University of Texas Press, 2013, kindle, k. 2785–2819.
452 Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon - Arnon Milchan, Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi.
453 Stuart Winer, “Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan reveals past as secret agent,” The Times of Israel, November 25, 2013, on
www.timesofisrael.com
454 For example Gus Russo, Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK, Bancroft Press, 1998.
455 jfkcountercoup.blogspot.fr/2011/10/oni-assassination-of-president-kennedy.html.
456 Martin W. Sandler (ed.), The Letters of John F. Kennedy, Bloomsbury, 2013.
457
Youtube, “Gaddafi says JFK assassinated by Israel.”
458 Youtube, “Gaddafi calls for investigation into JFK/MLK assassinations.”
459
Quoted in Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, Lawrence Hill Books, 2003
(archive.org), p. 95.
460 Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.
461
Alan Hart, Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 3: Conflict Without End? Clarity Press, 2010, pp. 21–22.
462 Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013,
on 5tjt.com.
463 James Smallwood, “Operation Texas: Lyndon B. Johnson, The Jewish Question and the Nazi Holocaust,” East Texas
Historical Journal, vol. 50, 2, p. 89, on scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ethj.
464
“Lyndon B. Johnson – A Righteous Gentile,” lyndonjohnsonandisrael.blogspot.fr; Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option, op.
cit., p. 127.
465
State Department Archive: 2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix/28057.htm.
466 Robert Allen, Beyond Treason: Reflections on the Cover-up of the June 1967 Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, an American
Spy Ship, CreateSpace, 2012.
467 Watch the 2014 Al-Jazeera documentary The Day Israel Attacked America.
468 On the Jewish-led student uprising in Paris in 1968, read Yair Auron, Les Juifs d’extrême gauche en Mai 68, Albin Michel,
1998.
469 Watch the “alternate history” film by Koji Masutani, Virtual JFK: Vietnam if Kennedy had Lived, 2009.
470 Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, op. cit., p. 378.
471 Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., p. 173.
472 Seth Berkman, “The Jews Who Marched on Washington With Martin Luther King,” Forward.com, August 27, 2013,
on electronicintifada.net.
475 Frank Morales, “The Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!,” June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca; YouTube,
“Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole.”
476 Jacqui Goddard, “Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F. Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later,” The
p. 348.
495 Associated Press, “RFK children speak about JFK assassination,” January 12, 2013, on www.usatoday.com
496 David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., pp. 278-280, 305.
497 Gus Russo, Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK, Bancroft Press, 1998, pp. 574–575.
498 James Hepburn, Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.
499 David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., pp. 312–314.
500
Garrison, quoted in David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 333.
501 “A Mother’s Defense, by Guela Amir on the Rabin Assassination,” George, March 1997, on groups.google.com.
502 Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 3, op. cit., pp. 198–203.
503 Read Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, Silent Coup: The Removal of a President, St Martin’s Press, 1991, and Jim Hougan,
Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA, Ballantine Books, 1986.
504 Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, on www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.
505 Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, Princeton University Press, 2004, kindle, k. 5529.
506 Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 175, 102–112.
507 William Zukerman, “The Menace of Jewish Fascism,” The Nation, April 25 and June 27, 1934, on
www.zundelsite.org/archive/french/rhr/Zuker.pdf.
508 Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger,
1998, kindle 2013, k. 6343–50.
509 Quoted in Roger Garaudy, Le Procès du sionisme israélien, Éditions Vent du Large, 1998 (archive.org), p. 40.
510 Other examples in Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 3, op. cit., pp. 16–17.
511 Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, 2014, p. 6.
512 Benjamin Ginsberg, Jews in American Politics: Essays, dir. Sandy Maisel, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, p. 22.
513 Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel, 2014, k. 3280–94.
514 Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, op. cit., k. 5463–68.
515 Quoted in Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon: Those Who Reign Supreme, American Free Press, 2009, p. 27.
516 Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? op. cit., p. 144.
517 Abraham Herschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity, Doubleday, 1969, p. 115.
518 Idith Zertal, Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 97, 107, 110.
519 Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, op. cit., k. 565–633.
520 Declaration of Jewish representative Henry Bulawko, Oxford, July 1988, quoted in Anne Kling, Menteurs et affabulateurs de
www.nytimes.com.
563 Michael Collins Piper, False Flag: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, pp. 128, 15.
564 Tishrin Al-Usbu’a, August 24, 1998, as quoted by the Anti-Defamation League,
on archive.adl.org/syria_media/syria_monica.asp.
565 Patrick Buchanan, “Whose War? . . . ,” op. cit.
566 Brandon Martinez, Grand Deceptions: Zionist Intrigue in the 20th and 21st Centuries, k. 323–7.
567 Brandon Martinez, Grand Deceptions, op. cit., k. 692, 496.
568 James Bennet, “A Day of Terror: the Israelis; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer,” New York Times,
September 12, 2001.
569 See on YouTube, “Ehud Barak, interviewed on BBC an hour after attacks”; see him also on the BBC News talk show “Hard
Clouds,” 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/dust.html.
577 The documentary The Mystery of WTC7 by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on Dailymotion, is a good introduction to
archive.com/2014/06/06/made-in-israel/.
603 James Bamford, Body of Secrets: How America’s NSA and Britain’s GCHQ Eavesdrop on the World, Century, 2001, pp. 84–
90.
604 For example, James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, pp. 95–97.
605 Read Carol Valentine’s “Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit,” www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html.
606 David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 107.
607 National Security Archive: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/.
608 www.randomhouse.com/features/bamford/author.html.
609 Seamus Coogan, “Addendum: Who Is James Bamford? And What Was He Doing with ARRB?,” August 2010, on
www.ctka.net.
610 YouTube, “The Lone Gunmen Pilot – 9/11 Predictive Programming.”
611 Bush’s speeches on www.presidentialrhetoric.com/.
612 Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, op. cit., p. 193.
613 Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, Public Affairs, 2003, p. 130.
614 André Gaillard, Les Racines judaïques de l’antisémitisme, AMG Éditions, 2012, p. 84.
615 Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, op. cit., p. 162.
616 Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, op. cit., p. 155.
617
Steven Weisman, “Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record,” New York Times, September 9, 2005, on
www.nytimes.com.
618
Transcript on www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html.
619 Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, op. cit., p. 120.
620 Noted by Inter-Press Service on March 29, 2004, under the title “U.S.: Iraq war is to protect Israel, says 9/11 panel chief,”
22.
626 Robert Fisk, “The Re-writing of Iraqi History Is Now Going On at Supersonic Speed,” The Independent, May 26, 2004.
627 Hassan Hamadé, “Lettre ouverte aux Européens coincés derrières le rideau de fer israélo-US,” May 21, 2014, on
www.voltairenet.org/.
628 Joe Quinn, “Syria’s Fake Color Revolution,” in ISIS Is US: The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror, Progressive Press,
2016, p. 26.
629 Watch “Adam Curtis – Oh Dearism” on YouTube.
630 “American al Qaeda member acknowledges Jewish ancestry,” June 13, 2009, on edition.cnn.com; watch “Fake Al Qaeda
England: a comparative study of Lucien Wolf and Joseph Jacobs,” Jewish Historical Studies, volume 46, 2014, pp. 37–73, on
www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk.
638 Daniel Langton, “Jewish evolutionary perspectives on Judaism,” op. cit.
639 Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, on www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.
640 Nahum Goldman, Le Paradoxe juif. Conversations en français avec Léon Abramowicz, Stock, 1976 (archive.org), p. 9.
641 Quoted in Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, Princeton University Press, 2004, kindle, k. 4402–4417.
642 Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1977 (on books.google.fr), pp. 287, 305–306; on IQ, read
Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Praeger, 1994, kindle 2013,
chap. 7.
643 André Gide, Œuvres complètes, Gallimard, 1933, tome VIII, p. 571.
644 Charles Darwin, La Descendance de l’homme et la sélection sexuelle, 1891 (on darwin-online.org.uk), p. 143.
645 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1976, 2006, pp. 28, 2.
646 Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism (1938), Balfour Books, 2012, k. 2203–7.
647 Quoted in Edgar Morin, Le Monde moderne et la question juive, Seuil, 2006.
648 Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, op. cit., k. 5044–53.
649 Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle
2013, k. 3975–4004.
650 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, Felix Alcan, 1929 (archive.org), p. 98.
651 Gilad Atzmon, Du tribalisme à l’universel, Kontre Kulture, 2015, p. 129.
652 Stuart Schoffman, “A Stone for His Slingshot,” Jewish Review of Books, Spring 2014,
jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/735/a-stone-for-his-slingshot/
653 Michael Ledeen, “What Machiavelli (A Secret Jew?) Learned from Moses,” Jewish World Review, June 7, 1999, on
www.jewishworldreview.com/0699/machiavelli1.asp.
654 Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, University of Chicago Press, 1978, p. 42.
655
Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, op. cit., k. 6668–91.
656 Jonathan Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, Addison-Wesley, 1997, pp. 38–39.
657
Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, Princeton University Press, 2004, pp. 12, 9.
658 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, Felix Alcan, 1929 (archive.org), pp. 14, 89.
659 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades, op. cit., p. 124.
660 Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, 1994, p. 8.
661 Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on All the Frontiers of Civilization, 1934
(archive.org).
662 Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, Constable & Co., 1922 (archive.org), pp. 32–35.
663
Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, op. cit., k. 5876–82.
664 Quoted in Naomi Cohen, The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948, Brandeis University Press, 2003, p. 43.
665 Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (archive.org), pp. 71, 27.
666 Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism, op. cit., k. 157–66.
667
Nahum Goldman, Le Paradoxe juif, op. cit., p. 9.
668 Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, op. cit., k. 4935–37.
669 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941 (archive.org), p. 196.
670 Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem, op. cit., p. 74.
671 Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, Zero Books, 2011, pp. 55–56, 70.
672 Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto, Skyscraper, 2017, pp. 66-67.
673 Resolution abrogated in 1991 by Resolution 46/86.
674 Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? op. cit., p. 21.
675 Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? op. cit., pp. 159–160, 70.
676 Vladimir Jabotinsky, The War and the Jew, Dial Press, 1942 (archive.org), pp. 116–117.
677 Élie Benamozegh, Israël et l’humanité (1914), Albin Michel, 1980, pp. 28–29, 40, 365.
678 Joseph Salvador, Paris, Rome et Jérusalem, ou la question religieuse au XIXe siècle, Michel Lévy, 1860 (archive.org).
679 Alfred Nossig, Integrales Judentum, 1922, pp. 1–5.
680 Quoted in Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist State, Jewish Publication Society, 1997, p. 94.
681 Daniel Gordis, Does the World Need Jews? Rethinking Chosenness and American Jewish Identity, Scribner, 1997, p. 177.
682 Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 13–
15.
683 Andrew Heinze, Jews and the American Soul: Human Nature in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 2006, pp.
3, 352.
684 Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-
Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, k. 12545–48.
685 Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American Porn Industry, Jewish Quarterly, winter 2004,
www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38.
686 Michael Wex, Born to Kvetch: Yiddish Language and Culture in All of Its Moods, Harper Perennial, 2006, p. 24.
687 Élie Benamozegh, Israël et l’humanité, op. cit., p. 29.
688 Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, HarperCollins, 1986.
689 Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (archive.org), pp. 155, 165.
690 Kaufmann Kohler, Jewish Theology, Systematically and Historically Considered, Macmillan, 1918 (on www.gutenberg.org),
pp. 378-380.
691 Daniel Lindenberg, Figures d’Israël. L’identité juive entre marranisme et sionisme (1649–1998), Fayard, 2014, p. 17.
692 Martin Peltier, L’Antichristianisme juif. L’enseignement de la haine, Diffusion Internationale Édition, 2014, pp. 197–209.
693 Jean-Marie Lustiger, La Promesse, Parole & Silence, 2002, pp. 99, 57.
694 Tomer Zarchin, “Israeli Jew Turned Catholic Priest Named Head of Papal Court,” Haaretz June 03, 2011, www.haaretz.com/
695 Yaakov Ariel, On Behalf of Israel: American Fundamentalist Attitudes toward Jews, Judaism, and Zionism, 1865–1945,
Carlson Publishing, 1991, pp. 70–72.
696 Joseph Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, Ross House Books, 2004, pp. 219–220.
697 Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, op. cit., k. 10975–76.
698 Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest
of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 119.
699
Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, op. cit., k. 246–7.
700 Seth Berkman, “The Jews Who Marched on Washington with Martin Luther King,” Forward.com, August 27, 2013. Prinz’s
speech is on www.joachimprinz.com/images/mow.mp3.
701 Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, op. cit., k. 10865–10918.
702 Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Summit Books, 1985, p. 350.
703
gilad.co.uk, June 02, 2015.
704 Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Anchor, 1989 (publisher’s presentation).
705 Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Tradition, Harper Perennial, 1993 (publisher’s
presentation).
706 Joel Stein, “Who Runs Hollywood? C’mon,” Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2008,
on articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19.
707 “Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American Porn Industry,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004, on
www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38.
708 Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 134–135, 95, 143.
709 John Whitley, “Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media,” November 21, 2003, on www.rense.com.
710 Russia Today interviews Grant Smith of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, on www.youtube.com/watch?
v=kureFeGmoDI.
711 Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? op. cit., p. 171.
712 Sobran’s, March 1996, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, op. cit., k. 2161–72.
713 “Rick Sanchez: Jon Stewart a ‘Bigot,’ Jews Run CNN & All Media,” huffingtonpost.com, October 1, 2010.
714 www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/2/9/jewish-power-political-correctness-and-the-left.
715 Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, Summit Books, 1997.
716 Philip Roth, Operation Shylock: A Confession, Simon & Schuster, 1993, p. 110.
717 Robert Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, The Guilford Press, 1993.
718 Hervey Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity (1941), quoted in Paul Babiak and Robert Hare, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go
to Work, HarperCollins, 2007, p. 20.
719 Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle
2013, k. 6187–89.
720 Théodor Lessing, La Haine de soi: ou le refus d’être juif (1930), Pocket, 2011, pp. 46–47.
721 Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah V, 1, 55b, quoted in Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, From Rameses II to
Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University Press, 1995, p. xvii.
722 Théodor Lessing, La Haine de soi : ou le refus d’être juif, op. cit., p. 74.
723 Nathan and Ruth Perlmutter, The Real Anti-Semitism in America, Arbor House Pub, 1984, pp. 36, 40.
724 Watch Attali, “Le Nouvel Ordre Mondial et Israël,” on YouTube.
725 Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, 2014, p.
50.
726 “Nervous diseases,” by Joseph Jacobs and Maurice Fishberg, on www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11446-nervous-
diseases.
727 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, op. cit., p. 36.
728 Nathan Agi, “The Neurotic Jew,” The Beacon, December 5, 2011, on thebeaconmag.websitesbyrafi.com.
729 Quoted in Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, Zero Books, 2011, p. 59. Nordau’s full
text on www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.
730 Daniel Bell, “Reflections on Jewish Identity,” Commentary, June 31, 1961, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its
Discontents, op. cit., k. 6316–22.
731 Quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism, The Real Enemies of the Jews, vol. 3: Conflict Without End? Clarity Press, 2010, p. 364.
732 Freud told how he became aware of the need to “kill the father” after his own father, Jakob, had been humiliated by a Gentile;
so it is the Jewish father whom he sought to “kill.” Read John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-
Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, Basic Books, 1974, pp. 52–54.
733 Nicolas Abraham and Maria Török, L’Écorce et le Noyau, Aubier-Flammarion, 1978, p. 429.
734 Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 56.
735 Vincent de Gaulejac, L’Histoire en héritage. Roman familial et trajectoire sociale, Payot, 2012, pp. 141–142, 146–147.
736 Claudine Vegh, Je ne lui ai pas dit au-revoir, Gallimard (1979), 2014, pp. 169–182.
737 Ronald Goldman, Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma: How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us
All, Vanguard publications, 1997.
738 www.circumcision.org/mothers.htm
739
Sigmund Freud, New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (1933), Hogarth Press, 1964, p. 86.
740 Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, Hogarth Press, 1939, p. 192.
741 On Ferenczi and Freud’s denial of his patients’ real traumas, read Jeffrey Masson, The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression
Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, kindle
2013, k. 9222–27.
747 Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, Hogarth Press, 1928, p. 76.
748 Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, New York, 1924 (archive.org), pp. 12, 155.
749 Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1977, p. 25.
750 “Juif? Selon Alain Finkielkraut,” on YouTube.
751 This serial killer operating in London in 1888 has been identified by his DNA as being Polish immigrant Aaron Kosminski.
on www.scientificamerican.com.
794 Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, op. cit., k. 4674–86.
795 Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? op. cit., pp. 130–131.
796 Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? op. cit., pp. 179–180, 223–224.
797 Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, op. cit., k. 4687–99.
798 Henry Makow, Illuminati: The Cult that Hijacked the World, CreateSpace, 2008, kindle, k. 268–69.
799 Idith Zertal, Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 5, 169, 4.
800 Quoted in Max Blumenthal, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, Nation Books, 2013, p. 16.
801 Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, pp. 42–49.
802 Gideon Levy, “Only Psychiatrists Can Explain Israel’s Behavior,” Haaretz, January 10, 2010, on www.haaretz.com.
803 David Ben-Gurion, Vision and Fulfilment, 1958, vol. 5, p. 125, quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews,
vol. 2, p. 130.
804 “What Was the Israeli Involvement in Collecting U.S. Communications Intel for the NSA?” Haaretz, June 8, 2013, quoted in
James Petras, The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East, Clarity Press, 2014, p. 50.
805 Arthur Howden Smith, The Real Colonel House, 1918, quoted in Aline de Diéguez, Aux Sources du chaos mondial
actuel, aline.dedieguez.pagesperso-orange.fr.
806 Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 194.
807 Joel Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Free Press, 2005. Watch also the documentary
of the same title.
808 Read Bethany MacLean and Peter Elkind, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron,
Penguin, 2004, and watch the documentary of the same title (2005) on YouTube.