Type: Image

Check Your Sources, Gentlemen! (Part 2)

Featured-Rockefeller-Khrushchev

Rediscovering the David Rockefeller-Nikita Khrushchev Meeting

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 15 December 2014)

Of all the seemingly incredible incidents that comprise the mythology about the political power of the now 99-year old plutocrat David Rockefeller Senior, perhaps the most enduring is that his private meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Moscow in July 1964 precipitated Khrushchev’s removal from power just a few months later. While no scholars have established any link between their meeting on 31 July 1964 and Khrushchev’s supposedly voluntary “retirement” on 14 October 1964, at the hands of his Kremlin rivals led by Leonid Brezhnev; many conspiracists remain convinced these events are directly connected. “David Rockefeller went to Moscow in 1964 and had Krushchev fired because he was in the way of business with China,” claims the Out With It! website. “David Rockefeller summarily fired Kruschev (sic)”, the late Eustace Mullins declared in his book The World Order (1984).  In his book Hiding in Plain Sight (2000), author Ken Bowers claims:

[David Rockefeller] went to see Kruschev (sic) in Russia in 1964 and told him it was time to abdicate his power and go into retirement. Twenty-four hours later, Kruschev resigned his position (p.131)

Most recently – as of October this year in fact – Servando Gonzalez, writing on the NewsWithViews website, offered this observation at the end of his revisionist and quite contrarian account of the Cuban Missile Crisis:

Unfortunately, Khrushchev did not get rid of Castro, but David Rockefeller got rid of Khrushchev less than two years after the crisis.

In 1964 David visited the Soviet Union and had a two and half hour conversation with the Soviet Premier. We don’t know what the […] subject of the conversation was, but we may safely surmise that David dressed down Khrushchev for his unauthorized attempt to get rid of David’s secret agent Fidel Castro. Barely two months later, David’s secret agents in the Soviet Politburo deposed Khrushchev.

(more…)

More

Bad Company: Chuck Hagel vs the ‘New’ Foreign Policy Establishment

Featured-Chuck-Hagel

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 25 February 2013 & 01 March 2013)

Author’s note: On 24 November 2014, Chuck Hagel resigned as Secretary of Defense. The circumstances of his retreat from public office were contentious; Obama’s claims that Hagel had determined that it was “appropriate time for him to complete his service” was greeted with derision by most Beltway observers. Most reporting suggested that Hagel’s apparent decision was driven by his failure to penetrate Obama’s inner circle, his frustration with being micro-managed by Obama and his aides, and for finding himself repeatedly “out of step” with the White House on many issues. The irony of this situation is that by the end of his brief tenure, Hagel had earned the affection of those whom had opposed his confirmation (as detailed below), particularly Israel and pro-Israel forces in the US. Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yalon praised the outgoing Secretary as a “true friend of Israel” and Abraham Foxman, National Director of the US-based Anti-Defamation League likewise lauded Hagel’s “energetic stewardship of America’s commitment to Israel’s security.” It would seem that Hagel had demonstrated fealty to the wrong master…

President Obama’s decision to replace his outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with former Senator Charles (Chuck) Hagel has rapidly proved to be one of his most difficult and controversial Cabinet-level appointments. At least since Obama’s attempt to nominate US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, as the next Secretary of State ended in tears – and the elevation of Senator John Kerry, the Skull and Bonesman Democrat presidential candidate of 2004, into that feted position. Senator Hagel’s primary sin, in the eyes of his Republican interrogators in the Senate, and his detractors amongst the neo-conservative punditocracy, was that this prospective US Defense Secretary was insufficiently pro-Israel.

Ahead of his confirmation hearings in January this year, for example, Hagel was repeatedly accused by neo-con gadfly, William Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, of having “anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides” (Dec 24, 2012); “dangerous views on Iran” and an “unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews” (Jan. 4, 2013). Kristol also attacked Hagel for making the apparently “vulgar and disgusting charge” that the US invasion of Iraq was a “war for oil” (Jan. 5, 2013). Heaven forbid! In the same august publication (Jan. 7, 2013), former Bush Administration official Elliott Abrams, a presidentially pardoned felon, casually implied that Hagel was anti-Semitic because of his allegedly “hostile” attitude towards the Jewish community of Nebraska in 1989 over the closing of a USO facility in Israel.

(more…)

More

The ‘Israel Lobby’ Controversy: Elite Factionalism or Elite Conspiracy Theory?

Featured-Israel-Lobby

by Will Banyan © 2008

Author’s Note: This is an extended and slightly revised version of an article which originally appeared in PARANOIA (issue 44) Spring 2007.

The publication in March 2006 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, as a working paper for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and as an article in the London Review of Books, aroused much comment in the American media and academia—most condemnatory. The authors, academics John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt from Harvard University, have had their work widely dismissed as being both conspiratorial and anti-Semitic.

“[T]his paper is anti-Semitic” declared Professor Eliot Cohen from Johns Hopkins University, in the Washington Post (April 5, 2006); nor was it “research in any serious sense,” claimed Marty Peretz in The New Republic, but “the labor of obsessives with dark and conspiratorial minds.” According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, the authors shared with white supremacist David Duke “the same interest in vilifying Jewish leaders and spouting conspiracy theories about Zionist plots against American interests” (Dershowitz, p.41). Even Stephen Zunes, a left-wing critic of U.S. support for Israel, implied that in subscribing to an “exaggerated claim of Jewish clout,” Mearsheimer and Walt were “flirting with anti-Semitism” (Zunes 2006b, p.15).

At the same time, there were some observers who were clearly overjoyed at the appearance of The Israel Lobby as it seemed to confirm their belief that the U.S. is, in fact, ruled by a “Zionist Occupation Government,” or some other sinister Jewish cabal. David Duke, for example, praised it for having “told the truth about the proverbial gorilla in the room: the Zionist lobby and its enormous political and media power” (Duke 2006). The Israel Lobby, claimed a commentator for Rense.com, left “absolutely no doubt that Israel not only controls our entire government, our Pentagon, our foreign policy and our political parties, but our media as well” (Lang 2006).

(more…)

More

Genesis: The Creation of the Saudi Crime Syndicate

Featured-Jack-Philby

by Paul & Phillip D. Collins ©, Oct. 6th, 2007

When it was discovered that money from Saudi Princess Haifa bint Faisal had found its way, into the hands of Al Qaeda operative and advance man for the 9/11 hijackers Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi Princess put forward one of the worst alibis ever concocted. Princess Haifa claimed that she was giving the money to a woman named Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat so she could treat her thyroid condition (“The Saudi Money Trail,” no pagination). The good Princess claimed she had no idea that Majeda and her husband, Omar Basnan, were passing the money to Omar al-Bayoumi (no pagination). The problem is that Majeda’s husband, Osama Basnan, was known to be a “vocal Al-Qaeda sympathizer” (no pagination). According to a law enforcement official, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Basnan “celebrated the heroes of September 11″ and referred to September 11 as a “wonderful, glorious day” (no pagination). Basnan is also known to have “met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States” (no pagination). Princess Haifa also connected to Omar al-Bayoumi through her husband, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Omar al-Bayoumi had worked for Dallah Avco, the aviation services company owned by Prince Bandar’s father, Prince Sultan (no pagination). All of this seemed to suggest that more connected Princess Haifa to Omar al-Bayoumi than just unintended charity.

However, the 9/11 Commission accepted Princess Faisal’s alibi at face value. Why did the Commission give thumbs-up to such a flimsy explanation? The Commission never intended to find the truth behind 9/11. Its job was to cover up the fact that the United States government and the American aristocracy were intimately tied to the amalgam of terrorist financiers and criminals collectively referred to as the Saudi elite or Saudi Royals. This alliance goes back to the birth of the modern state of Saudi Arabia. This genesis story doesn’t begin with a charismatic Arab leader, but with a member of British intelligence: St. John Philby, known also as Jack Philby.

Jack Philby: Saudi Arabia’s Founding Father

Many people are more acquainted with Jack Philby’s son, the notorious Communist double agent, Harold Adrian Russell Philby, also known as Kim Philby. However, Jack’s story is no less important. Jack could be considered the founding father of Saudi Arabia. Jack Philby was a British Civil Servant who was dismissed for sexual misconduct (Loftus and Aarons 25). From there Jack was picked up by British secret service MI6 in 1915 (25). The British secret service was known for its anti-Jewish ranks that viewed all Jews as secret communists (31-2). The anti-Jewish sentiments found in the British secret service had trickled down from the British power elite. The British saw the Balfour Declaration as merely a foreign propaganda tool meant to get American military support during World War 1 (29). The British actually favored more of an Arab presence in the Palestine territory with a small Jewish minority to placate America (29). This is why the Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised that Palestine would be “a national home” as opposed to “the national home” for the Jews (29). The Balfour Declaration’s language would allow for a situation where the Jews would be insignificant in the Middle East.

(more…)

More

Weaponizing the Arts

Featured-Expressionism-CIA

By Paul and Phillip Collins

Popular opinion tends to regard philosophical discourse as the province of academia’s hierophants. There is good reason for this self-imposed intellectual segregation. On the theoretical level, philosophy can be somewhat tedious. Given the field’s justifiable insistence upon the clarity of definitions, philosophy is replete with specialized terminology that typically requires explanation by theoreticians. As a result, few people are eager to engage in discussions concerning the various Weltanschauungs populating the marketplace of ideas. Yet, philosophical outlooks abound and they are held by both neophyte and adept. Thus, the question arises: How are belief systems engendered among pop culture’s novice-level thinkers? According to Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, most people are not introduced to philosophy through the superstructure of theory. Instead, they are exposed through an infrastructure of the arts, which “has shaped the national mind-set in everything from determining war strategy to electing presidents, to finding one’s identity in cars and deodorants” (Can Man Live Without God? 12).

Such was the case with existentialism, a movement whose logically untenable foundations were camouflaged by cleverly employed artistic mediums. Existentialism presented a dysteleological depiction of the world as the basis for a libertine philosophy of self-definition. A central contention of the outlook was that because the world was supposedly meaningless, man was the ultimate arbiter of meaning and values. Unmoored from a God, purpose and all of its entailments became the province of the subjective conscious. Of this absolute autonomy, Soren Kierkegaard writes:

(more…)

More

The Professor’s Progress

Featured-Ferguson-Rothschild

Part 1: The Rothschild Network and the Rise of Niall Ferguson

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 11 November 2014

Within days of the tragic events of 9/11 Niall Ferguson, then a Professor of Political and Financial History at Oxford, wrote in The Independent (Sep. 13, 2001) about his hope that the terrorist attack would change the “American psyche” and end the “illusion of separateness” in which “Americans subconsciously feel themselves to be in a planet of their own.” Though sceptical that US President George W. Bush would “draw the right conclusions for US foreign and defence policy”, Ferguson nevertheless advised that it would be “wrong” to pursue the terrorists through the courts, instead,

this is the moment – and it will not last long – when the US can and should take decisive military action against those rogue regimes which have for too long harboured and financed terrorism. Top of the hit list must be Saddam Hussein, closely followed by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. I should be sorry if Colonel Gaddafi were to escape unscathed. Whether or not one or all of them gave their backing to this particular attack does not especially matter. They are dangerous – not least to the people of the countries they despotically rule [emphasis added].

Some twelve years on and much of Ferguson’s “hit list” has been achieved: Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi have not only been violently deposed – they are dead; the Taliban have also been expelled from power, though their leader, Mullah Omar, remains at large.

(more…)

More

Two Friendly Queries for Dr John Coleman

Featured-Alleged-Committee-300

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 26 April & 3 May 2008

Author’s note: Two open letters to Dr John Coleman, the allegedly former MI6 agent and originator of the “Committee of 300” conspiracy theory, that were published on the now defunct Martin Frost website in 2008. At issue were two claims made by Dr Coleman to have been the first to have revealed to the public, the existence of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Club of Rome, but in each case the mainstream media had clearly reported on the existence of these bodies first. Nevertheless, Dr Coleman never responded to my queries, nor has he tried to correct his demonstrably false claims.

[26 April 2008]

Dear Dr Coleman

Dr Coleman (incidentally, where did you get your PhD and what was it for?), I write to you as a humble novice in the areas of intelligence, but as you may have noticed I like to get to the bottom of things and don’t believe everything I’m told.

So it is in that spirit that I note that in your speech from 1994, helpfully put on YouTube that you are quick to establish your credentials versus those of others (presumably journalists) who dare to write on matters involving intelligence organizations.  Such people, you state [starting at 7:20], “really have no experience whatsoever” on intelligence matters. As an example of your own experience and reliability on these sensitive issues, you describe your apparent scoop in your book on Mind Control, Metaphysic, Extremely Low Frequency and Weather Modification apparently on July the 8th, 1986:

(more…)

More

Research Note: The Irrelevant Reptilians

Featured-Icke-Reptilians

By Will Banyan – Copyright © 18 May 2008

Up until the release of The Biggest Secret in 1998, it seemed doubtful that David Icke could top his performance from 1991 when he attracted widespread ridicule for apparently declaring himself the “Godhead”, as part of his “spiritual” transformation. Yet, with The Biggest Secret, Icke not only offered a complex conspiracy theory on how and why Princess Diana died, but he offered a new overarching explanation for why life is so awful on planet Earth: it was the fault of “shape-shifting reptilians” from the “lower-fourth dimension.”

It was a remarkable revelation, one that not only succeeded in attracting the ire of his fellow conspiracists; but also provided fodder for journalists, which they feast on to this day, much to Icke’s obvious irritation. Although, as a reporter for the Daily Echo (April 7, 2008) recently discovered, Icke still believes that he will be vindicated by history:

(more…)

More

Correction Please! – John Birch Society President Misinforms Readers…

Featured-JBS-PNAC

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 20 December 2008

In his recent article, “Behind the Obama Agenda”,  (The New American, Nov. 26, 2008), the current President of the John Birch Society, John F. McManus, made the following astounding revelation about the US vice president elect, Joe Biden:

In April 1992, Senator Joe Biden — now our vice president-elect — penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.” Senator Biden was miffed that the Journal had cast him as a “neo-isolationist” because he had objected to the foreign-policy strategy of then-President George Bush (Senior), a strategy which Biden characterized as “America as ‘Globocop.'” Sen. Biden wanted to make clear that far from being an “isolationist,” he is a solid internationalist who subscribes to the doctrine of “collective security” under the United Nations Charter. He argued that “the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador.”

Biden called for “an honest debate over America’s proper role in the new world order.” Unfortunately, there never has been any honest debate over just what America’s political elites mean (Senator Biden included) when they use the term “new world order.” Nor did the senator explain his assumption that there is a “proper role” in this “new world order” for an America that would still be recognizable as a sovereign, independent republic and still be operating under our system of limited, constitutional government.

It’s important to remind ourselves of the context of those 1992 remarks. Biden, a Democrat, was responding to the pronouncements and policies of President George Bush, a Republican, about this “new world order,” a phrase with which most Americans were totally unfamiliar prior to September 11, 1990.

On that day, President George Bush delivered his televised “New World Order” speech on the Iraq situation to a joint session of Congress, several months before launching the U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War. “Out of these troubled times,” said the president, “our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge.” Immediately following President Bush’s address to Congress and the nation, Congressman Richard Gephardt, the House Majority Leader, gave the Democrats’ official response on the Gulf crisis: “From the summit at Helsinki [on the Iraq-Kuwait conflict] … we could see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order” – that is, to the reining in of rogue states and global policing of nations.

The problem with this fascinating piece of background about Biden is that McManus has got his facts wrong and has therefore misinformed readers of The New American. It is true that Senator Joe Biden penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (Apr. 23, 1992) that took issue with his characterisation as a “neo-isolationist” by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (Mar. 18, 1992). But McManus provides a highly inaccurate explanation as to why Biden was “miffed” with the Journal; in short his explanation for the “context of those 1992 remarks” is demonstrably wrong.

First, McManus claims that Biden’s offending criticism – “America as ‘Globocop’” – was in response to then President George H.W. Bush’s “new world order” pronouncements of 1990 and 1991. This is an outright falsehood. The real target of Biden’s “Globocop” comment was a draft version of the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance 1994-1999 (hereafter DPG), copies of which had been leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post in early 1992.

(more…)

More

The Reemerging Swastika

Featured-Grand-Mufti

by Paul & Phillip D. Collins ©, July 16th, 2007

During his January 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush identified “Hitlerism” as a criminal ideology. While his statement was accurate, the President was being insincere. His insincerity was clearly displayed on June 20, 2007 when the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research hosted a meeting with intelligence community representatives to talk about the possibility of forging an official relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood (Lake, no pagination). This was just one of many moves on the part of the Bush administration to open up diplomatic channels with the Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is not just a collection of radical Islamists. They are intimately tied to the post-War Nazi International. This connection can be found through an examination of the Brotherhood’s bank, known as Al Taqwa.

The Al Taqwa bank was formed by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1988 (Hosenball, no pagination). One of the most significant Brotherhood members behind the formation of the Al Taqwa bank is Youssef Nada (no pagination). In his youth, Nada joined the armed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “secret apparatus” (Erikson, no pagination). From there, Nada was recruited by German military intelligence (no pagination). In 1945, Nada came to the aid of Grand Mufti el-Husseini (no pagination). El-Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis went all the way back to 1933, when he sent a telegram to Berlin addressed to the German Consul-General in the British Mandate of Palestine expressing his eagerness to disseminate the Nazi ideology in the Middle East (Dalin, no pagination). With the Nazi defeat imminent, el-Husseini needed help escaping from Germany (Erikson, no pagination). Nada helped arrange el-Husseini’s escape from Germany through Switzerland (no pagination). From there, el-Husseini made it to Egypt and would eventually resurface in Palestine in 1946 (no pagination).

One of the countries where Al Taqwa is based is Switzerland. When the bank required at least one Swiss citizen on its board, Ahmed Huber was brought on board (Komisar, no pagination). Huber is a faithful disciple of deceased Swiss lawyer Francois Genoud (Bushinsky, no pagination). Genoud financed Hitler and served as a Nazi agent during World War II (no pagination). Genoud’s Nazi activities did not end with the close of the war. After the Nazi defeat, Genoud underwrote the clandestine Odessa organization (no pagination). Odessa assisted Nazi fugitives in escaping to the Middle East and South America (no pagination). Klaus Barbie, Alois Brunner, and Adolf Eichmann were all recipients of aid from Odessa (no pagination). Authorities believe that Genoud established Al Tawqa bank (Bushinsky, no pagination).

(more…)

More