Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand Ruling Britain and the United States
by Christopher Bollyn
December 20, 2007
For all practical purposes, the United States and Britain are Zionist-occupied nations. Because the American and British people are generally ignorant of what Zionism is, the meaning of this statement is not widely understood or appreciated.
The lack of understanding by the public, however, doesn’t change the fact that these once great nations have become Zionist-controlled states. The evidence is clearly seen in the self-destructive foreign policies these nations have pursued for the past 40 years or so.
The Anglo-American “leadership” positions in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and their support of the costly Zionist fraud known as the “War on Terror” is further proof that Zionists control these nations – as if any were needed.
How did these powerful and independent nations become Zionist-controlled? Unlike Palestine, where Eastern European Zionist immigrants used brutal terrorism to ethnically “cleanse” and conquer the land, in Britain and the United States the Zionists gained power gradually through “dumbing down” and effectively disenfranchising the native populations.
In Britain and the United States, the Zionists saved the use of terrorism for later, after they already controlled the media and the levers of power and government.
Americans today still believe they are free because the media tells them so, and because they don’t see the restraints and are able to move around and buy things. Americans are, indeed, free to work and shop, but they have virtually no real political power whatsoever. A good example is that while an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population is against the war in Iraq, the war and the huge spending bills to support it go on unchallenged by their representatives in Congress. Why don’t the Congressmen vote to stop the disastrous war that has consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and taken more than 3,000 American lives?
Most Americans in the “land of the free and the home of the brave” are completely unaware that they have lost the most cherished democratic franchise, i.e. the citizen’s fundamental right to vote and count their votes. They think their vote counts and don’t have a clue that they lost their democratic franchise years ago. They are unaware of this situation simply because the media has not told them.
“If the media doesn’t talk about it, must not be a problem” is the American way of thinking.
For the Zionist-controlled media, the absence of any citizen oversight of the vote-counting process and complete lack of transparency in American elections are simply non-issues, just like many other very important subjects of vital importance to the survival of the republic.
As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” This aptly describes the difficult condition Americans face at the beginning of the 21st century.
Zionists, a marginal minority of Polish and Russian Jewish immigrants, were able to gain control of these great English-speaking nations by obtaining control of two fundamental institutions: the media and academia. This is not to say that they don’t control other key institutions, but these two are of essential importance because they largely define the intellectual life of a nation.
Having worked in the media and studied Middle East history at an American university, I know what I am talking about here. History of the Middle East and Europe, and virtually every other subject taught at American universities, is viewed only through the Zionist prism.
For example, when I studied the Middle East at the University of California at Santa Cruz, the head of the department was a professor named Edmund Burke, who had studied under the famous British Jew, Bernard Lewis, at Princeton. Burke was always recommending the books of Bernard Lewis, which I avoided like the plague.
American historian Joel Beinin called Lewis “perhaps the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community.”
“Terry” Burke spent 1990 “on sabbatical” with Lewis at Princeton. He returned to Santa Cruz in the late summer, just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in January 1991. I remember Burke giving a speech in August or September at the federal building in Santa Cruz as the conflict was heating up. The very first words out of his mouth were “Balkanization,” something that amazes me to this day. He was unwilling to explain his choice of words when I called him about a year ago.
Although my main interest was Israel and Palestine, Burke recommended that I read a book about Yugoslavia. Balkanization, the breaking up of nations into ethnic statelets, is the Zionist plan for the entire Middle East, articulated by Oded Yinon of the Israeli foreign ministry in the early 1980s.
During the many lectures and courses I studied on the Middle East, never did I hear a critical word about Zionism or its brutal history in Eastern Europe and Palestine. This is primarily because the professors of Middle Eastern studies and European history are usually Jewish and strongly inclined to support Zionism.
If a professor were to openly criticize Zionism as the racist and violent ideology that it is, he would probably find himself unemployed in very short order.
I understood this and endeavored to present the anti-Zionist perspective at the university. I brought speakers like Ralph Schoenman, the author of The Hidden History of Zionism (1988), to the campus and led a tour of photojournalists to the West Bank and Gaza Strip shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Despite a great deal of effort and years of experience in the region, Burke did not give me “honors” with my degree, most likely because of my anti-Zionist views.
The media in the United States is controlled in the same way as the universities. The editors and journalists are prevented from investigating and discussing the real history of Zionism because the news outlets are usually owned by people who are themselves dedicated Zionists. The takeover of CNN by Gerald M. Levin of AOL Time Warner marked the fall of the last major non-Zionist media network.
Today, all major news outlets in the United States and Britain are strongly Zionist. There were a few good newspapers, such as The Christian Science Monitor, that provided some balance to the pro-Zionist “mainstream” networks, but even they have now fallen.
The result is that the populations of the United States, Britain, and Australia are largely ignorant of Zionism and what it has done in the past in other countries – and what it is doing now in theirs.
Selecting issues and non-issues for coverage is the primary method employed by the Zionist-controlled news networks. Issues get a lot of coverage, while non-issues get none.
Here are a few examples of issues and non-issues in the Zionist-controlled media:
• Iran’s legal and monitored efforts to develop nuclear energy are an issue; Israel’s illegal and secret nuclear arsenal is not.
• Discussion of the alleged role of Muslims in terrorist acts is an issue; solid evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11 and the London bombings is not.
• The two-year-long fake presidential campaign with a host of Zionist-controlled candidates is an issue; how our electronic “votes” are counted by mysterious “private” foreign companies of unknown ownership is not.
I don’t know if any other American journalist and 9-11 researcher has been attacked, Tasered, and had their elbow broken by an undercover tactical squad in front of their family in the United States, but I know that when it happened to me in August 2006, it was very much a non-issue with the controlled media.
WHO ARE THESE FOREIGN MINISTERS?
The position of foreign minister, or secretary of state in the United States, is a very important position, second only to the president or prime minister. Since foreign policy is the only policy coming out of Washington or London these days, these positions are of crucial importance and speak volumes about who is really controlling the government.
In the United States and Britain, we have very strange people with odd backgrounds in these high-level appointed positions. The current British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is a 42-year-old politician named David Wright Miliband, the son of the Belgian-born Marxist, Adolphe “Ralph” Miliband.
The U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a 53-year-old former professor, holds the comparable position in the American government.
What is most peculiar – and telling – is that the backgrounds, loyalties, and ideologies of these two high-level appointed officials are never discussed in the Zionist-controlled media; clearly this is a non-issue.
WHO IS DAVID MILIBAND?
It goes without saying that both Miliband and Rice are dedicated Zionists: they are, after all, serving in extremely pro-Zionist governments. But why are their personal and family histories not discussed by the media? Don’t the American and British people have a right to know the person who is overseeing the implementation of their national foreign policy?
David Miliband, who only became a Member of Parliament in June 2001, was recently in Basra, Iraq, when the British officially stepped back from their failure and turned over control to Iraqi authorities.
Although Miliband and other British officials have tried to put a good face on the disastrous results of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation, the fact that it has been a complete failure is painfully apparent to all.
As a senior Iraqi military officer told ABC News, “The British legacy in Basra is criminal gangs, a corrupt and infiltrated police force, and borders open to all.”
Major-General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander in Basra, told The Times of London: “They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world.”
Yousif Nassar, one of Basra’s most famous composers, is also disappointed at what the British did to his city. “The British Forces created chaos and failed to deliver what they promised,” he said, as reported by The Times of December 17, 2007.
The Times article was entitled “Crumbling services and violence on the streets, but hope follows British pullout.”
“We congratulate all of those who have helped achieve this, most notably British and Coalition military and civilian personnel,” Defense Secretary Des Browne and David Miliband said in a joint statement when the pullout was announced. How could these senior British officials congratulate anyone for their achievments in Basra? The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq is nothing but an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps that was the plan all along?
Knowing who David Miliband is and what he represents is key to understanding the real power behind Britain’s foreign policy. This is certainly the reason the Zionist-controlled media keeps the British population – and the world – ignorant of the Miliband family’s roots – in Brussels.
David Miliband is the son of Ralph Miliband, born Adolphe Miliband in Brussels in 1924, and Marion Kozak. Ralph was a well-known Marxist political theorist. Ralph, who died in 1994, is buried in Highgate Cemetery close to his idol, Karl Marx.
David’s brother, Edward Samuel Miliband, is also a member of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet, where he has been chairman of the Treasury’s Council of Economic Advisers, which directs the UK’s long-term economic planning.
Beyond that, the family history gets confusing and misleading – on purpose, I’m sure.
The online biography of Adolphe “Ralph” Miliband says he was born in Brussels of Polish-Jewish emigré parents and that both his parents lived in the Jewish quarter of Warsaw, before his father, Samuel “Sam” Miliband, joined the Red Army in the Polish-Soviet or Bolshevik War (February 1919 – March 1921).
Sam Miliband is said to have left Poland after the First World War, which ended in November 1918. He supposedly became a leather worker in Belgium and then returned to Poland to join the Red Army under the command of Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) in 1920.
The commanders who served under Trotsky in the Bolshevik War against Poland were Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Aleksandr Yegorov, Joseph Stalin, and Felix Dzerzhinsky.
Nikolay Bukharin, writing in the Soviet newspaper Pravda, urged the Bolsheviks to carry on beyond Warsaw “right up to London and Paris.”
General’s Tukhachevsky’s order of July 2, 1920 read:
To the West! Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to world-wide conflagration. March on Vilno, Minsk, Warsaw! Onward to Berlin over the corpse of Poland!
Why would a poor leather worker in Belgium give up his work and travel all the way to Poland to fight with the Bolshevik Red Army against the Polish Republic and the West? If this is true, Samuel Miliband must have been a very dedicated communist.
This is, however, most certainly not the whole truth. The family tree of the family of David and Edward Miliband clearly indicates that their grandfather Samuel Miliband was also born, like their father Adolphe, in Brussels, in 1865. In this case, Brussels-born Sam must have been an extremely dedicated communist. There is another possible explanation. Perhaps Sam was a Zionist emissary on a mission to bring support and funds to the Red Army in their attempt to conquer Poland. If the family tree is correct that Sam Miliband was born in Brussels, there is something more to the Miliband story.
The Miliband family tree provides the names and dates of birth of Samuel’s 11 siblings, his parents, and even his grandparents, data which supports it as a credible source. Why then has the Zionist-controlled media obscured the Miliband family history and pretended that David’s father was born in Warsaw, when his family records indicate he was born in Brussels?
This is information about the Miliband family that the Zionist-controlled media had evidently decided that the public does not need to know. It also suggests that the preferential treatment and promotions that the Milibands have received since coming to Britain have more to do with their high-level connections than with their abilities.
Their connections and loyalties are evidently to the highest levels of the Zionist “Communist” International in Brussels, which is the only reason they are in the positions they are in. Their loyalty is clearly not to the British nation or people.
WHO IS JOSEF KORBEL?
The same is true of Condoleezza Rice, who was mentored at the University of Denver by the Czechoslovakian Jewish immigrant Josef Korbel, the father of the previous secretary of state, Marie Jana Korbelova, a.k.a. Madeleine Albright.
One might think that this amazing coincidence would be newsworthy, but it has generally been ignored by the controlled media as well. This is probably because the obvious question, “Who is Josef Korbel?” is a question the Zionist-controlled media does not want to address.
Josef Korbel (1909-77) was a Czechoslovakian diplomat in the London-based “government” in exile of Edvard Benes, which took power in Prague after World War II. Korbel was the father of Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and the mentor of George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. What a coincidence – or is it?
Korbel was also a thief. Korbel stole paintings which belonged to German industrialist Karl Nebrich, whose property in Prague was confiscated as part of the postwar Benes decrees. Like the more than three million other ethnic Germans from Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia, Nebrich and his family were expelled from the country under the postwar decrees, which oddly remain in force to this day.
Would any European nation that banned Jews and confiscated their property be allowed to be a member of the European Union? Why are such racist laws permitted against Germans?
Korbel’s stealing of property and art is just the tip of the iceberg. Korbel was involved in the United Nations partition of India and Pakistan and the illegal arming of the Zionist fighters in Palestine until the end of 1948.
When the communists came to power in 1948, Korbel was charged and sentenced, and fled to New York where he lived in the cottage house of a very large mansion in Great Neck, New York. He was eventually given a teaching position at the University of Denver.
The Korbels’ move to New York is described in Seasons of Her Life: A Biography of Madeleine Albright:
The Korbels settled into a home just outside New York City. One of Joseph Korbel’s colleagues at the United Nations had helped the family rent a small gardener’s cottage at 149 Station Road in a woodsy section of Great Neck, a prosperous and developing suburban community on Long Island’s North Shore.
Korbel clearly played a key role in the Zionist-Israeli weapons pipeline from Czechoslovakia, which was the main supplier and base for the nascent Israeli Air Force. The Zionist air bridge from Czechoslovakia, known as Operation Balak, was the essential weapons supply line and is regarded as one of the Israeli Air Force’s most important achievements. Czechoslovakia provided weapons, ammunition, and the first fighter airplanes to the Zionist forces in Palestine.
The would-be Israelis even operated their own airbase and pilot training school in Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia played an important role as the main transit point for arms shipments going by sea, and a refueling stop for the Israeli and Zionist pilots flying fighter aircraft from Czechoslovakia to Palestine – which became the State of Israel after May 1948.
Korbel, an avowed anti-communist and senior member of the Benes government, became the Czech ambassador to Belgrade at this time, although he hated the socialism of Tito. Korbel was the ambassador in Yugoslavia because he was playing another more important role: the key Zionist point man in the illegal weapons transfers to Jewish forces in Palestine. The people, such as Shimon Peres, who were involved in the illegal weapons smuggling to the Haganah and the Irgun terrorist gangs in Palestine have been at the top of the Zionist hierarchy since 1948.
There is, of course, much more to the sordid Miliband, Korbel, and Rice histories. This material is provided simply to illustrate the high-level Zionist connections of the people who shaped and taught the current foreign ministers of Britain and the United States. Because this information is not provided by the controlled media in these two great nations, I am providing this research to help my fellow Americans and British friends realize who is controlling their foreign policy – which is nothing short of disastrous.
If you appreciate the information found in this article, please consider supporting my research and writing by sending a donation via PayPal to: firstname.lastname@example.org
The winter issue of Kivunim, “A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,” publishes “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” by Oded Yinon. The paper, published in Hebrew, rejects the idea that Israel should carry through with the Camp David Accords and seek peace. Instead, Yinon suggests that the Arab States should be destroyed from within by exploiting their internal religious and ethnic tensions: “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon.” [Kivunim, 2/1982]
Entity Tags: Oded Yinon
Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks
The Yinon Plan: A Continuation of British Strategy in the Middle East – Strategic Plan to Ensure Israeli Regional Superiority by Balkanizing Surrounding Arab States – A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm – Sectarian Schemes Unleashed by External Actors – Demonizing Opponents Through Crooked PR Campaigns