5 April, 2006

New Republic Smears Mearsheimer & Walt

Posted by alex in jewish hate & hypocrisy, studies at 2:53 pm | Permanent Link

[Good illustration of the lack of difference between TNB and TWS, NYT, or any other Establishment publication. They’re run by jews, for jews, and anyone who contravenes the jewish agenda gets hammered. Jews claim they’re not a monolith, but their actions say otherwise.]

Oil and Vinegar

by Martin Peretz

Post date 03.30.06 | Issue date 04.10.06

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a “faculty research working paper” recently produced for Harvard’s John F. Kennedy (trade) School of Government by Stephen Walt, its academic dean, and John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, weighs in at nearly 35,000 words. The word “oil,” however, appears in the document exactly seven times–all of them generic or trivial. None of the references relate to the systemic U.S. dependence on foreign crude or, more to the point, to the truly powerful lobby that has worked for many decades to satisfy it through arranging that the producer governments get what they want: mainly protection against radical Muslims or Muslim radicals and against fuel-efficient cars. Israel’s friends–foreign affairs idealists and realists, rightists, leftists, centrists, Christians, Jews, nonbelievers–know the power of this oil lobby, with which they have tangled to ensure that the United States supports an ally against its many unworthy enemies.

Support for Israel is, deep down, an expression of America’s best view of itself. Mearsheimer and Walt clearly have no clue that U.S. support for the Jewish restoration, rather than a result of Zionist machinations, dates back to the Puritans. And it carries through Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman to, if you’ll forgive me, George W. Bush. But rarely without colossal struggle. Indeed, how could the authors forget Truman’s certified nutcase secretary of defense, James Forrestal, who held paranoid views of Zionist perfidy congruent with their own and could only relieve himself of them by jumping from a sixteenth-story window at the Bethesda Naval Hospital? (In a TNR article at the time, Harold Ickes wrote that Forrestal was a satisfied reader of this magazine!) As that incident shows, Israel’s opponents were overruled during the Truman administration. But they were not when James Baker was the steward of U.S. foreign policy under Bush père. The truth is that the Clinton-era peace processors (Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller), whom Walt and Mearsheimer blithely and falsely associate with the Lobby, were either leftovers from the Baker team or held a stubborn view of how to force peace: Squeeze Israel. Time and again, they imperiled Israel in order to get Yasir Arafat to accede to, in De Gaulle’s phrase, the “peace of the brave.”

This paper is not research in any serious sense, although its academic paraphernalia–211 scholia, most with more than one reference–are intended to lend it an undeserved seriousness. But the apparatus deployed in this tendentious work is the labor of obsessives with dark and conspiratorial minds. Have you ever received a letter from a crackpot in which every stray fact fits together in a coherent whole? Sometimes the academy produces genuine theories-of-everything, such as those of Spengler and Sorel, Sorokin and B.F. Skinner, men of immense learning. Ingenuous and suggestive, yes. Still, even these serious men were touched by maniacal fantasies.

Mearsheimer and Walt, despite their standing as exemplars of the realist school of international politics, know ironically little about reality. They are abstractionists, constructing imaginary solutions to real conflict. Mearsheimer, for instance, has argued that nuclear proliferation is the best guarantee of peace. Germany should have the bomb–also Japan and Ukraine. This, he maintains, is not simply manageable, but preferable. What’s so dangerous if Iraq and Iran have it, too?

To be sure, there is a pro-Israel lobby–or, to be precise, many pro-Israel lobbies (some of them favoring what others oppose)–and it wields some influence. But this is not at all the devious, capital-L “Lobby” that Mearsheimer and Walt claim. After all, the Lobby includes everyone from Jerry Falwell to New York Representative Eliot Engel to, well, me. Thank God I was not left out, as I was from Richard Nixon’s enemies list.

I don’t recall whether I’ve written urging the administration to go after Syria. If I haven’t, it was in defiance of the Lobby, for, as Mearsheimer and Walt argue, the U.S. confrontation of Damascus was a huge achievement of the Jews. This is preposterous. The White House barely acknowledged Syria until two circumstances came together. The first was that French President Jacques Chirac, eager to return France to some prominence in Beirut and offended that Bashar Assad’s security services had murdered his client, Rafik Hariri, prodded Washington to dislodge the opthalmologist’s forces from Lebanon. The second was that our commanders in Iraq saw the Syrians encouraging foreign terrorists to spill Shia blood and wreak havoc in Baghdad. And so Assad’s vicious gendarmerie was expelled from Lebanon.

The authors also debit the Iraq war to the Jews. Douglas Feith and Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz (who, by the way, has many stated qualms with our Israel policy) apparently seduced pillars of the Protestant establishment–Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush–into attacking Saddam Hussein. They did all this on behalf of the Lobby–the same Lobby that is now seducing the country into a military confrontation with Iran. Of course, Israel can take care of itself vis-à-vis Tehran, thank you very much. In fact, it is Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait that are truly endangered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mad Shia regime. Indeed, our own supply of oil is in danger–as is the whole effort to keep nukes out of the control of mad states, mad movements, mad men.

Mearsheimer and Walt assert, “Readers may reject our conclusions, of course, but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial.” But, to take but one example, look at the evidence for their proposition that “Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians” are the chief motivations of terrorists like those in Al Qaeda. (Never mind that Osama bin Laden doesn’t speak much of this, and then only as an afterthought to the Islamic reconquest of Andalusia.) The first person they cite is “Middle East expert Shibley Telhami,” who said, “No other issue resonates with the public in the Arab world, and many other parts of the Muslim world, more deeply than Palestine. No other issue shapes the regional perceptions of America more fundamentally than the issue of Palestine.” Forgive me, but this is a pathetic citation. Telhami is a simpleminded person–good for a CNN sound bite, but no more–and so he has a simple explanation for Arab hatreds. But where does he hang his hat? At the very Saban Center for Middle East Studies that Mearsheimer and Walt characterize as one of the Lobby’s intellectual headquarters. Apparently, the Jews work in mysterious ways.

For further evidence, the authors turn to Hosni Mubarak, who has also claimed it is Washington’s Israel policy that spurs anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. It would be too much for Mubarak to fault his own regime, but perhaps it is our support for that despotic and debased government that makes Egyptians hate us. Mearsheimer and Walt’s third authoritative mustering is to Lakhdar Brahimi, a tiers-mondiste Algerian who was a functionary of the League of Arab States and onetime U.N. special envoy to Iraq. He is quoted asserting that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is “the great poison in the region” and that “in the region, and beyond,” people recognize the “injustice of this policy and the equally unjust support of the United States for this policy.” Even Kofi Annan could not countenance such stupidity, and he chastised Brahimi for it.

This is nonsense scholarship. “It is really the stuff,” Fouad Ajami told me this week, “of easy chatter in the coffeehouses of Ramallah and Nablus, Cairo and Amman. The lurid fantasies endemic to the Arab world have been given a false but sustaining authority with the imprimatur of two great universities, Harvard in particular. The conspiracy of the Jews and their American friends against the Palestinians, and against Arabs generally, has now been demonstrated by two eminent professors. Intrigue and plot have been certified as the real engines of history.”

Jeffry Frieden, Harvard’s Stanfield Professor of International Peace (given his title, I can’t imagine what he actually teaches), acknowledges that many on the faculty were “very surprised by the vitriolic response provoked by the paper in the American public.” Well, at least this academic recognizes that the demos actually supports Israel, even if the professoriate doesn’t. Still, Frieden himself finds the “paper’s central premise … not controversial.” The professor is wrong. The “working paper” aims to prove that there is a largely Jewish pro-Israel conspiracy triumphant against U.S. democracy and U.S. interests. But the body politic itself is Israel’s ally–and the body politic determines what U.S. interests are.

Professor Walt is vacating his position as academic dean of the Kennedy School in June. Even though he decided to leave the job of his own volition some time ago, Harvard should be grateful for his departure from this seat. An academic dean is supposed to be the shepherd of his faculty’s (and his students’) respect for evidence and scholarship. Having traduced the rules of evidence and the spirit of scholarly inquiry, he can no longer perform this function. Regrettably, Walt will not likely suffer any crueler fate than this. He has tenure, and tenure insulates one from all kinds of infractions against truth and honor.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief of The New Republic.

  • 10 Responses to “New Republic Smears Mearsheimer & Walt”

    1. Inner City ZOG Type Says:

      Here it is again, yet more incontrovertible evidence of Jewish obfucation. I suspected the slobs at TNR would be able to summon at least a semblence of a theoretical and factual rebuttal to the content of WALT’s position. But no, just more invectives and semitic pseudo-speak for the gullible (and entirely laughable) leftist detergent-heads. Hey lefties, it’s over. Pack up the sandles, your Mumal Mujami and CHE shirts, turn off the reggae and stop your puerile intellectual posturing.
      A new breed of white youth are on the rise and they have little time for trendy leftist double-speak and fantasy. They are bloodthirsty and seek to spill your blood all over the ground at one of your pathetic “No war for Oil” rallies.
      Better lock your doors you reggae pukes.

      A white aryan from the inner shitty

    2. seelow heights Says:

      You really expected something different from TNR?

    3. apollonian Says:

      Mr Peretz really “protesteth too much.” Such a ltr fm such as Peretz is simply more inductive evidence; where was he on 9-11? Are Jews collectivists or not?–how do they not conspire? Israel–what a disgusting cancer. A.

    4. Igor Alexander Says:

      Full paper can be downloaded from –

      Abridged version online at –

    5. alex Says:

      Notice the kike sniggering at James Forrestal’s death, which may well have come at the hands of kikes just like Peretz.

      The Death of James Forrestal


    6. alex Says:

      Notice the kike sniggering at James Forrestal’s death, which may well have come at the hands of kikes just like Peretz.

      The Death of James Forrestal


      Here from the dubious source Wikipedia:

      Doubts have existed from the beginning about the conclusion that Forrestal committed suicide. These were fueled by the fact that the Navy did not release the transcript of its official hearing. The early doubts are detailed in the 1966 book, The Death of James Forrestal, by Cornell Simpson, which received virtually no publicity. Additional doubt has been raised by the 2004 release of the Navy investigation, informally referred to as the Willcutts Report, after Admiral Morton D. Willcutts, the head of the National Naval Medical Center, who convened the review board. Among the discrepancies between the report and the accounts given in the principal Forrestal biographies are that the transcription of the poem by Sophocles appears to many to have been written in a hand other than Forrestal’s, and there was broken glass found on Forrestal’s bed, a fact that had not been previously reported. Theories as to who might have murdered Forrestal range from Soviet agents (a view championed by Joe McCarthy) to U.S. government operatives sent to silence him for what he knew about UFOs. “He himself maintained that he was being tracked by Israeli security agents… Ironically, it was later learned that Israeli agents, fearing that America was making secret arrangements with Arab nations, had indeed been following him all along.” [2]

      The theory that Zionists were behind the alleged murder is buttressed by the 2006 revelations from British intelligence files that members of the Irgun gang, which was led by future Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, made an attempt on the life of British foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, in 1946. There was also a slander campaign against Forrestal, led by columnist Drew Pearson. The campaign tried to make it appear that he was paranoid (the claim that he once said, “The Russians are coming!” was later proven as unfounded), but paranoia was never even mentioned in the official evaluations of his psychiatric state.

    7. alex Says:

      Wikipedia link:


      Here from the link on the jew plot to kill Bevin:

      Jewish plot to kill Bevin in London

      By Peter Day

      03/05/06 “The Times” — — JEWISH terrorists plotted to assassinate Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary, in 1946, as part of their campaign to establish the state of Israel, newly declassified intelligence files have shown. The plan was devised by Irgun, the insurgent group led by Menachem Begin, who went on to become a Nobel peace prize winner and prime minister of Israel.

      Begin, whom MI6 believed was backed by the Soviet Union, planned to send five terrorist cells to Britain to carry out bombings and assassinations that would “beat the dog in his own kennel�.

      The Jewish insurgents aimed to force British occupying forces out of Palestine, enabling the founding of the Jewish state. Details of the plot are included in MI5 files released at the National Archives in Kew, London.

      Lord Bethell, author of The Palestine Triangle and an expert on Soviet intelligence, said Bevin was detested by Zionist groups. He added, however: “Zionists would be very angry if you compared these people with terrorists now. You have to remember that Irgun were the grandfathers of today’s ruling politicians.

      “They would say they were at war with the British and behaved well, fighting under Marquess of Queensberry rules. They would say that they didn’t target civilians.�

      Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, Britain governed the whole of Palestine under a mandate from the United Nations. Agitation among the Jewish population for a separate state escalated immediately after the second world war as refugees flooded in from Europe.

      It reached its most intense point in July 1946, when the British headquarters at the King David hotel in Jerusalem was bombed by Jewish fighters dressed as Arabs with explosives contained in milk churns. Ninety-one people, 28 of them British, were killed.

      The MI5 files contain a report suggesting that Irgun carried out the attack after drawing lots with two other militant groups, Stern and Hagana. Stern drew the lot to attack British ships in the Mediterranean while Hagana were chosen to attack army camps.

      In August 1946, the month after the King David attack, Major James Robertson, head of MI5’s Middle East section, warned London that both Begin’s group and Stern were sending five terrorist cells to the capital to mirror IRA tactics of bombing and assassination.

      Roberston added: “In recent months it has been reported that they have been training selected members for the purpose of assassinating a prominent British personality. Special reference has been several times made to Mr Bevin.�

      Bevin, the Labour foreign secretary, was an opponent of the creation of a Jewish state and had recommended that Jewish refugees in Europe should be forcibly prevented from emigrating to Palestine.

      The planned terrorist campaign ended up being restricted largely to letter bombs. In 1947, 20 were sent to leading figures in Britain including Bevin and Anthony Eden, his Tory predecessor.

      After the establishment of Israel, Begin, who died in 1992, dissolved Irgun and turned to politics. He became prime minister in the 1970s and was awarded the Nobel prize in 1978 jointly with Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, for signing the Camp David peace accords.


    8. alex Says:

      Inconvenient Lives

      To our south they’re “disappeared.�
      Up here, they’re “suicided.�
      To achieve a similar end
      A similar means is provided.

      Who Killed James Forrestal? (short version)
      by DCDave

      Go to long version.

      Go to Part 2.

      Go to Part 3
      Shades of Vincent Foster

      The two highest-ranking government officials in the history of the American republic to have “committed suicide� are Deputy White House Counsel, Vincent W. Foster, Jr., on July 20, 1993, and Secretary of Defense, James V. Forrestal, on May 22, 1949. Actually, Forrestal was not a government official at the time of his death. He had been rather abruptly removed from office on March 28, and after almost immediately suffering some kind of breakdown, he had been kept against his will since April 2, a period of more than 7 weeks, on the 16th floor of the Bethesda Naval Hospital. Since he was no longer a government employee, it is unclear upon what authority he was being “cared for� at this U. S. military facility.

      Though technically no longer a government official at the time of his death, Forrestal was a far more prominent and powerful man than Foster. Independently wealthy since his days as president of Dillon, Read, and Company on Wall Street, as Secretary of the Navy he had graced the cover of Time magazine on October 29, 1945. In September of 1947, even though he had opposed the legislation that created the department, Forrestal was made America’s first Secretary of Defense. Widely acclaimed as an extraordinarily dedicated and effective administrator, he rivaled Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, as the best known member of President Harry Truman’s cabinet.

      Both Foster and Forrestal are said to have been suicidally depressed. Indeed, this is usually the first thing that will be mentioned when the matter of the death of either of these two men is brought up. The evidence that either of them was in such a disturbed mental state that he would resort to such an extreme solution is actually quite weak. In Foster’s case, it rests heavily upon the very doubtful authenticity of a disjointed, sophomoric note belatedly “found� in a briefcase that had previously been emptied out in full view of a number of people. In Forrestal’s case, the public was told in the very first press announcement of his death that he had stopped in the middle of copying over a classical poem, one that seems to welcome, in certain circumstances, the ending of one’s life. We have never been told how anyone knows that Forrestal actually wrote what he is said to have written, although author Arnold Rogow (James Forrestal, A Study of Personality, Politics, and Policy, 1963), the man most responsible for fixing in the public mind the notion that Forrestal was mentally unbalanced, has written, without the first bit of evidence for it, that Forrestal was seen writing it. Authors Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley (Driven Patriot, the Life and Times of James Forrestal, 1992) have also stated that Forrestal was seen writing it, but by a different person from the one cited by Rogow, although they give Rogow as their source. Curiously, nowhere on the public record are the actual would-be witness or witnesses themselves quoted directly on this matter.

      Defenders of the official line on Foster’s death almost never refer to the known evidence. Rather, they allude to the “depression� as though it were a proven fact; they invoke authority, either the authority of the family, most of whom have publicly, at least, accepted the official conclusion, or of the authority of the various official “investigations� that have been made of his death; and they raise questions about the motive. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

      Equivocal Voice of Authority

      It is perhaps a measure of how much more innocent a time it was in America in 1949 that, although such arguments against murder in the Forrestal case are far weaker than in the Foster case, the official suicide line seems to have gone generally unchallenged. Take, for instance, the reaction of the Forrestal family. Perhaps the person closest to James Forrestal in the whole world was his brother, Henry. This is from the obscure book, The Death of James Forrestal (1966), by Cornell Simpson, one of the few people who did question the suicide conclusion:

      At his home in Beacon, New York, Henry Forrestal stated to this author that James Forrestal positively did not kill himself. He said his brother was the last person in the world who would have committed suicide and that he had no reason for taking his life. When Forrestal talked to his brother at the hospital, James was having a good time planning the things he would do following his discharge. Henry Forrestal recalled that Truman and [new Defense Secretary Louis] Johnson agreed that his brother was in fine shape and that the hospital officials admitted that he would have been released soon. To Henry Forrestal, the whole affair smelled to high heaven. He remarked about his brother’s treatment at the hospital, his virtual imprisonment and the censorship of his visitors. Henry Forrestal had never heard of such treatment and questioned why it should have been allowed. He further questioned why the hospital officials lied about his brother being permitted all the visitors he wanted.

      He was bitter when recounting that from the first minute the officials had insisted the death was a result of suicide; that they did not even consider the possibility of murder even though there was no suicide note, though his brother acted perfectly normal when the corpsman saw him only a few minutes before his death, though the bathrobe cord was knotted tightly around his neck.

      He considered it odd that his brother had died just a few hours before he, Henry, was to arrive and take James out of the hospital.

      Then he repeated his belief that James Forrestal did not kill himself; that he was murdered; that someone strangled him and threw him out the window. Henry Forrestal went on to ask why the authorities did not have the decency to admit these things and then try to apprehend the murderer. He lamented the fact that the case was hurriedly hushed up in an apparent attempt to avoid a scandal.

      He went on to say that he was a Democrat but nevertheless he blamed the Truman administration for covering up his brother’s murder, for letting it happen, and for the way James Forrestal was treated in the hospital. He concluded that he was “damned bitter” about it all but did not know what he could do.

      When family members of victims don’t agree with the official line, whether it be this case or the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA 800, Pan Am 103, the Martin Luther King, Jr. murder, or 9-11, we seldom hear much about it in our press. The Forrestal death is an outstanding example of that rule.

      The press also typically gives great attention to the findings of any official body that has been appointed to make an investigation. The heavily-touted Warren Commission is the best-known instance of this phenomenon. In the Foster death it was first a report by Robert Fiske and then one by Kenneth Starr.

      So what do we have with the Forrestal death? It’s the Willcutts Review Board, named for Rear Admiral Morton D. Willcutts, the head of the National Naval Medical Center. The Review Board took the testimony of all witnesses and finished its work on May 30. It was not until October 11, however, that its conclusions were released to the public, and here’s what was discovered, as related on page 15 of The New York Times of October 12, 1949:

      1. That the body found on the ledge outside of Building 1 of the National Medical Center at 1:50 A.M. and pronounced dead at 1:55 A.M. Sunday, May 22, 1949, was identified as that of the late James V. Forrestal, a patient in the neuropsychiatric service of the United States Naval Hospital National Medical Center.
      2. That the late James V. Forrestal died about 1:50 A.M. on Sunday, May 22, 1949, at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, as a result of injuries, multiple extreme, received incident to a fall from a high point in the tower, Building 1.
      3. That the behavior of the deceased during the period of the stay in the hospital preceding his death was indicative of a mental depression.
      4. That the treatment and precautions in the conduct of the case were in agreement with accepted psychiatric practice and commensurate with the evident status of the patient at all times.
      5. That the death was not caused in any manner by the intent, fault, negligence or inefficiency of any person or persons in the naval service or connected therewith.

      That’s it, folks. Notice what’s missing. There is no conclusion of suicide. They just tell us that Forrestal died from a fall from a high point in the building and that he had been depressed, but they don’t say who was responsible for the fall. They don’t even make mention of the dressing gown sash that was knotted tightly around the body’s neck, so they don’t have to explain it. There was no police investigation, so this is the official last word on Forrestal’s death. The findings upon which these conclusions are based were kept secret, and they remain secret to this day. If anyone did, indeed, witness Forrestal transcribing words from a poem onto a notepad shortly before he took his fatal plunge, it would be in the Review Board testimony. The authors Hoopes and Brinkley, in their extensive Forrestal biography, concealed from the readers the fact that this report has never been made public. Rogow mentioned the fact in passing in a footnote and made nothing of it, as though such things were routine and acceptable in this government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Finally, there is the matter of the motive and the likely suspects. It is no mystery at all who Forrestal’s greatest enemies were and who benefitted immensely from his death.

      Strong Motives, Prime Suspects

      When someone dies violently and suspiciously, the usual question investigators want to answer is who had a murder motive. Did the deceased have enemies? Had he been threatened by anyone? Was there anyone who stood to gain from his death? If so, did the party or parties in question have anything in their past to indicate that they might be capable of murder, and did they have the opportunity to commit the crime?

      In Forrestal’s case, the answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. For over a year he had been subject to a vilification campaign in the press the likes of which hardly any public official has ever had to endure in America. Leading the campaign, from the left and the right, respectively, were America’s two best-known and most powerful syndicated columnists, Drew Pearson and Walter Winchell. They painted Forrestal as a corrupt tool of Wall Street and the oil companies who put the interests of his cronies ahead of concern for the well being of refugees from European persecution. His big offense was that he was outspoken in his opposition to the creation of the state of Israel. The entire foreign policy establishment, led by Secretary of State Marshall, felt the same way, but the strong-willed Forrestal was the lightning rod for the supporters of Israel. He had received threatening telephone calls and he complained of being followed and electronically bugged. It has also been credibly reported that the Zionists attempted to blackmail him over the financial assistance that his investment banking firm, Dillon, Read, had given to the Nazis prior to World War II.

      One might argue that because Israel had already been recognized by the United States by the time Forrestal died, and because he had been removed from the Truman cabinet and discredited by his breakdown and hospitalization, he was no longer a threat to the supporters of Israel. But he was a man of prominence, wealth, and determination who intended to buy a newspaper and to write a book that threatened to expose a number of Roosevelt-Truman administration secrets, especially related to the machinations that brought the United States into World War II and the wartime policies that advanced the interests of the Soviet Union. His voluminous diary was confiscated by the Truman White House and its full contents have never been revealed.

      Most importantly, though, it was feared that he would continue to work against the interests of Israel. The animus toward Forrestal continues to the present day in Zionist circles, who continue to characterize this most able and dedicated of public servants as an anti-Semite and a nut.

      If anyone within the Truman White House had anything to do with Forrestal’s death, the most likely suspect would be the shadowy string-puller David Niles, a man with connections both to the Zionists and to the Communists. The previously mentioned author, Simpson, sees him as a likely suspect primarily because of his Communist affinities, and Simpson provides us with a laundry list of outrages perpetrated by the Communists in pursuit of world domination. But one should not overlook the ruthless record of the Israelis, from the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte and the bombing of the King David Hotel, all of which pre-dated the Forrestal death, right up to the more recent massacres in Qana and Jenin and the systematic assassination of Palestinian leaders.

      And although the communists might well have had many infiltrators in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, no one has ever suggested that they dominate America’s news media. It is the news media that has vigorously sold the story that James Forrestal committed suicide and has kept silent about the fact that the only serious government investigation of the death has been kept secret from the American public. The news media also heavily publicized the books by Rogow and Hoopes and Brinkley, which sell the suicide line, but they published not one single review of the critical book by Cornell Simpson.

      David Martin
      May 28, 2003


    9. alex Says:

      The simple fact is, when a man critical of jews dies under mysterious circumstances, the presumption must be that he was murdered by jews. Same goes for ‘terrorist’ attacks. The Mossad must be assumed guilty until proven otherwise. That is the logical way to approach it. No other way takes into full consideration the political powers afforded by complete media control.

    10. apollonian Says:

      Inductive Logic: A Stubborn And Fatal For Jews
      (Apollonian, 7 Apr 06)

      Indeed yes, not only the only “logical way,” it is simply most excellent, accurate, and informative inductive logic for conclusion: who else but Jews?–leading conspirators, collectivists by religion-psychology, proven fm history, etc., always confirmed for their actions and attitudes, etc., noxious in effect upon the culture and people, the very essence and style of hubris, “the Jews and their lies.” Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian