Genuine critic or fake opposition?
Despite Chirac’s criticisms, France is essentially supporting the coalition behind the scenes. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin declared recently, "We will not use the present crisis to come up with arguments that could tomorrow further deepen the divisions within the international community....Should this situation come about, then we have to close ranks and stand by the United States in the search for solutions." (1)
So what is President Chirac’s true position? Sadly, it appears that French policy on Iraq is somewhat two-faced. On one hand, President Chirac loudly denounces America and Britain while his foreign minister quietly supports the anti-Iraq coalition.
Why would Chirac take such an odd posture concerning America’s war with Iraq?
Although Chirac’s criticisms are harsh, he is probably running interference for Israel. To realize why he is doing this requires a broader understanding of two critical points: first, that the Iraqi war is being waged on behalf of Israel’s interests, not America’s; and second, that France is a more dominant center of Zionism than Israel.
Let’s begin by addressing the first point, that the war against Iraq is being fought for Israel.
Israel is clearly the root cause of the conflict in Iraq. Anyone who denies this is simply being dishonest or disingenuous. The movers and shakers advocating war are either Zionist Jews or members of the Christian Right, the latter group being more fanatic about Zionism than most American Jews.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are two of the biggest supporters of the Iraqi war. Both have publicly stated that Islam has a doctrine of terrorism. This is tantamount to declaring war on Islam without using euphemisms like "war on terrorism" to disguise their contempt for the teachings of Mohamad the Prophet. On October 6, 2002, CBS Sixty Minutes aired an exposé about the Christian Right’s obsession with Israel. The following is the full transcript of that piece:
"Zion's Christian Soldiers"
Most if not all of Bush’s actions are driven by his desire to please the people who helped elect him, the Christian Right. "There are 70 million of us," Falwell boasted, "and if there's one thing that brings us together quickly, it's whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel." (from cited 60 Minutes piece)
Saddam Hussein is openly anti-Israel, even militant. But his anti-Zionist combativeness has never been directed at the American public, only toward Israel. For those who claim he supports terrorism, it is true that he endorses guerrilla warfare tactics directed at Israeli citizens. He gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as an incentive to continue their guerrilla warfare efforts. Some may call this supporting terrorism. I do not, but debating what constitutes terrorism is really a moot point because Saddam’s hostility is directed solely at Israel, not the United States. When Bush and Rumsfeld talk about Saddam being a threat to America’s security, they are misleading the public. Saddam is a threat the Israel’s security, not America’s. Hence, the Iraqi war is being fought on behalf of Israel, not the United States.
Saddam’s main offense, according to Bush et al., is that he possesses "weapons of mass destruction" and has demonstrated that he will use them to commit acts of terrorism. Again, Saddam has NEVER demonstrated that he will use these weapons against American citizens, only against Israel. And he has NOT used any of those weapons against Israel in recent years. (Not since he fired scud missiles at Tel Aviv during the Persian Gulf War, a war started by Bush senior under false pretenses similar to those manufactured by Bush junior) In recent years, Saddam has only paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is his primary offense. Other than that, Saddam has used his weapons of mass destruction either at the behest of the United States or to defend his government against uprisings not unlike what the FBI did to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas on April 19, 1993; however, the Branch Davidians did not revolt against the United States government. They were the victims of a violent governmental assault and they merely tried to defend themselves.
I am amazed at the level of ignorance which abounds among Americans regarding Saddam Hussein’s so-called sponsoring of terrorism. Many Americans have told me personally that Saddam was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. How can anyone argue with such foolishness? This sort of nonsense is the result of disinformation cynically propagated for months by Bush, Rumsfeld, and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. The latter individual is yet another example of a Zionist Jew manipulating public opinion in order to launch a war against Iraq.
In addition to manipulating public opinion about Saddam’s involvement in 9-11 (a blatant lie), Bush, Rumsfeld, and Fleischer are constantly twisting facts about Palestinian terrorism versus Israeli terrorism. These White House spin doctors constantly insinuate that Palestinians use terrorism and Israelis do not. Not only is this is extremely unfair and inaccurate, it is a complete fabrication. Israel’s use of terrorism against the Palestinians and the British is widely documented and others more prominent than I have commented on it repeatedly.
In 1956 Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary General of the UN, publicly rebuked Israeli Prime Minister David-Ben Gurion for his view that military force is the only means of solving problems in the Middle East. "You are convinced that the threat of retaliation has a deterrent effect," Hammarskjöld stated. "I am convinced that it is more of an incitement to individual members of the Arab forces than even what has been said by their own governments. You are convinced that acts of retaliation will stop further incidents. I am convinced that they will lead to further incidents….You believe that this way of creating respect for Israel will pave the way for sound coexistence with the Arab people. I believe that the policy may postpone indefinitely the time for such coexistence…. I think the discussion of this question can be considered closed since you, in spite of previous discouraging experiences, have taken the responsibility of large-scale tests of the correctness of your belief." (2)
Israel’s aggressive attitude toward Arabs has not changed since Hammarskjöld uttered those words forty-seven years ago. If anything it has worsened.
Another example of Israeli sponsorship of the Iraq war is Jewish scholar, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, US Deputy Director of Defense. Wolfowitz is the chief architect of America's present foreign policy, which includes launching a war against Iraq. People in the know are aware that Wolfowitz created what is officially named the "Bush Doctrine" but journalists and critics have nicknamed it the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" because it is well-known that Bush had nothing to do with writing it; however, it is the mainstay of his current foreign policy. Unless Wolfowitz publicly renounces Israel, then it is completely accurate to frame the US-Iraqi conflict as being Israeli driven.
Now that we have established Israel’s interest in the Iraqi war, let’s move to the second point: that France is a more dominant center of Zionism than Israel.
The Central Consistory - French Jewry
Most Americans do not realize that the heart of Zionism and worldwide Jewry is called the "Central Consistory" (aka, "Consistoire Central" in French) which resides in France. The Central Consistory is a Jewish institution set up during Napoleon’s emancipation of French Jews in the early part of the nineteenth century. The system consists of twelve consistories which are essentially government sanctioned Synagogues. The Central Consistory resides in Paris and eleven regional consistories report to it. The regional consistories reside in the cities of Nancy, Bordeaux, Lyon, Marseilles, Bayonne, Epinal, Lille, Besancon, Algiers, Constantine, and Oran. (3) Each regional consistory has a rabbi as well. The Central Consistory system was created under the auspices of the Great Sanhedrin which Napoleon reconvened to help Jews differentiate the ancient Jewish laws from the laws of France. (4) The Central Consistory has a president and a "Grand Rabbi of France." Presently Moise Cohen is president and David Messas is Grand Rabbi. (5)
Because of Napoleon’s emancipation efforts, he is considered a savior among worldwide Jewry. Few people realize it, but the FBI was created by Napoleon’s great nephew, Charles Joseph Bonaparte, the grandson of Napoleon’s youngest brother, Jerome. Therefore, the FBI can be traced back to French royalty, unbelievable as it may seem. And the French royalty in question, the Bonaparte family, are beloved by Jews everywhere. Hence, the FBI is most likely a tool—a propaganda organ in the United States government—for Jewish supremacy. The following article describes the FBI’s Napoleonic origin and its connection to French Jewry:
"The FBI, America’s Napoleonic Sanhedrin"
As previously stated, one of the regional consistories resides in the city of Marseilles, France. Because of my interest in the assassination of President Kennedy, I am intrigued by this particular consistory. In my book, Opium Lords, I concluded that JFK’s assassins lived in Marseilles and were recruited by Antoine Guerini, leader of the Guerini Crime Family in that city. The hit men were Lucien Sarti, François Chiappe, and Jean-Paul Angeletti. After the Guerini Crime Family collapsed in the late 1960s, the assassins moved to South America where they were recruited by heroin trafficker Auguste Joseph Ricord. To read more about the assassins, click here:
I further concluded that Meyer Lansky was likely the person who set up the assassination plan with Antoine Gueroni. But at the time I wrote Opium Lords, I was unaware of the Central Consistory system and the regional consistory located in Marseilles. I was also unaware of the Grand Rabbi of France who presides over the Central Consistory. During the Kennedy administration the Grand Rabbi of France was Jacob Kaplan (1895 - 1994) who served from 1955 to 1981. (6) Consequently, Kaplan becomes a prime suspect as the man who likely ordered President Kennedy’s murder.
Using inductive reasoning, I hypothesized (in Opium Lords) that a gathering of Jewish leaders must have occurred and it was decided, by group consensus, that Kennedy must die. I based this hypothesis on the Gospels’ description of how Jewish high priest Joseph Caiaphas took counsel with Jewish leaders in the ancient Sanhedrin and Caiaphas "prophesied" that Jesus must die. I also used a non-Biblical historical source: Flavius Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews." As it turns out, the Central Consistory in France is quite similar to the ancient Sanhedrin whose members plotted to kill Jesus. With this new information, we are moving beyond the realm of inductive reasoning and into a fact-based scenario of how the most notorious crime of the Twentieth Century probably originated. We are on the verge of reconstructing with great precision the actual Jewish counsel that likely conspired in France to plan President Kennedy’s murder.
In Opium Lords, I identified Nahum Goldmann—founder of the World Jewish Congress—as the person who ordered Kennedy’s assassination. I still support that assertion; however, the FBI-Napoleon connection points to the Central Consistory which points to Jacob Kaplan as well since he was head of the Central Consistory during the Kennedy administration. But Goldmann is still a prime suspect because he reportedly held eight different passports, eventually settled in Israel, but preferred to spend time in Paris and Geneva (7) which kept him in close proximity to Jacob Kaplan and the Central Consistory.
Here is an article I wrote nearly a year ago which describes the rationale for suspecting Nahum Goldmann as the person who ordered the murder:
"Why I believe Nahum Goldmann was ‘Mr. Big’ in the JFK Assassination"
In short, the overall thesis of Opium Lords—that JFK’s death was the result of a Jewish conspiracy—has not changed, but I have connected the dots somewhat differently. One of the most significant new points introduced is the role of French Zionism which was spawned by Napoleon whose great nephew created the FBI. In addition, Napoleon was Corsican, which means the FBI was linked to French-Corsicans since its inception in 1908. No wonder French-Corsican assassins were selected to kill Kennedy. J. Edgar Hoover simply reached back to the bureau’s roots.
9-11 & the FBI
Indirectly, France is responsible for our present state of turmoil since the FBI was created by French royalty. The war on terrorism is based almost entirely on propaganda concocted by the FBI. Does anyone really believe that a bunch of Muslim terrorists hijacked four planes using exacto knives to overpower the crews? In the last six days, the world has witnessed the precision of cruise missiles destroying Baghdad. Is it so difficult to believe that some of the "planes" that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 may actually have been cruise missiles disguised as planes? Only one plane was in fact filmed hitting a building. (the second plane that hit the Twin Towers) That plane was likely navigated using a remote control pilot, a technology that has been around for quite some time. In fact, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has had this capability since 1959. Independent investigator Carol Valentine makes a compelling argument that this scenario (a combination of cruise missiles disguised as planes and a remote control plane) is exactly how Israeli loyalists within the US military staged the terrorist attacks on that infamous day and blamed it on Muslims. To read Valentine’s entire scenario, click the following URL:
"Flight Of The Bumble Planes"
by Snake Plissken as told to Carol A. Valentine
What does Chirac know about French Zionism?
Surely Chirac understands that the US-British coalition is fighting Iraq for Israel’s interests not America’s. Chirac must also realize the power of the Central Consistory system. This could explain why he is so critical of America and Britain regarding Iraq, but his foreign minister has quietly pledged to support the coalition if necessary. In an extreme situation like this, one would think Chirac could exert pressure on the Central Consistory if he genuinely wanted to weaken Zionist influence on the Iraqi war.
Given the facts I have presented herein, I have concluded that Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war is merely window dressing, designed to make citizens of the world think a genuine debate is occurring among world leaders. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." What are the fruits of Mr. Chirac’s recent objections?
If Chirac wants the world to believe his criticisms are genuine, he must demonstrate his sincerity with actions not words. Here are some suggestions:
Shutting down the FBI and the Central Consistory system in France would do more to promote peace than any of Chirac’s verbal condemnations of America’s aggression toward Iraq. Unless Chirac demonstrates his sincerity, we must conclude that he is just another underhanded politician positioning for power in the world theater. ª
(1) Peter Schwarz, "Chirac and Schröder oppose Bush’s war ultimatum," March 19, 2003, World Socialist Web Site (WSWS)
(2) George Ball, The Passionate Attachment, pp. 47 & 251. Eisenhower’s instructions to Dulles were on p. 47 of Ball’s book. The Hammarskjöld quote regarding Ben-Gurion and Israel was on p. 251. Ball cited Brian Urquhart’s biography of Dag Hammarskjöld: Hammarskjöld, p. 157.
(3) Jewish Encyclopedia: Central Consistory
(4) Simon Schwarzfuchs, "Napoleon, the Jews and the Sanhedrin," pp 104-105
(5) Consistoire website (in French)
http://www.consistoire.org (click "Contact")
(6) Yahoo Encyclopedia (translated from French to English): Jacob Kaplan. It states that Kaplan was "Chief rabbi of France from 1955 to 1981.
Automatically translated to English:
Jacob Kaplan (webpage written in French), Grand Rabbin de France (1895 - 1994)
(7) Jewish Heritage Online Magazine: Nahum Goldmann
Heated Usenet debate about Chirac article.
|From: Salvadorwriter (email@example.com)
Subject: Re: Jacques Chirac: Genuine critic or fake opposition?
Date: 2003-03-27 18:52:33 PST
Comments below are a reaction to the following article:
"Jacques Chirac: Genuine critic or fake opposition?"
By Salvador Astucia, March 26, 2003
["Leo the Lion" firstname.lastname@example.org:]
>> >>> The French Bonaparte family are royalty ?
>> >>> Since when ?
>> >> Since Napoleon was emperor. Are you claiming
>> >> he was not? Are you also claiming that
>> >> Napoleon's great nephew did not create
>> >> the FBI? These things are NOT theories.
>> >> They are facts. You should look up the
>> >> difference.
>> > Well...how about that....good ol' Napoleon
>> > crowned himself emporer of France in 1804.
>> > ( he did do a lot of good for France and
>> > certainly restored law and order after
>> > the revolution) Heck, Saddam may as well
>> > crown himself emporer or king of Iraq.
>> > This does not in my humble opninion may
>> > these people royalty.
>> Quibble, quibble. Do you have a point?
>> > You're probably right his great nephew
>> > created the FBI
>> No "probably," just fact. His name was Charles
>> Joseph Bonaparte, grandson of Napoleon's
>> youngest brother, Jerome. Charles Bonaparte
>> was attorney general under President Theodore
>> Roosevelt. He created the FBI in In 1908,
>> originally named the Bureau of Investigation.
>> Later an "F" was added for "Federal," but I
>> think we should rename it the "FRENCH Bureau
>> of Investigation." :-)
>> > ...who cares...Well you know....I've read
>> > a lot of theories about who or whom supposedly
>> > killed JFK. And your suggestion is just one
>> > of many.............as I said....sure fills
>> > up a lot of books.
>> Sounds like you have no interest in JFK's
>> assassination. Fair enough, but that leads to
>> another question: Why are you here? :-)
> Well of course I am intersted in who killed JFK
> Am just not interested in over the top conspiracy
> theories like yours.
In other words, you refuse to entertain ANY possibility that Israel or Jewish political forces may have been involved. Are there any other areas you refuse to discuss?
>> >>> JFK killed by the french ?
>> >> Yes. Read this:
>> >> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/the_assassins.htm
>> >>> World Trade Centre hit by cruise missiles ?
>> >> The first tower was hit by a cruise missile,
>> >> or some sort of missile, disguised as a plane.
>> >> The second tower was hit by a real plane
>> >> piloted by remote control technology. It is
>> >> an obvious hoax that Muslims used exacto
>> >> knives to overpower the crews of four planes.
>> >> (Couldn't the FBI have invented a better cover
>> >> story than that?)
>> >> For details, read the following article:
>> >> "Flight Of The Bumble Planes"
>> >> by Snake Plissken as told to Carol A. Valentine
>> >> http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html
>> > The first tower hit by something like a cruise
>> > missile ? and the second tower by a remote
>> > controlled plane ? Sure, Neil Armstrong never
>> > walked on the moon...that was a great Hollywood
>> > production. The Holocaust also never happened...
>> > that was a great Jewish conspiracy to
>> > bolster support etc.
>> I've only met one person who does not believe
>> Armstrong et al landed on the moon, and he turned
>> out to be an FBI informant. His name is Gary David
>> Martin (aka, DC Dave), he lives in Chantilly,
>> Virginia, he's married to a Korean wife, they
>> have three grown sons. He claims to have a Ph.D
>> in economics and is reportedly employed by the
>> Federal Government at the Department of Labor
>> in Washington, DC. Personally, I have no reason
>> to believe the moon landing was a hoax but would
>> have no interest if it was.
>> Regarding Martin's FBI connections, the following
>> article reveals how he blew his cover last August:
> [I] believe Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.
As well you should. :-)
>> Regarding your other sarcastic comment, "the
>> Holocaust never happened," here is my response.
>> I believe there was a period of time between 1938
>> and 1945 where Jews were treated harshly in
>> Germany under the government of the late Adolphus
>> "Adolf" Hitler. If you wish to discuss exactly what
>> was done to the Jews by Mr. Hitler's government
>> during the cited period, that is a more complex
>> discussion. But yes, I believe the period of time
>> known as the Holocaust did in fact occur. I generally
>> subscribe to the "revisionist" point of view in
>> that regard; however, there are many revisionists
>> and some, like David Irving for example, have been
>> discredited. In fact, I personally discredited him
>> among his peers. Not because he lost the famous
>> law suit with Debra Lipstadt, but because I
>> demonstrated that he is obviously an agent of
>> Zion pretending to be a revisionist and he
>> deliberately lost the Lipstadt case in order
>> to taint ALL revisionists.
>> The following is a series of emails between Mr.
>> Irving and me where he revealed his true agenda:
>> "David Irving, Another False Prophet (?)"
>> To read about revisionists in general, click
>> the following URL:
>> Germar Rudolf is one of the better revisionists.
>> He has written some excellent things which refute
>> the conventional view that gas chambers were used
>> in a lethal manner. Here is a good example of his
>> "Some considerations about the Gas Chambers of
>> Auschwitz and Birkenau" by Germar Rudolf
> Yes, I believe the holocaust happened....I have
> visited Auschwitz.....
Your statement is non-responsive to the information I just presented. What is your opinion on Germar Rudolf's article, "Some considerations about the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau"?
Here's the URL again:
> No, I don't believe the WTC attack was as you believe.
Interesting the way you keep introducing new topics then jumping back and forth between them. But what the hey? I'll play the game.
When you say you do not believe the WTC attack was as I believe, you obviously mean you do not believe the article, entitled "Flight Of The Bumble Planes," by Carol A. Valentine et al. Here it is again:
Anyway, if you do not accept any portion of the Bumble Planes article, then am I correct to assume that you FULLY accept the FBI's theory that a bunch of Muslims got on four plans and overpowered the crew with exacto knives? Is that your idea of a theory that is NOT "over the top"?
> My point is :
> There are a lot of theories who or whom killed
> JFK. Some are very informative and would
> encourage people to consider the matter,
> ....and a lot a pure fantasy including yours.
Researchers are not supposed to develop theories solely to "encourage people to consider" a matter. Some truths are difficult to accept because they are so horrific. Yet they are still truths. Sometimes the researcher's job is to present such painful truths in a written manner that can easily be absorbed despite its horrific nature. You seem to want to avoid dealing with issues that make you uncomfortable, like engaging in an open discussion of Judaism for example. Many people are like that, but they don't investigate murders either. Have you ever considered selling real estate? :-)
Regarding your "pure fantasy" statement, what portion of the information I presented do you consider "pure fantasy"? Most of what I presented were verifiable facts. Certainly you do not dispute any facts that can easily be confirmed. Admittedly, I draw conclusions as well. That is what a "theory" is, it's a conclusion based on facts. So what parts are you challenging? Do you think a specific fact is erroneous? If so, please state what it is and why you believe it is incorrect. If you are challenging a conclusion, then please state why you believe it is wrong, and explain how the associated facts might point elsewhere.
To recap, the above discussion was a reaction to the following article:
"Jacques Chirac: Genuine critic or fake opposition?"
By Salvador Astucia, March 26, 2003
Feel free to offer more comments. (This is fun.)