Aletho News


Presidential hopeful says France should leave NATO and partner with Russia

RT | January 3, 2022

The leader of a French leftist party and presidential hopeful has called for the country to pull out of the NATO alliance, revealing that he regards Russia as a partner for Paris rather than an adversary.

The leader of the leftist La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) party, Jean-Luc Melenchon, shared his insights on the new Cold War and France’s place in it during a major interview with France Inter radio on Monday. Melenchon further elaborated on the points he made during the interview in a long Twitter thread.

The politician said the country should take part in efforts to “de-escalate” the international situation rather than follow Washington in the new Cold War against China and Russia. Leaving the NATO alliance altogether would therefore be beneficial for France, as it won’t be part of the “military adventurism” of the US, Melenchon believes.

“I am for leaving NATO. We need to de-escalate. If we leave NATO, we will not be dragged into the cold war logic that the Americans maintain with Russia and China,” he stated.

The politician also said he regards Russia as France’s partner rather than an adversary. It was the West that got the NATO bloc into the current standoff with Moscow, breaking its promises on eastward expansion of the alliance, Melenchon stressed.

“Russia is a partner. I do not agree with making an enemy of it. We brought 10 countries into NATO in the east, which was seen as a threat by Russia. Especially when you install anti-missile systems in Poland,” the politician said.

He also voiced opposition towards any plans to accept Ukraine into NATO. A move like this would further erode the security situation in Europe, as it would be inevitably perceived by Moscow as a new “threat” against it, he said.

The veteran politician has announced he intends to run for president in the upcoming election in April. During the last presidential election in France, Melenchon won around 20% of the vote in the first ballot. However, he did not make it to the second round.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Bring Back the Boycott: Say ‘No’ to Big Pharma, Big Banks and Totalitarian Control

The Defender | January 4, 2022

Nearly two years into the phenomenon labeled COVID-19, more and more people recognize that a global coup d’état is underway — a push by central bankers and technocrats for “totalitarian control of your transportation, your bank account, your movement, every aspect of your life,” said Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a speech he delivered in November 2021 in Milan.

Now, a year’s worth of vaccine injury data (however imperfect) is telling “a very frightening story” about the dangers of the experimental COVID shots, and is exposing the immorality of administering them to children.

As Kennedy recently argued, “Forcing an entire population to accept an arbitrary and risky medical intervention is the most intrusive and demeaning action ever imposed by the U.S. government, and perhaps any government.”

Concerned about a rapidly advancing bio-surveillance state that would like to make participation in society dependent on vaccine passports and repeat injections, many people are wondering what they can do to resist.

Kennedy described one action that is obvious, if not necessarily easy: Say no “to buying products from the companies bankrupting and seeking to control us.”

In this instance, saying “no” requires casting a wide net, boycotting not just Big Pharma offenders like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — whose products fill most Americans’ medicine cabinets — but also felonious big banks angling in the shadows for complete digital control over private resources.

Boycotts are not easy, and market analysts sometimes dispute their effectiveness. On the other hand, argues Catholic writer Dusty Gates, “When we complain about something with our lips, but continue to participate in it with our pocketbooks, our complaint loses its volume and clarity.”

Taking moral responsibility “for our personal exercise of purchasing power” and withdrawing support from entities that “degrade the common good” may not be sufficient to halt tyranny in the short term, but history shows such actions can pay long-term dividends.

Remembering the boycott’s origins

It is uncertain how many people know or remember the boycott’s 19th-century Irish origins, but the 1880 tale — one of resolute determination in desperate times — offers powerful lessons that are far from outdated.

At the time, Irish tenant farmers were in the throes of a severe famine and had hit a wall in attempting to renegotiate rents with English land agent Charles Cunningham Boycott.

When Irish nationalist Charles Stewart Parnell encouraged tenants, laborers and local shopkeepers to cut the intransigent Englishman off “from all economic and social relations with the rest of the population,” the nonviolent effort was so successful — and so devastating to Boycott’s day-to-day existence — that the man ended up fleeing Ireland in disgrace.

In his 2015 essay on “why we need boycotts,” Dusty Gates noted there is a difference between what a boycott “most often is” and what a boycott “ought to be.”

Referring to the 1880 events, Gates emphasized that the reason for the Irish tenant farmers’ actions and for the boycott’s resounding success “was specifically that people were being treated unfairly” and were losing their livelihood.

With so much at stake, the boycott was “for people, not publicity.”

Reasons to boycott Pfizer

From all appearances, few of the Americans who last year accepted novel coronavirus injections paid much attention to the corporations making the jabs, instead naively accepting the companies’ “frontrunner” status as a guarantee of trustworthiness.

But while Americans might be forgiven for knowing little about secretive upstart Moderna, the public’s willingness to overlook the known and published offenses of behemoths like Pfizer and J&J is a bit more surprising.

As law firm Matthews & Associates observed in November 2020, just prior to the rollout of Pfizer’s experimental injection, “it would seem reasonable to share all the information available on a company millions of people are expected to trust with their health, perhaps their very lives.”

The firm then outlined key elements of Pfizer’s checkered history, describing it as “rife with … subterfuge and under-the-table dealing.”

In 2010, in a published paper, Canadian health economist and policy analyst Robert G. Evans summarized Pfizer’s record as one of “persistent criminal behavior.”

In a similar assessment, a Pfizer whistleblower stated, “The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn’t sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player.”

A small sampling of Pfizer’s unsavory track record includes:

  • A settlement of $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing practices in 2009 — at the time, “the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.”
  • A lengthy history of dangerous products, including ZantacLipitor and many others.
  • Additional settlements that reveal alleged patterns of racketeering and hiding important information about drug risks, sometimes for decades.
  • An “illegal trial of an unregistered drug” in infants and children in Nigeria that killed 11 children and left others with brain damage and paralysis, ultimately resulting in a $75 million settlement; Pfizer tested the drug on the children without the parents’ informed consent.
  • Recurrent problems with contamination and quality control, including disturbing reports from whistleblowers working in the plants manufacturing COVID shots.

Four years ago, Pfizer ranked dead last in a reputational rating of pharmaceutical companies and was considered one of the companies “most associated with arrogance and greed.”

But COVID shots have been very good for business. In 2020, before the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer’s vaccine, two products (the blood thinner Eliquis and the Prevnar-13 vaccine) accounted for more than one-fourth of the company’s total revenue.

In 2021, not only did Pfizer’s COVID injections become the year’s top-selling drug worldwide, but top executive Albert Bourla snagged CNN’s honorific of CEO of the Year.

Agreeing with Forbes “there is money to be made and influence to be gained by having people think positively of you,” Bourla gleefully told CNN, “we are enjoying high levels of corporate reputation right now. People like us.”

To keep it that way, Pfizer is now leading the charge to block legislation that would strengthen whistleblowers’ ability to expose corporate fraud. Pharmaphorum rates Pfizer as the sixth largest lobbying presence in Washington.

As recounted in The Intercept, if the whistleblower legislation were to pass, it would strengthen anti-retaliation protections “and make it more difficult for companies charged with fraud to dismiss cases on procedural grounds.”

Buttressed by a fleet of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists, Pfizer and other Big Pharma felons such as MerckAstraZenecaAmgen and Genentech — all of whom have a history of paying large settlements for healthcare fraud — are working to make sure the bill does not pass.

They may well succeed, given Pfizer stock is one of the most popular holdings of U.S. lawmakers.

Reasons to boycott J&J

By revenue, J&J was, as of 2020, the world’s largest healthcare company. The company’s combined consumer, pharmaceutical and medical devices groups have displayed steady growth since the mid-2000s, with 55% higher annual revenue in 2020 compared to 2006.

J&J, along with Pfizer, is one of U.S. lawmakers’ top stock holdings.

J&J’s growth occurred against the backdrop of an offensive history (outlined on numerous occasions by The Defender ) of civil and criminal fines and settlements related to Risperdalopioidssurgical mesh productsasbestos-tainted baby powder as well as numerous other scandals that, pre-COVID, had finally begun to make a dent in the company’s brand and reputation.

In October 2021, eager to offload its talc liabilities, J&J created a subsidiary and then promptly filed for its bankruptcy protection. In November, meanwhile, J&J announced plans — billed by Reuters as “the biggest shake-up in the U.S. company’s 135-year history — to spin off its consumer health division to focus on the pharmaceutical and medical device division.

J&J is also betting big on “novel solutions” and technologies like robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). Back in 2015, J&J announced a partnership with Google to develop AI surgical robots.

Prior to COVID, J&J had virtually no experience developing vaccines, but COVID shots have been just as good for J&J’s bottom line as for Pfizer’s.

Despite the spate of negative publicity about vaccine-related blood clots and other adverse events, which plagued J&J throughout 2021, for the 12 months ending Sep. 30, 2021, the company reported a 13.1% year-over-year increase in revenue as well as a steadily climbing stock value.

The financial outlook for J&J’s COVID shot may change in 2022, however. In mid-December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the public it “preferentially recommends” getting a Pfizer or Moderna injection rather than J&J’s, despite all three jabs carrying similarly worrisome risks of blood-clotting disorders.

CDC continues to endorse J&J’s shot for vulnerable prison and homeless populations (or when the other two are unavailable), but one of CDC’s advisors told the press she “wouldn’t recommend [her] own family take the J&J shot.”

In addition to adverse events, J&J’s COVID shots have attracted attention for “deficiencies” at its Baltimore production plant, where its notoriously subpar contractor “accidentally” mixed up ingredients and ruined doses.

J&J’s manufacturing woes are neither new nor unique to vaccine production, however. Back in 2013, describing “poppy-seed sized bits of plastic” in infant Motrin and injectable medications marred by mold, a reporter criticized J&J’s hypocritical “warm and fuzzy” marketing, concluding that the “out of control” company had “too many subsidiaries and outsourcing of products to third-party manufacturers for responsible oversight.”

Reasons to boycott felonious banks

In CHD.TV’s new weekly series, “Financial Rebellion,’ former investment banker and Solari Inc. President Catherine Austin Fitts explained the importance of reclaiming financial independence from the “monopolizing grip of the central banks and digital currency titans.”

Fitts argued central banks are using the pandemic to engineer an all-digital control system “that will allow them to extract tax without representation” while exerting 24/7 control over our ability to transact.

Fitts explained how members of the public have a powerful tool at their disposal to disrupt the central bankers’ plans: People can stop banking with the juggernauts that are the largest shareowners of the New York Fed — for example, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of New York Mellon (as well as other megabanks such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo and State Street) — and instead reward well-managed local banks and credit unions with their business.

The New York Fed is part of the Federal Reserve System, one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks established by Congress under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

It is the largest of the 12 “in terms of assets and volume of activity” and, unlike the other Reserve Banks, has “unique responsibilities” that include buying and selling U.S. Treasury securities on the open market to regulate the supply of money and intervening in foreign exchange markets.

The New York Fed has exercised “unprecedented powers” since the 2008 financial crisis and has used the cover story of the pandemic to steadily broaden those powers.

The New York Fed’s ringleader bank, JPMorgan Chase, is the largest U.S. bank (when ranked by total assets), owns 62% of all stock derivatives (valued at $3.3 trillion) held at federally-insured U.S. banks and is one of the top 10 stock holdings of U.S. lawmakers.

But, like Pfizer and J&J, JPMorgan Chase is a “criminal recidivist.” The five-count felon bank facilitated “the largest Ponzi scheme in history” (the Madoff scheme) and racked up $42 billion in civil and criminal penalties between 2002 and 2019. Recent whistleblower allegations describe a culture of fraud.

Nor is JPMorgan Chase alone as an admitted felon among New York Fed member banks. In 2015, Citigroup joined JPMorgan Chase in pleading guilty to rigging foreign exchange markets. In 2020, Goldman Sachs was charged with two felony counts.

Every action counts

Academic studies show the impact of boycotts is most significant when the companies in question already have a bad reputation and a history of frequent past scandals.

This suggests that boycotting Big Pharma, which before COVID had a long-standing reputation as “the most loathed industry in the country,” ought to be an easy sell.

Although companies like Pfizer and J&J may be benefiting from a short-lived “vaccine-led reputation boost,” their COVID injections’ nontrivial dangers are becoming so evident that even the complacent may have trouble discounting the risks.

Dr. Peter McCullough described the shots as the “most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history.”

For some members of the public, connecting the dots to private central banks represents a more challenging conceptual leap.

However, it is vital to recognize the unfolding global coup as an effort coordinated across multiple sectors, not least of which is the financial sector. And — as central bankers step out of their financial silos and brazenly lecture the world about getting vaccinated — their role in the engineering of tyranny is becoming ever more obvious.

Ending tyranny will require action from each of us, beginning with saying “no” to the disastrous COVID shots.

Admittedly, it may be harder to have as immediate an impact on today’s mega-corporations and billionaire tyrants as was achieved when laundresses, postal messengers and blacksmiths so effectively shunned Charles Cunningham Boycott in the 19th century.

But severing our financial — and energetic — ties with the pharma and banking entities that are harming us is still a powerful place to begin.

Boycotts, if driven by a strong “moral impetus,” can have clout.

Products and subsidiaries you can boycott

For boycotting purposes, we include below a partial list of products manufactured by Pfizer and J&J, and a selected list of their numerous acquisitions and subsidiaries.

Leading Pfizer brands:

Advil, Bextra, Celebrex, Chantix, Depo-Testosterone, Diflucan, Effexor, Eliquis, EpiPen, Ibrance, Lipitor, Lyrica, Nexium, Norvasc, Prempro, Prevnar 13, Protonix, Viagra, Xanax, Xeljanz, Xtandi, Zithromax, Zoloft

Selected Pfizer acquisitions and subsidiaries:

1968: Quigley Company

2000: Warner-Lambert

2003: Pharmacia & Upjohn

2008: Serenex

2009: ViiV Healthcare (joint venture with GSK), Wyeth

2010: King Pharmaceuticals, Meridian Medical Technologies (sold to Altaris in Nov. 2021)

2014: InnoPharma, Redvax GmbH (controlling interest)

2015: Hospira

2016: Anacor, Medivation, Treerly

2018: GSK Consumer Healthcare (joint venture with GSK)

2019: Array Biopharma, Viatris (merger of Upjohn and Mylan)

2021: Amplyx Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Trillium Therapeutics

Leading Johnson & Johnson brands:

Aveeno, Band-Aids, Concerta, Darzalex, devices for hip and knee replacements, Elmiron, Erleada, Imbruvica, Immodium, Invega, Invokana, Levaquin, Listerine, Opsumit, Pepcid, Remicaid, Reminyl, Risperdal, Stelara, surgical mesh products, Symtuza, Topamax, Tremfya, Tylenol, Uptravi, vision care products, Xarelto, Zyrtec, Zytiga

Selected J&J acquisitions and subsidiaries:

1947: Ethicon

1959: Cilag, McNeil

1961: Janssen Pharmaceuticals

1994: Neutrogena

1996: Cordis

1997: Biosense

1998: DePuy

2006: Animas Corporation, Pfizer Consumer Healthcare

2009: Acclarent

2010: Crucell, Micrus Endovascular

2012: Synthes

2017: Abbott Medical Optics, Actelion, TearScience

2019: Auris Health

2020: Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Verb Surgical

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Why RFK, Jr.’s Latest Book Didn’t Hit No. 1 on New York Times Best Sellers List

By Tony Lyons | The Defender | January 4, 2022

The New York Times reportedly bases a book’s position on its bestseller list on what they call a proprietary algorithm. Whatever their method, they favor specific books, ignore others, and rankings are often disconnected from how many copies of a book were actually sold to consumers.

You probably thought the New York Times Best Sellers list reflected book sales, but it doesn’t. It’s an engine of censorship, corruption and misinformation.

How do we know this? Follow the numbers.

Can a book outsell every other book in the U.S. and not be the #1 New York Times Bestseller? Sure. Is that perhaps a form of censorship? Yup.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s latest book, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” was published Nov. 16, 2021, by Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

The New York Times reportedly bases a book’s position on its bestseller list on what it calls a proprietary algorithm. Whatever the method, the Times favor specific books, ignore others, and rankings are often bizarrely disconnected from how many copies of a book were actually sold to consumers.

As every publisher in America knows, you can’t make the Times’ list without selling a substantial number of books through Barnes & Noble, as well as “the independents.”

But what if Barnes & Noble decides to buy very few copies of a book based on its subject matter? And what if some independents exhibit similar bias by boycotting the book, refusing to carry it and telling customers that they won’t even special order the book?

That’s what happened in the case of Kennedy’s “The Real Anthony Fauci”: Barnes & Noble purchased an unusually small quantity, and they kept the book invisible in most of their stores.

Independent booksellers, such as the San Francisco-based City Lights, don’t list the book on their website, tell customers they “don’t carry the book” and refuse to order it, even upon request. These decisions have nothing to do with customer demand or interest in the book.

Perhaps because of the trend toward politicization by bookstores that report sales to the Times, Amazon now accounts for an increasingly large percentage of book sales in the U.S.

On the one hand, the Times’ list is inaccurate because it applies an outdated, and increasingly irrelevant, view of how books are sold. On the other hand, it appears the Times’ bestseller list intentionally misrepresents actual consumer sales and demand.

Let’s see that in action by using “The Real Anthony Fauci” as a case study. The book boldly challenges mainstream narratives. It’s a serious work that makes legitimate, meticulously researched arguments.

With more than 2,000 citations and references, the book asks readers to engage in dialog and debate. At the end of each chapter, there’s a QR code that links to a website containing updates, critiques and new information.

The Real Anthony Fauci” was carefully vetted by doctors, scientists and lawyers. It has received substantial support from leading scientists, including at least one Nobel Prize-winning scientist.

This type of book cannot possibly be what any reasonable person has in mind when they seek to protect the public from “misinformation.”

Kennedy’s tour de force resonates so strongly with the American public that, despite epic censorship, “The Real Anthony Fauci” is one of the bestselling books in America.

It has achieved this status despite a total media blackout. There hasn’t been a single review in a major newspaper, online platforms have rejected advertising — some calling it “misinformation” before anyone could actually have read it — and bookstores are boycotting it.

In the past, people perused the New York Times Best Sellers list because they believed it represented an honest account of what people across the country were reading.

Today, alas, the New York Times Best Sellers list represents a political point of view and has become a way to encourage Times readers to buy and read books that the newspaper owners approve of — and to avoid books they don’t approve of.

The playbook from major newspapers and other media outlets is transparent: Attack the author, ignore the book.

In Kennedy’s case, the hit pieces have come from Town & Country, The New York Post, Vanity Fair, The Associated Press and others. (The Times hasn’t reviewed the book, of course, but describes it as a new book by an “anti-vaxxer.”)

Again, despite the epic censorship, there has been enormous grassroots demand for this book, and it’s burst through the blockade to hold the #1 spot on Amazon Charts and also become the #1 USA Today, #1 Publishers Weekly, and #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller.

The New York Times, however, listed it at #7 in the first week and #8 in the second. That must mean the book sold fewer copies than the books with higher rankings on the list, right? Wrong.

Few people ever see the actual numbers of books sold, so let’s break that tradition and share it all: The week Kennedy’s book was ranked #7 by the Times, it sold more than 92,000 hardcover copies.

That’s four-and-a-half times as many copies as two of the books ranked ahead of “The Real Anthony Fauci,” and more than double the average of all the books ranked ahead of it.

The fact is no book anywhere on the list sold more copies than “The Real Anthony Fauci.” (The book that earned the coveted #1 slot was the Times’ own “1619 Project,” which sold thousands fewer copies than Kennedy’s book.)

New York Times Best Sellers List

Nov. 21, 2021 (Reported Dec. 5)

The week after that, the Times again placed the “1619 Project” in the #1 position, as if it had sold the most books, even though it undersold Kennedy’s book by more than 20%.

And they moved “The Real Anthony Fauci” down to the #8 position — even though it outsold every other book on the list. It sold nearly three times as many copies as the book the Times listed as #3.

New York Times Best Sellers List

Nov. 28, 2021 (Reported Dec. 12) 

The Times obviously doesn’t want its readers to know how well Kennedy’s book is selling, likely hoping that’ll stymie demand.

But Americans are smarter than the New York Times gives them credit for — in less than four weeks, “The Real Anthony Fauci” sold more than 400,000 copies in all formats.

Americans clearly don’t like to be told what to think or what to read — or what not to read. Buying “The Real Anthony Fauci” has become a vote, sort of like a straw poll, against the increasingly insidious censorship in America.

Tony Lyons, president and publisher at Skyhorse publishing, and an attorney, was publisher at The Lyons Press between 1997 and 2004. He founded Skyhorse Publishing in 2006 and has been involved with every aspect of the book publishing process.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Australia artists boycott Sydney Festival over Israel funding

MEMO | January 4, 2022

Almost 30 Australian artists and organisations are boycotting the 2022 Sydney Festival due to the Israeli Embassy providing $20,000 to put on a performance by Israeli choreographer Ohad Naharin.

Melbourne funk/soul band Karate Boogaloo are the latest act to withdraw from the event as part of an ongoing cultural boycott.

In a statement shared yesterday on Instagram, the band wrote: “Boycotts and divestments have a strong track record of holding governments and corporations accountable for their actions.”

“Karate Boogaloo is standing in solidarity with Palestinian people, and boycotting the Sydney Festival as a result of it accepting money from the human rights abusing regime that is the Israeli Government.”

In addition, Blake Prize-winner Khaled Sabsabi, musician Malyangapa and Barkaa, Bindi Bosses, the Arab Theatre Studio and the Bankstown poetry slam and comedian Nazeem Hussain have withdrawn from this year’s festival which is due to be held from 6-30 January.

Last week, the Palestinian Justice Movement Sydney said in a statement that the deal was signed in May – the same month that Israel launched the 11-day offensive on Gaza, killing 256 Palestinians.

“The Israeli government uses culture to hide its apartheid practices and present itself as a free, fair and enlightened democracy. By partnering with Israel, Sydney Festival will be complicit in Israel’s strategy to art-wash its crimes, and contribute to the normalisation of an apartheid state”, the advocacy group said in a statement.

However, in response, Chair of the festival’s board David Kirk said the money would not be returned nor the performance stopped, however, similar donations may not be accepted in future.

“All funding agreements for the current Festival – including for Decadance [the Israeli-sponsored performance] will be honoured, and the performances will proceed. At the same time, the Board has also determined it will review its practices in relation to funding from foreign governments or related parties,” the statement read.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Israel arrests 75 Palestinians from Gaza in 2021

MEMO | January 4, 2022

The Israeli occupation forces have arrested 75 Palestinians in total last year at the Erez Crossing between Gaza and Israel, according to the Palestinian Prisoners Centre for Studies.

The Israeli army bans Palestinians in the Gaza Strip from entering the 300-meter area adjacent to its border with the enclave and shoots or arrests anyone who breaches it.

The Palestinian Prisoners Centre for Studies observed that the number of arrests last year was the same as the year 2020, during which 76 Palestinians were arrested, despite the enclave not being under direct occupation like the occupied West Bank.

Researcher, Riad Al-Ashqar, Director of the Centre, stated that the Israeli occupation forces use the Erez Crossing as a means for collective punishment.

He added that the Israeli forces blackmail Palestinians to work with the occupation by providing information in exchange for allowing them to cross, especially patients and merchants.

Al-Ashqar noted the arrest of 35-year-old Walaa Muhammad Mustafa Al-Rifai, from Maghazi in the Gaza Strip, while accompanying his wife, who is ill with cancer.

They had attempted to reach the Makassed Hospital in occupied Jerusalem, where his wife had previously obtained a medical referral for treatment there and had obtained Israeli permits that allow them to pass through the checkpoint to reach the hospital for treatment.

However, the Israeli forces arrested Walaa and transferred him to Ashkelon Prison for investigation.

Al-Ashqar also expressed concern for Israel’s heavy naval presence, restricting any traffic in and out of the enclave as well as the distance Gaza’s fishermen can travel to fish, severely affecting the livelihoods of some 4,000 fishermen and at least 1,500 more people involved in the fishing industry.

Palestinian fishermen often suffer from multiple Israeli violations, including attempting to sink Palestinian boats in the sea, firing at them, as well as narrowing the fishing area for long periods.

Gaza has been under a strict Israeli siege for 14 years and has been subject to repeated Israeli onslaughts during that period which have led to wide scale damage, high rates of unemployment and poverty.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | 1 Comment

The Zionist Shadows of Woodrow Wilson During World War I and Its Aftermath in Paris

Dissecting the Treaty of Versailles’s “Big Four”


In a Daily News Bulletin issued February 4, 1924, by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jewish leaders across the nation publicly mourned the passing of former war-time president Woodrow Wilson, the self-described “staunch friend of the Jews.” The telegram goes on to commemorate Wilson’s “intense interest in Jewish questions” by reviewing his political deeds as president, appointing Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court Bench despite vigorous opposition from the Court itself and urging the approval of the British Mandate over Palestine following the Balfour Declaration.[1]

Nearly a century later, this adulation of America’s twenty-eighth president continues to be echoed by prominent Jewish leaders and intellectuals. In Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer A. Scott Berg’s book, “Wilson,” this formidable Head of State has influenced the decision-making of each succeeding American president up to former President Donald Trump. Furthermore, Berg argues that Wilson is the most pro-Jewish president in US history.[2] This is attributed to Wilson’s breakaway from American isolationism, which guided the nation’s political function on the world stage for a hundred and twenty-five years.

Six months after winning a second consecutive term as president on the Democratic ticket (the first time since Andrew Jackson’s second term), Wilson asked the legislature to declare war on Germany in an imperative speech to Congress on April 2, 1917. His justification was to answer the question of the role the United States would play in the world – it was America’s duty to ensure that “the world must be safe for democracy.” This rhetoric has been repeated repeatedly by American politicians at all levels in subsequent generations, followed by military action.

As Wilson plunged the nation into Europe’s devastating four-year war which wrought 17 million deaths and 25 million wounded, he often portrayed himself as the beacon of progressive ideals, a missionary of self-determination, democracy, and multilateralism to the world and, by involuntary extension after the First World War, its conquered colonies from the ashes of the defeated German and Ottoman Empires. The question is on whose behalf and if foreign elements were acting abroad, at home, or both.

For example, it is entirely plausible today to assert that the invasion of Iraq was contrived almost entirely by high-ranking Jewish Zionists in the Bush administration for the long-anticipated purpose of removing Israel’s arch-nemesis at the time—Saddam Hussein—in another mission to destroy the Jewish State’s Arab neighbors and assert dominion over the region.[3]The catch was that Israel would not be fronting the 2 trillion dollar bill and sacrificing 190,000 lives; that was left to the Americans.[5]

Eighty years prior, before the founding of modern Israel, this similarly established Zionist paradigm in America’s political institutions persuaded the Wilson administration to do the same. Instead of winning the hearts and minds of the public through unbridled war propaganda and an unprecedented national tragedy for the specific purpose of creating a homeland for Jews, a cooperative network of Zionists in Britain, Russia, and the United States worked towards this goal through the imperial hand of the idealistic Wilson.

Jews long held Woodrow Wilson in high regard for his liberal politics and inclination to address their requests. When the former governor of New Jersey first ran for president in 1912, Boston’s Jewish Advocate published a political ad, pressing readers to join with “practically all the great Jewish leaders throughout the country” in endorsing him.[6]These leaders included financier Jacob H. Schiff, philanthropist Nathan Straus, and Ambassador Henry Morgenthau. At the time, beginning in 1906, the United States was faced with the difficult task of admitting roughly ten million immigrants, mainly from Eastern and Southern Europe.

This sudden influx overwhelmed several facets of the native populace, whereby the “restrictionists” emerged with literary test campaigns as a method by which to curtail subsequent waves of immigration. The American Jewish Committee was the most active and significant anti-restricionist lobby group in each of these battles through delay and outright blockage of the legislative passage. During his tenure as president, Wilson assisted by vetoing three restrictive measures he believed were aimed principally at Jews before being overridden by Congress. The AJC’s particular fixation on the plight of Russian-Jewish immigrants caused an extensive lobbying endeavor in America’s foreign policy.[7]

This emerging conflict of interest was sidestepped upon the outbreak of the First World War. The intense pogroms and anti-Jewish sentiment of Czar Nicholas II caused the American Jewish community to side more with Germany than with Allied forces. Immigrant Jews even prayed that the “more civilized” Germans would liberate their suppressed brethren in Eastern Europe from Russian harassment. In the Yiddish press, the enemy was portrayed vividly as: “The Jews support Germany because Russia bathes in Jewish blood.” Who will dare say that it is a crime for Jews to hate their torturers, their oppressors and murderers?”[8] The German Foreign Office took advantage of this position in order to maintain its favor in the Jewish community; in September, 1914, Dr. Isaac Straus was even sent to the United States to manage propaganda work among Jews for the German Information Bureau located in New York.

The German Information Bureau, despite official American neutrality, could not be more pleased following its meeting with the Jewish press. This came at a time when most Americans would rather side with French and British allies out of strong ancestral ties: “So far as our relations with the very influential Jewish press are concerned, they are in good shape, and will be carefully nourished. It is critical in this regard that all news pertaining to them elevate Jewish self-esteem; for example, the appointment of Jewish officers, the installation of Jewish professors, and honors bestowed upon Jewish professors should all be sent here.”

While war efforts were being bolstered in the Jewish press, American Zionist leaders adopted a policy of neutrality for the time being, stemming from Theodor Herzl’s stance on non-partisanship in a neutral country as war raged. During this time, it was Britain’s Grand Fleet that managed the naval blockade of supplies into Germany, starving 400,000 German civilians to death. For the first two years of the First World War, German war efforts nevertheless proved supreme thanks to their unexpected arsenal of submarines against the wealthier, more weaponized Allied Powers. Imperial German forces nearly captured Paris, expelled Russia from the war, and drove the French Army into mutiny, all before a Western Front victory was barely in their grasp by 1918. On three separate occasions throughout 1916, Germany pursued avenues to negotiate for peace, but both British and French resolve maintained that peace would only come about upon Germany’s defeat.[9]

Zionist leaders eventually came to the realization that Allied victory meant Russia’s influence would be amplified in the Near East. In early 1915, a conditional Entente agreement even allocated Constantinople to Russia. This posed an issue as Constantinople rested in the possession of the Ottoman Empire, an ally of Germany and Austro-Hungary. High-profile Zionists had their eyes eastbound on Palestine as a suitable place to lay the groundwork for a Jewish homeland. In 1896, the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, approached Sultan Abdul Hamid II and offered to pay off the Ottoman debt in exchange for a charter that permitted Zionists access to Palestine.[10] The Sultan outright refused.

The prospect of a promised land for Jews never escaped one highly influential man’s attention — Justice Louis D. Brandeis. Through Brandeis, Zionist leadership “passed into American hands by default.” He was considered one of the men of “light and lead” on whom Wilson relied.[11] Born in 1856 to secular Jewish immigrant parents from the present-day Czech Republic, he graduated from Harvard Law School at the age of 20 and settled in Boston to open a law firm focused on progressive social causes. In his early career, he was distinguished for his public advocacy against powerful corporations, mass consumerism, monopolies, and public corruption while advising methods to restrict the influence of big banks and money trusts in his collection of essays, Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It.[12]

These progressive positions would later be taken up by Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson on the larger question of the role of the national government and the future of the American economic system. By that time, Louis Brandeis was head of both the Federation of American Zionists and the American Zionist Movement after meeting the English-born Zionist leader and close associate of the late Herzl, Jacob de Haas. The prominent Jewish lawyer was converted into a staunch Zionist under the mentorship of leading Zionists during that time, such as Aaron Aaronsohn, Horace Kallen, Shmarya Levin, Bernard Rosenblatt, and Nahum Sokolow.[13] From August 31, 1914, to October 1, 1916, Brandeis was also chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for general Zionist affairs.

The Brandeis-Wilson coalition was the start of a political partnership with far-reaching consequences on the international scene until Wilson’s death. The opportunity for career advancement presented itself so visibly that Brandeis switched parties and carried his advocacies, including Zionism, into American political institutions as a high-ranking political figure with direct access to the newly elected U.S. president.

Upon Wilson’s presidential win in November, he noted to Brandeis, “You were yourself a great part of the victory.” During Wilson’s first year as president, Brandeis was instrumental in the behind-the-scenes creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. The ambitious president attempted to make Brandeis his Attorney General and later Secretary of Commerce, but intense resistance from corporate executives forced Wilson to rescind his plan to make the renowned radical part of his cabinet. Instead, he nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916, and he was sworn in amid a public outcry.

At a time when correspondence between Zionist leaders and the American president was steadily rising, as the Great War intensified in its first year, Brandeis approached Wilson about Zionist plans, to which Wilson seemed receptive. By 1916, Brandeis established regular contact with the State Department on the future fate of the declining Turkish Empire following the war, with Hungarian-born leading Zionist and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise in communication with Wilson’s chief adviser on European politics and diplomacy during the First World War, Edward Mandell “Colonel” House, on Zionist objectives. Specifically, Wise functioned as an intermediary between Wilson and House from 1916 to 1919. Wise began his Zionist career in the late 1890’s by assisting the movement’s ideological development and organization of its membership. Another acquaintance of Herzl’s, he served as American secretary of the World Zionist Movement and was instrumental in producing the aforementioned Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs.[14]

Opposition to American entry into the First World War cut across political, racial, and economic lines. Various factions of society, including socialists, anarchists, syndicalists, pacifists, civil libertarians, Marxists, rural southerners, Canadian and Irish nationalists, and women’s groups, were just some of the small but vocal minorities opposing American militarism. International socialist groups, for example, were keenly aware of the capitalist mobilization the war promised to big business rivals. The working class fought, while the ruling class profited.[15] This was America’s first debut as a global military power and pitted citizen against citizen until eventually the government itself grossly violated civil liberties under the Espionage and Sedition Acts.

In 1916, Wilson reignited his bid for re-election through his continued commitment to progressive change by calling for legislation regulating work hours and a minimum wage. Democrats campaigned on the slogan, “He Kept Us Out of War,” insisting to voters that a Republican victory would mean war with Germany. Just four months after his second inauguration, Wilson reneged on his campaign promise of neutrality and officially declared war. By this time, public resistance to this betrayal was minute. The preceding years of preparedness campaigns, patriotic zeal, and heavily propagandized press cycles swayed the consensus into viewing the war as just and necessary. Thousands more dissenters continued to be jailed, silenced, and deported under newly solidified justification.

Shortly after the U.S. entered into the war, the British Foreign Minister, Arthur J. Balfour, arrived in Washington. In a cable, James Rothschild urged Brandeis to discuss Zionism with Balfour on the viability of an English Zionist program to recognize Palestine as the Jewish national homeland. “Unanimous opinion is the only satisfactory solution for Jewish Palestine under British protectorate,” Rothschild explained in a telegram. Russian Zionists fully approve. Public opinion and competent authorities here are favorable… It would greatly help if American Jews would suggest this scheme to their government.[16]The charitable activity of the Zionist movement was over. Now an era of wielding political power has commenced to shift the tide of international conflict under the London-Moscow-New York axis.

Only one month after American entry into the war, Brandeis followed through with Rothschild’s request. Appealing to Wilson’s progressive vision for the globe, Brandeis explained that a Jewish Palestine would fulfill the conditions of the peace settlement Wilson desired; Turkish despotism would be swept aside for a democratic government where economic and cultural development would be undertaken by a historically suppressed people.[17]In reaction to the Balfour Declaration, Wilson said, “The allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our government and people, agree that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.”[18]

Partnered with Brandeis in courting Wilson was the Austrian-born Jewish lawyer and professor, Felix Frankfurter, a lifelong committed Zionist and member of the Zionist Organization of America. Frankfurter became acquainted with Brandeis in the Parushim, a secret Zionist society, reform movement, and arguably the first modern militant Zionist organization in America. Found by their former mentor, Horace M. Kallento, Zionist purpose was “a group much like the Peace Corps, young men and women who saw the Utopian opportunity that existed for the Jewish people in Palestine and who were willing to devote themselves to an ideal.”[19]

The ideological motivations for endorsing Zionism were personal for Wilson as well: “To think that I, the son of the manse, should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people.” With Wilson formally persuaded, Brandeis passed along the good news via urgent cables to Rothschild in London. Two weeks later, Jacob de Haas, now advisor to Brandeis, cabled Russian born-Zionist leader and future president of the World Zionist Organization, Chaim Weizmann, not only outlining the plan for Palestine but to communicate “an accurate statement of the prevailing sentiment in the United States to be presented to the Allied Governments.”[20]

President Wilson was later asked directly by the British government about the likelihood of issuing a declaration of sympathy for the Zionist movement. Wilson responded that the time was not ripe. A month later, Wilson placed his full backing behind the affirmation as pressure mounted against Germany’s Turkish ally to make dispensations to the Zionists. The topic of the Balfour Declaration was on the table between the two world powers. Colonel House complained to Wilson in a note: “The Jews from every tribe have descended in force, and they seem determined to break in with a jimmy if they are not let in.”[21]

Brandeis’ influence over Wilson in regards to Zionist ambition could not be understated. Wilson once remarked that it was Brandeis to whom he owed his career. According to Frank Edward Manuel, Wilson’s interest in Zionism and including it as part of his foreign policy was “being slowly nurtured by Louis Brandeis, one of the men who stood closest to him in the early years of the administration and who became the key figure in future American intervention in Palestine.”[22]

A roadblock in the way of the highly anticipated declaration was the Counselor to the State Department, Robert Lansing. Lansing was completely bypassed in House and Wilson’s correspondence on the Balfour Declaration. In response, Lansing argued in a letter to Wilson why America must decline Balfour’s promise, noting that, among several reasons, “many Christian sects and individuals would undoubtedly resent turning the Holy Land over to the absolute control of the race credited with the death of Christ,” a flagrant secession from the protracted Christian support for the prophetic restoration of Israel.

Lansing ordered Ambassador Walter Hines Page to investigate and report prudently the British reasons for the Balfour Declaration. In spite of political opposition within the State Department, the declaration was officially signed by Lord Balfour after a two-year process of edits by British and American Zionists and officials. Despite its official status as a British document, it was Brandeis who spearheaded its drafting and application through Wilson.

News rapidly spread worldwide upon the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, with heaps of telegrams addressed to Wilson expressing their gratitude for his contributions. Leaflets were dropped over German and Austrian territory announcing, “The hour of Jewish redemption has arrived…” The Allies are giving the land of Israel to the people of Israel… Will you join them and help to build a Jewish homeland in Palestine? Stop fighting the allies who are fighting for you, for all the Jews… An Allied victory means the Jewish people’s return to Zion.”[23]

By the summer of 1918, Turkish resistance was waning and President Wilson took this time to formally announce his public endorsement of the Balfour Declaration in August. Three months later, Germany was the last of the Central Powers to sign an armistice agreement with the Allies. The war was over. The next battle would be held in Paris.

The ambitions of Wilson’s liberal internationalist foreign policy were outlined in the Fourteen Points and used as the basis of terms for Germany’s surrender at the Paris Peace Conference. The Peace Conference produced five treaties, one of which was the notorious Treaty of Versailles. There were a number of high-profile Jews present, not just in diplomatic positions but in many senior and important functions within the Allied delegations.[24] This included Baron Sonnino for Italy, Edwin Montagu for Britain, Louis Klotz for France, and Paul Mantoux as the interpreter for the “Big Three”—United States, Britain, and France.

Wilson also endorsed Rabbi Wise to promote the Jewish program for Palestine in Paris. Another Zionist delegate was Frankfurter, who was among the nearly one hundred intellectuals that signed a statement of principles for the formation of the League of Free Nations Associations. This formally enacted Wilson’s mission to dispel isolationism in favor of increasing American participation in international affairs.[25]

In the midst of empirical savagery slicing up Germany and parceling out Europe’s colonial holdings, the case for a Jewish homeland in Palestine was presented by a delegation of the Zionist Organization led by Weizmann. The terms of the newly established British Mandate involved promoting Jewish immigration and settlement, suggesting boundaries, self-government, and the assurance of religious liberty.

At the request of President Wilson, Jewish statesman and Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch attended the Paris Peace Conference as an advisor to negotiate a deal with the victorious Allied powers on the destiny of Germany.[26] He served as a member of the American Delegation to the Preliminary Peace Conference and on the Committee on Form of Payments of Reparations. Baruch is credited with managing America’s economic mobilization in the First World War while chairman of the War Industries Board. While Baruch opposed the strenuous financial tenets of punishing Germany, he nonetheless attempted to assist the Senate in passing the Treaty of Versailles.

Baruch also played a significant role in securing France’s vote in favor of the Palestine Partition Plan. He swayed their vote by visiting France’s UN delegate and heavily suggesting that failure to support the resolution could result in America withholding desperately needed monetary support as the war devastated France’s financial market.[27]

The renowned English economist, John Maynard Keynes, was also in attendance at the Peace Conference as a delegate of the British Treasury. Disgusted by the ravenous nature of the treaties, particularly the Versailles Treaty, Keynes publicized a negative portrayal of the treaties in his book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. In response, Baruch paid John Foster Dulles $10,000 to ghostwrite his own book, The Making of the Reparation and Economic Sections of the Treaty, to counter Keynes by exalting the treaties.[28]

The most significant of American Jewish attendees, however, was Justice Brandeis himself, whose task at the world’s peace tables was to assist Colonel House “in collecting peace data for President Wilson.” The task was clear: “Colonel House will devote his attention to problems concerning the war in the west, while Justice Brandeis will study the near eastern question.” Their work will form the basis for the country’s contention.”[29]

For a liberal president known for endorsing and exporting democratic ideals even through coercion, its inconsistent implementation was noted during the peace talks and formally addressed on August 28, 1919, through the presentation of the King-Crane Commission. The commission argued that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine would inevitably lead to an immediate violation of the right of the indigenous Palestinian people to self-determination and deemed the Zionist program incompatible.

The report also stated that meetings with Jewish representatives led them to conclude that “the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine through armed forces” and begged the Peace Conference to reject Zionist proposals. The findings of this report were suppressed for three years by Brandeis until after the Peace Accords were passed. Working diligently to ensure the stipulations of the Balfour Declaration were incorporated into the final arrangement was Frankfurter, who found the findings of the commission to “cheat Jewry of Palestine.”[30]

As the dissolution of the former Ottoman Empire began via the Treaty of Sevres, the vehicle for colonizing Palestine as spelled out by the Balfour Declaration was put into effect under the Brandeis-guided Wilson. The Council of the League of Nations and the United States both approved the Mandate for Palestine in July of 1922. It was clear from the beginning that the flagrant denial of self-government for the Palestinian population would continue until the Jews were strong enough to take the reins of government in the region.

For four days in April 1922, Congress debated resolutions brought forth to reaffirm the colonial implications of the Balfour Declaration as urged by Zionists. One of the vocal participants of its opposition was Professor Edward Bliss Reed, who testified in a prophetic hearing before Congress about the outcome of what American support entailed: “If you indorse the Balfour declaration, you are caught absolutely in the mandate…” What I want to warn you against is getting caught up in the mandate in what I consider an impasse. It will devastate this country, Palestine. I want to prevent my country from doing something that will bring it untold trouble.”[31]

Nevertheless, Congress was subjected to endless Zionist pressure and passed the Lodge-Fish Resolution endorsing the British Mandate for Palestine as laid out by the Balfour Declaration, which was signed by Wilson’s presidential successor, Warren G. Harding, on September 21, 1922.

When Wilson died two years later, the President of the Zionist Organization of America, Louis Lipsky, stated publicly, “Mr. Wilson followed with interest the progress of the Zionist movement even after he retired to private life.” In 1921, when informed that the Mandate for Palestine had been finally ratified, he telegraphed to the Zionist Organization of America: “I am proud that it should be thought that I have been of service to the Jewish people.”[32]

The First World War was proclaimed to represent “the war to end all wars”, bringing about a golden future on the promise of self-determination, democracy, mutual security, and peace. The cost would only be the blood and ashes of young, idealistic men committed to the service of their nation. What resulted was the pervasive indifference and lack of cohesive understanding of the memory of the war in spite of its devastating cost. As Steven Trout tried to explain the lack of American consciousness toward the war, “What exactly should the nation recall about the war? Is neutrality failing? The bravery of the combat soldier? The futility of trench warfare? The racial discrimination that permeated the ranks? Are there domestic attacks on German Americans? The botched peace processes? ”

Not to mention the American public that had opposed entry into Europe’s war was forced to grapple with the casualties of 120,000 soldiers and the reintegration of 200,000 wounded men, crippled of mind and body. For Wilson, it was his lifelong and close political partnerships with notable Jewish Zionists fully entrenched in American institutions that prompted his breakaway from isolationism—to which the United States has never returned. More consequential was Wilson’s setting the pattern for amplifying and servicing the dominance of a foreign state as the costs continue to rise.


[1] Jewish Telegraphic Agency, INC., “Leaders Pay Tribute To The Passing Of A Great Statesman,” Daily News Bulletin, last modified February 4, 1924,

[2] Galia Licht, “Who Was the Most Pro-Jewish U.S. President? Woodrow Wilson, Obviously, ”, September 25, 2013,

[3] Casey Titus, “History’s Deceptive Buildup Against Saddam Hussein,” The Duran, accessed March 22, 2021,

[4] Nathan Guttman, “Top White House posts go to Jews,” The Jerusalem Post,, last modified April 25, 2006.

[5] Paulina Cachero, “According to reports, US taxpayers have paid an average of $8,000 per person and more than $2 trillion in total for the Iraq War alone.”Business Insider,, last modified February 6, 2020.

[6] Jonathan D. Sarna, “Woodrow Wilson: A Jewish Hero.”What Should We Do with His Racism? ” The Forward, November 15, 2016,

[7] Joseph Rappaport, “The American Yiddish Press and the European Conflict in 1914.” 113–28 in Jewish Social Studies 19, no. 3/4 (1957).

[8] Rappaport, page 116.

[9] Jon Guttman, “Did the Germans Try to Make Peace in 1916?,” HistoryNet,, last modified December 18, 2014.

[10] Elis Gjevori, “How Theodor Herzl Failed to Convince the Ottomans to Sell Palestine,”, last modified May 25, 2021.

[11] Adler, Selig. “The Palestine Question in the Wilson Era.” Jewish Social Studies 10, no. 4 (1948): 303–34.

[12] Jewish Virtual Library, “Louis D. Brandeis,” last modified January 2016,

[13] Jonathan D. Sarna, “Louis D. Brandeis: Zionist Leader,” Brandeis University, last updated in 1992,

[14] American Jewish Archives, “A Finding Aid to the Stephen S. Wise Collection, 1893-1969,” The Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, accessed December 31, 2021,

[15] Catherine Gilchrist, “Socialist Opposition to World War I,” Dictionary of Sydney, last modified in 2014,

[16] Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann to Brandeis (cable), April 21, 1917 (received April 25), Zionist Archives, New York City, Jacob de Haas Archives.

[17] Lebow, Richard Ned. “Woodrow Wilson and the Balfour Declaration.” The Journal of Modern History, 40, no. 4 (1968): 507

[18] Jewish Virtual Library, “U.S. Presidential Quotes About Jewish Homeland & Israel,” Jewish Virtual Library,, accessed December 31, 2021.

[19] Schmidt, Sarah. “The ‘Parushim’: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History.” American Jewish Historical Quarterly 65, no. 2 (1975): 122.

[20] De Haas Archives, Brandeis to Rothschild (cable), May 9, 1917.

[21] Adle, Selig. “The Palestine Question in the Wilson Era.” Jewish Social Studies 10, no. 4 (1948): 306.

[22] Ahmed, Hisham H. “From the Balfour Declaration to World War II: The U.S. Stand on Palestinian Self-Determination.” Arab Studies Quarterly 12, no. 1/2 (1990): 9–41.

[23] Brendan Devenney, “Chapter One—Zionism: The Beginning,” Medium, last modified November 2, 2021,

[24] Levene, Mark. “Nationalism and Its Alternatives in the International Arena: The Jewish Question in Paris, 1919.” Journal of Contemporary History 28, no. 3 (1993): 522.

[25] Gunther, Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge, 261.


[27] Saul J. Singer, “Bernard Baruch: ‘America First’,” The Jewish Press-Breaking News, Opinions, Analysis and More on Israel and the Jewish World | Last modified March 29, 2017,

[28] Gates Brown, “Baruch, Bernard Mannes | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1),” 1914-1918-Online. WW1 International Encyclopedia, last modified March 16, 2015,

[29] Butler Citizen, “Zionist Louis Brandeis Takes Control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,”,, last modified October 2, 1917.

[30] Ahmed, 23,

[31] United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Sixty-seventh Congress, Second Session, on H. Con. Res. 52, Expressing Satisfaction with the Re-creation of Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish Race April 18, 19, 20, and 21, 1922 (Kessinger Publishing, 1922), 23–24.

[32] Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Jews Mourn the Death of Woodrow Wilson,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency,, last modified in 1921.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Theranos founder convicted of fraud & conspiracy

RT | January 4, 2022

The founder and CEO of ‘revolutionary’ blood-testing health technology company Theranos, has been found guilty on four counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud investors, but not patients.

Elizabeth Holmes, 37, was found not guilty on four charges revolving around “wire fraud against Theranos paying patients,” and the jury in California also remained deadlocked on three other charges on Monday. But with a partially guilty verdict she could still face up to 20 years in prison for each count, although some observers believe she is unlikely to receive the maximum sentence.

Theranos was once a $9 billion Silicon Valley wonder that promised to revolutionize blood testing. It was founded by Holmes in 2003, after she dropped out of Stanford University at age 19. The company’s board of directors at some point included former senators, future Defense Secretary James Mattis, as well as former Secretaries of State George Schultz and Henry Kissinger.

Praised as a self-made billionaire and “future Steve Jobs” of biotechnology, Holmes would appear at events alongside former Alibaba CEO Jack Ma, former President Bill Clinton and even then-Vice President Joe Biden, claiming that her company could offer blood tests for 240 diseases using just a few drops from a fingertip pin-prick instead of a needle or syringe.

The entire enterprise collapsed following a 2015 Wall Street Journal report by John Carreyrou, which exposed the fact that the company’s miracle technology did not actually work. This triggered an inquiry by federal agencies that led to indictments against Holmes and former Theranos COO Ramesh Balwani in 2018. Balwani is set to stand his own trial next month.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Reports of COVID Vaccine Injuries Pass 1 Million Mark, FDA Signs Off on Pfizer Booster for Kids 12 and Up

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | January 3, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Dec. 31, 2021, released new data showing a total of 1,000,229 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 24, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 21,002 reports of deaths and 162,506 reports of serious injuries. Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 709,084 adverse events, including 9,623 deaths and 62,069 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 24, 2021.

Foreign reports are reports received by U.S. manufacturers from their foreign subsidiaries. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 9,623 U.S. deaths reported as of Dec. 24, 20% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 25% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 499.7 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Dec. 23. This includes 291 million doses of Pfizer, 190 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 24, 2021, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 24, 2021, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:  

The most recent death involves a previously healthy 15-year-old girl from Wisconsin (VAERS I.D. 1963633), who experienced a cerebral and intraventricular hemorrhage secondary to a ruptured aneurysm. She also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 despite having been fully vaccinated.

  • 61 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 579 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 568 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 146 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 10, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:

FDA clears Pfizer boosters for 12- to 15-year-olds, bypasses experts 

The FDA today amended Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine expanding eligibility for boosters to children 12 through 15 years of age.

The agency did not consult its expert panel of vaccine advisors, who in September, overwhelmingly rejected boosters for healthy people 16 and older.

The FDA also shortened the time for both adolescents and adults to receive a booster from six months to five months after receiving a second dose and authorized a third shot for immunocompromised children aged 5 to 11.

Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, said in a statement the agency made its decision because a third dose “may help provide better protection against both the Delta and Omicron variants.”

The FDA said it reviewed real-world data from Israel of more than 6,300 individuals 12- to 15-years-old who received a booster at least five months after their second Pfizer dose and found no serious safety concerns.

Likewise, additional data showed no problems giving anyone eligible for a Pfizer booster an extra dose at five months instead of six, the Associated Press reported.

The FDA said it will continue to review the information and communicate with the public if data emerges suggesting booster doses are needed for the younger pediatric population.

Pediatrician weighs in on FDA decision: children aren’t ‘mini-adults’

Dr. Michelle Perro, pediatrician and co-author of “What’s Making Our Children Sick,” disagreed with the FDA’s decision, pointing out that “children are not mini-adults.” In an email to The Defender, Perro said children’s rapid growth, quick cellular turnover and less efficient detoxification pathways are factors that must be considered whenever any new therapeutics are being introduced.

Perro said:

“This newest immunomodulating therapy, the mRNA inoculation, has already been shown to have produced multisystem negative health outcomes in children garnered from the CDC’s own database.”

Perro outlined five reasons she believes this “experimental therapy” must be immediately withdrawn:

  • Gene-edited injectables have not been adequately studied in children as per Pfizer’s own data, where they meshed childrens’ and adults’ data together.
  • The injection utilizes nanotechnology which is now part of the emerging technology in vaccinology research. These nanoparticles are so small in size they can cross the blood-brain barrier which can adversely affect our already fragile population of children.
  • The mRNA itself is unstable and is thus encapsulated in a lipid biosphere comprised of a polyethylene glycol shell which in itself is toxic.
  • The number of children suffering from already documented irreparable side effects from the inoculations, such as those occurring in their hearts (myocarditis), is not only unacceptable but immoral.
  • Children’s healthcare providers are neither educated or proactive in diagnosing and treating the effects from this experimental therapy.

Perro questioned the FDA’s motives, given that children suffer nearly zero morbidity and mortality from COVID infections.

She also said the FDA is “veering from” its own historical stance.

“When previous true vaccines were introduced historically (rotavirus vaccine), after just a few cases of adversity, they were immediately withdrawn,” Perro told The Defender. “The FDA must adhere to its own historical position regarding their assigned task of the protection and oversight of our country’s greatest asset: our children.”

Fauci says hospitalization numbers for kids with COVID are overcounted

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in an interview on MSNBC, said statistics for hospitalizations among children with COVID are overcounted, making clear the distinction between children hospitalized with COVID and children hospitalized “because of COVID.”

Speaking to MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin, who was filling in for Rachel Maddow on Dec. 29, about the rise in hospitalizations among children amid the Omicron variant, Fauci said the surge is due to two contributing factors — more children getting infected and the way COVID cases are counted.

“And what we mean by that — if a child goes in the hospital, they automatically get tested for COVID. And they get counted as a COVID-hospitalized individual,” Fauci said. “When in fact, they may go in for a broken leg or appendicitis or something like that. So it’s overcounting the number of children who are, quote, ‘hospitalized with COVID,’ as opposed to because of COVID.”

Full article

January 4, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Dutch Police Sick Attack Dogs On Anti-Lockdown Protesters

Is this what a ‘free’ country is supposed to look like?

By Steve Watson | Summit News | January 3, 2022

Shocking video emerged Sunday of police in Holland beating anti-lockdown protesters with batons and sending in dogs to maul the dissenters.

Massive amounts of people turned out to protest hard lockdown restrictions which were put back into place by the Dutch government before Christmas.

Everything except essential stores has been shut down in the country until at least Jan. 14.

The restrictions dictate that gatherings of more than two people are illegal, so the government sent in the riot police.



January 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture | , | 4 Comments