World better not pry into how we decide to pull trigger on someone – ex-chief of Mossad
… from Russia Today, Moscow
[ Editor’s Note: It’s always a treat to get an interview with these ex-Mossad chief’s as they have a history of being very outspoken, which we rarely see among the Western ones. The only thing we get better than this is something like the rare gem The Gatekeepers amazing documentary where the filmmaker Dror Moreh got the ex-Shin Bet heads to interview about their handling the occupation with its stunning revelations.
At VT we sometimes have had personal contacts at this level, but not the freedom to make films about them or print interviews, so we like to share what we find that has been, where you get to read gems like this:
"I mean that intelligence is not a science. I believe that intelligence is an art, and therefore, just as there’s no orderly way to paint a picture, so there’s no orderly way to carry out intelligence, because every intelligence operation is an operation in itself, and one operation does not compare or is similar to any other.”… Jim W. Dean ]
– First published … December 19, 2016 –
In a world where terrorism can strike at any moment – where terrorists resort to stabbing, ramming attacks, and mass shooting – no one is safe from the threat of extremism. Recent terrorist attacks in Europe highlight the need to ramp up security – and many are pointing to Israel as a model. Surrounded by hostile countries and conflict zones, Israel has managed to contain the extremist threat.
The Israeli Mossad is one of planet’s top intelligence agencies and is known for its relentless pursuit of terrorists. How does Israel’s mighty intelligence apparatus work against terrorism? How can peace be kept in a country where the enemy is waiting around every corner? We lift the lid on the counter-terrorism methods used by one of the world’s top spy agencies with a former director of the Mossad – Efraim Halevy.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Efraim Halevy, the former director of Israel’s powerful intelligence agency, the Mossad, ex-head of Israel’s National Security Council – welcome to the show, it’s really great to have you with us. Now, Mr. Halevy you say there’s no such thing as an orderly way to carry out intelligence. Does this mean there’s no laws, no rules of conduct for intelligence gathering?
Efraim Halevy: Intelligence is one of the oldest professions in the world, but there’s no law book concerning intelligence, there are no agreed rules on intelligence, and despite that, intelligence is a main player in the international relations and in domestic relations.
SS: Yeah, but okay, but when you say there’s no such thing as an orderly way to carry out intelligence – what exactly do you mean?
EH: I mean that intelligence is not a science. I believe that intelligence is an art, and therefore, just as there’s no orderly way to paint a picture, so there’s no orderly way to carry out intelligence, because every intelligence operation is an operation in itself, and one operation does not compare or is similar to any other.
SS:How does intelligence gathering against terrorism work? Are terrorist groups being infiltrated, are undercover agents working among terrorists?
EH: All of the methods used by the intelligence over the years are employed. Most certainly, you have agents undercover, most certainly you have electronic intelligence with all of the new developments in that field. Every element that you have in modern day information technology is used and is employed in intelligence. By the way, not only by intelligence agencies, but also by groups like ISIS and Hezbollah.
SS:You know, I’m particularly interested in undercover agent work. How do you gain the trust of a radical group? I mean, it must be hard to infiltrate IS, for example.
EH: I’m sure it is difficult to infiltrate the Islamic State, but there you’re going to question their motivation. What motivates somebody who is in the Islamic State to cooperate? And I should imagine, probably, the major motivation is disgust with the methodology used by the Islamic State, not only in treating its enemies, but also treating some of its own people.
SS:So, are you saying that people that are part of the Islamic State are appalled by their own methods, but they can’t leave because if they leave they are going to die? So, they choose to cooperate?
EH: I believe, that, probably – I am only surmising, I’ve not been there for quite some time, so I can only surmise – I believe that many of the people who cooperate, cooperate because they’re unable to leave and, on the other hand, they feel that they are not of their own will involved in the big effort of…shall we say, of evil, which has to be overcome – and they want to contribute their part to this.
SS:Alright, so I get your first point: in order to infiltrate an organisation like ISIS you’ve got to find someone who is appalled by their own methods – but once you infiltrate, if your undercover agent gains the trust, right, of the terrorist cell – will he have to do as the others do? For example, I don’t know, behead someone? Is this expected of the agent?
EH: I think I cannot give an exact answer to that, and I don’t believe anybody has the right answer to that. But I believe that in the end, in order to achieve the ultimate aim, sometimes, along the way, we have to do things which normally we would not like to do.
SS: The intelligence has helped curb the amount of bombings that are happening in Israel, but what’s the use of it when people resort to stabbings or drive-by shootings?
EH: I believe – and it’s my personal view – that it’s wrong to call stabbings “terrorism”. I believe, terrorism is something more organized, is part of a larger movement. Stabbings and similar events are individual reactions to what is happening and what is perceived in one way or another as threatening the fabric and society, of the people who are doing the stabbings, and therefore they carry it out. The general word, the general term of “terrorism”, although it’s applied to that, is not a terrorism which can be codified like organisations like ISIS or organisation like Hamas or organisation like Hezbollah.
SS: How can such attackers with no formal ties to any terrorist groups be caught before they act?
EH: It is a serious problem. I think no formula has been found for that and therefore, an individual who decides on his own to carry out a terrorist act, if he’s careful and if he knows how to operate, most probably, will be able to arrive on the scene. But there are a lot of methods and ways of monitoring central areas, main highways, transportation systems and so forth, so sometimes you catch these people as they are on their way.
SS: You’ve seen Mossad operate abroad, doing “normal” intelligence work like spying, surveillance – but also undertakes targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. How do you decide when to pull the trigger on someone? When is enough enough for Mossad?
EH: I don’t personally wish to go into this field of when we make a decision to remove somebody to a better world. I think, the international society would be better served by not prying into this unnecessarily. You will not find, I believe, any intelligence officer, either side of the divide in this world of ours, who will want to talk about it, and I want to keep my hands clean on that. As I said, I don’t want to say that we make such decisions – I don’t want to go into the details of how we decide, how we carry out operations, which operations are carried out, which are not. I think, it would be better for the peace and tranquility of the international society to leave these questions unanswered.
SS: Sure. America looks to use drones when taking out terrorists. Does Mossad uses drones too, or it only works the old fashioned way, with agents on the ground?
EH: Mossad has all the means and all the methodologies which are used in intelligence in modern day life. Mossad is at the forefront of the technology, in all the fields that you can think of, and I think that Mossad has done extremely well in developing some of the more advanced types of weaponry and systems which carry weaponry.
SS: When one of Mossad’s most infamous operations – the attempted assassination of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal went wrong – you played an active part in regulating the situation after. Two Mossad agents were captured and Israel managed to get them back. If an operation like that backfires, does Mossad try and get its agents back at all costs?
EH: The word “all costs”, I think, is not the right term to use. It is true that I’ve played a very central role in solving the problem which arose as a result of an operation which did not reach successful conclusion in 1997, and in that area, I performed the role of a special emissary, action on behalf of the Prime Minister of Israel at a time, who was Mr. Netanyahu in his first term, and I did not wish to reach a point in which “all costs” are paid in order to get the result. I think we had to get a result which would make it a win-win situation, in other words, when both we and those who have been wronged by us, would emerge from the situation with a feeling and a public aura of having been successful.
SS:Mossad is known to go after perpetrators of terrorist attacks anywhere they escape – Mossad’s special unit, the Kidon, is responsible for that – this tactic may work for revenge, but does it deter terrorists from striking again?
EH: Look, I don’t want to talk about deterrence, because in the end, let us be frank with ourselves – we have not reached a point in which we can say that actions we have taken have ‘deterred terrorism’. I think that the word “deterrence” is a word, or a theme which should be forgotten in dealing with these matters. What we can do is to destroy capabilities, what we can do is to get the other side to realize that the pain of continuing what they’re doing would be insufferable for them. If that is called a deterrence, then yes, deterrence. But if you look at things in the Middle East, if you look at the way the relations of Israel and its neighbors have revolved on terrorism – when it comes to organized terrorism, I am not talking about small groups, organized terrorism, like Hezbollah, like Hamas – what we have achieved, is, I think, a mutual deterrence and not just deterrence.
SS:But, in order to stop a terrorist you need to put fear in him – how do you put fear in people who are willing to blow themselves up?
EH: I think, the use of the term “fear” is misplaced. We don’t want to get the other side to fear, we want the other side to take a logical approach, which leads it to the conclusion that the price that would be paid is not a price which they would wish to pay. In other words, we have to make the price such that the other side does not think it’s worth its while to pay it.
SS:Are cyber warfare tools part of Mossad arsenal? Like trojan worms, viruses, etc?
EH: I’m not permitted to refer to any specific means that is in our arsenal. I’m sorry, I know it’s interesting, but I cannot relate to that.
SS:It truly is. Just tell me in general – do cyber tools make spying easier? Or the amount of information to process it is just too big to manage?
EH: There’s nothing too big to manage, and I don’t want to go into details of the cyber warfare – it is something which is being, I think, used, and exploited around the world, and this is something which a great threat to international security in the end – because, once you begin a major confrontation in the cyber field, the penalty for all those players who will be involved in it would be enormous.
SS:Now, it’s no secret that Mossad recruits some of its agents online – you can fill out an application form on the web site. You were the first one to institute this practice, like you’ve said – how does this process work? If you like a candidate you do just invite him over for an interview? How successful has been recruitment process for agents?
EH: First of all, let me say, you are right, I was the first one who put Mossad on the Net, and there was enormous opposition to that in the Mossad, people thought that I was doing the wrong thing. Now, of course, you cannot imagine without it. Obviously, this is only a first step in recruiting somebody, it’s a method of casting net as wide as possible, and once you reach a stage in which you want to actually decide whether to recruit somebody or not, you don’t do it by correspondence, you do it by face-to-face contact.
SS:But, who do you pull in more – people from the web or just people that you see in the streets and you approach them?
EH: I don’t know, and I don’t think any statistics are drawn up in this field. I think we recruit people from all ways of getting it to people, all methods of communication, and in the end, we have as wide as possible choice as one can hope for.
SS:Social media like Facebook and Twitter, they have turned into a platform for terrorists to incite violence. They spread radical ideas and exchange plans. Is this cyber-terrorism the world is facing a new kind and will it be in the future?
EH: It’s not the future, I think it is the present – and yes, one of the things we have to take into account is that the terrorist groups use these methods and these tools for their own vile deeds. I can tell you that without the use of Internet, the attack on the U.S. on 9/11 would not have been possible. This all was organized through IT means and methods, and the road from that to other ways of carrying out warfare, like cyber warfare and so forth, are at a disposal of terrorist groups, and they have used it in some areas, some cases, almost to perfection.
SS: ‘Lone-wolf’ terrorist attacks – when people act on their own, without the assistance of a group but inspired a radical ideology – they are becoming more frequent, you’ve faced them in Israel and Europe has witnessed a whole series of such attacks over the past year. Is there a direct link between online incitement and lone wolf attacks? Since the internet provides easy and fast access to radical ideas..
EH: It would not be useful to attribute too much to the methodology. What we’re witnessing in the XXI century is widespread understanding that individuals and small groups can use the means at a disposal of states and of state organs, no less than the state organs. That is something which is troubling, and that is one of the aspects that people have to take into account when they’re putting together means of preventing penetration and ways and means of sabotaging the capabilities of intelligence and state organs all around the world.
SS:Can social media actually help uncover terrorist plots or find potential terrorists through tracing of their online activity? Are there special intelligence units monitoring online interactions?
EH: Without going to any details and I will not do that, I believe that the only way to give sufficient protection in this world of XXI century is to try and to cover all ways and means of IT traffic. Now, this is something, of course, which is enormous, because every year, it increases exponentially. So you have to have ways and means of prioritizing what you’re doing and to be able to get to what you need in orderly and in a scientific way – this is an enormous challenge and I think that intelligence and other security agencies all around the world are devoting a lot of effort to try and to find ways and means of prioritizing what they’re doing so that they would get to what they need to get.
SS: The Knesset has recently adopted an anti-terror bill, giving sweeping surveillance powers to security forces. Now in a democratic state, the right not to be searched, spied on, arrested at will is fundamental – but in the face of terrorism what’s a way out of this democratic dilemma?
EH: What has to be clear is that in this state that we’re at the moment, until the international climate changes, international social behaviour changes, we will have to be careful in the degree of freedom which social and other nets are allowed to operate. There’s no way of otherwise doing this. There’s a clash between those who wish to have an entirely liberal system of life, way of life, and those who understand that in order to be able to protect societies and states effectively you have to have, at least temporarily, capability of covering certain types of activities with means which were not used until recently.
SS:In Israel there are checkpoints in every gate in every town, security is tight everywhere, yet you move around the big cities without much delay, and the measures aren’t annoying or too constraining. How do you do it?
EH: First of all, I invite you to visit Israel – you will come to major cities and will not notice checkpoints on every street, on every corner…
SS: That is exactly my question – how do you do it? I know there are checkpoints but we don’t notice them.
EH: How do we do it… I won’t say that there are checkpoints but you don’t notice them – there are no checkpoints, period. It’s not checkpoints you don’t notice… there are other means of surveilling areas – there’s electronic surveillance, there’s photographic surveillance – various means of surveillance, and this allows people of Israel to conduct their way of life without any real restriction. Therefore, if you come to the cities, like in Tel-Aviv, from which I’m broadcasting now, or in Jerusalem, even, where there’s more tension, or in other cities throughout the country, you will not find an immediate presence and the sense of a presence of a security capability which covers everything. It s done in a more discreet way, and it is very effective.
SS:Western states today are facing the kind of terrorism Israel has been living with for decades. Is the constant threat of terrorism a new normal for the West?
EH: I think the threat of terrorism is not only a threat to the West, it’s a threat to all over. There have been terrorist attacks in other areas of the world, including Eastern Europe, including Russia. Russia has also experienced terrorism in recent years. I remember when I was head of the Mossad there was a major terrorist attack on a theater in Moscow – and this was a very-very highly reported event. So terrorism is like a disease, it cannot be restricted by borders and geography – therefore, I think, there’s a growing understanding, that in order to be able to deal with this, the more genuine cooperation can be achieved, everybody will benefit, all sides will benefit from such a cooperation.
SS:EU’s migrant crisis is making it more vulnerable to terrorism – a Syrian refugee was arrested in Germany in October for planning a major terrorist attack. Now Israel accepts almost no refugees – is that the only way to ensure public safety isn’t compromised?
EH:The reason we do not receive refugees is… we are a country which was born as a result of major international events and had to absorb hundreds of thousands of millions of our own people who were scattered around the world and therefore, we are not in a position to receive large numbers of refugees.
SS: Yeah, but my question really was – should we not accept refugees anywhere if we want no terrorism on grounds of our country? I am talking about refugees from war-torn countries, like Syria, Libya.
EH:I think you have to be very careful in going through a system of finding out whether there are no infiltrations of terrorists in this way, as well. There has to be a method to do this, and I think it has be deemed in quantity.
SS: Alright, Mr. Halevy, thank you very much for this interesting interview, for this insight that you gave us. We were talking to Efraim Halevy, the former director of Mossad and also the former head of the Israeli National Security Council, discussing Israel’s counter-terror expertise and how it can help the fight against terrorism across the world. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time. Read More
Mordechai Vanunu and Michael Collins Piper Converge:
The Israeli Mossad Assassinated JFK
by Mark Dankof
The American news media, for all the usual and most obvious reasons, has systematically ignored the most explosive news story in years, made all the more relevant by the countdown to further conflict in the Middle East as credible rumors continue to surface that Israel and the United States are planning an act of preemptive war against Iran in coming months.
The story, which appeared in the Express Newspapers of India on Monday, July 26th, quotes Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu as crediting the Israeli Mossad with the assassination of President Kennedy. Even more incredibly, Vanunu states specifically that the motive for the assassination of Kennedy on the part of the Israeli government was related to the American President’s insistence that the Zionist State come clean about its nuclear program at the infamous Dimona plant in the Negev desert.
Vanunu was released by the Israeli authorities in April after 18 years imprisonment for a treason conviction related to the disclosure of state secrets regarding the Israelis’ nuclear program. His sensational public charge about the involvement of the Mossad in the Kennedy murder might simply be relegated to the realm of the utterances of a disgruntled or imbalanced man, except for one additional item.
Michael Collins Piper, the author of Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, has made a previous case for Israel’s direct involvement in the Dealey Plaza murder of John Kennedy on November 22, 1963 that is both plausible and compelling. The Vanunu account simply underscores and corroborates the case Piper made originally over a decade ago. The converging accounts of the two men are most disturbing.
Piper tells the reader of Final Judgment that 1963 proved to be a pivotal year in a publicly unreported conflict between America’s 35th President and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, principally over Israel’s failure to submit its Dimona operation to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection, and secondarily to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. He subsequently proceeds to discuss the principle alleged players in the assassination plot itself in a way which corroborates the research of such respected Kennedy assassination scholars as the UK’s Anthony Summers and University of Texas professor Jim Marrs. Readers of the work of Summers and Marrs will be intimately familiar with names like Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Carlos Marcello, Guy Banister, William Harvey, William Sullivan, George de Mohrenschildt, James Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms, Alpha 66, and Santos Trafficante. Typically, the demonstrated links of these individuals with organized crime syndicates, the anti-Castro Cuban exilic community of the early 1960s, and an element of the Central Intelligence Agency involved with the first two groups, has resulted in past tentative conclusions that the crux of the plot that took Mr. Kennedy’s life involved a convergence of interest of these three (3) key constituencies involved in a sordid triumvirate deliberately concealed from the American public 40 years ago by the Warren Commission.
Piper does not discredit this conclusion reached by his predecessors in their research of the circumstances that led specific individuals to participate in a plot to kill the President. He simply demonstrates what has been hidden from view before now: that those fingered by the meticulous academic research of Summers, Marrs, and others, have even deeper demonstrable associations with the Israeli lobby and Israeli intelligence.
Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. In turn, Lansky’s role as a committed Zionist and fund-raiser for the State of Israel involved direct, palpable links between his criminal empire, his Miami-based banks, and the Banque de Credit International (BCI) in Geneva, Switzerland. This latter entity served as the European-based money laundering center for Mr. Lansky’s global activities. BCI in turn, was headed up by an Israeli banker, Tibor Rosenbaum, former Director for Finances and Supply for the Israeli Mossad. Piper then demonstrates that BCI was a chief share holder in a Rome-based corporation called CMC/Permindex, whose chairman of the board was none other than Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, Canada, a major fund-raiser for Israel and known asset for Israeli intelligence. CMC/Permindex, in turn, proves to be a major point of intersection which brings the shadowy Bloomfield into direct or indirect contact with Clay Shaw (the chief target of the Jim Garrison JFK investigation in New Orleans), Guy Banister, James Jesus Angleton, FBI Division 5 chief William Sullivan (who spearheaded the FBI investigation for the Warren Commission and served as FBI liaison and friend of Angleton), ex-Cuban President Carlos Prio Socarras (provable gun-running business partner of Oswald assassin Jack Ruby), Ernest Israel Japhet (chairman and president of Israeli Bank Leumi), Shaul Eisenberg (a key figure in Israel’s nuclear bomb development and participant with Rosenbaum in the Swiss-Israel Trade Bank), elements of the French nationalist Secret Army Organization (OAS), CIA agent Theodore Shackley (the CIA’s chief of station in Miami during the CIA-Lansky assassination plots against Fidel Castro), and Abe Feinberg, New York Jewish businessman used by Ben Gurion as the liaison for secret meetings with President Kennedy to resolve the dispute of the latter two over Dimona. It is thus the BCI and CMC/Permindex players and links which Piper employs to show that the players, alliances, and assets were firmly in place to bring those with motive, means, and opportunity together in a plot which culminated in Dallas.
Secondarily, Piper buttresses his case by showing the results for Israel subsequent to the tragedy in Dallas in November of 1963. The removal of Kennedy brought an end to American demands for IAEA inspections of the Israeli nuclear program, and the ascension to the White House of Lyndon Johnson, whose long ties to Meyer Lansky and Carlos Marcello had assisted the barefoot boy of the Texas Hill Country in his arrival at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. More significantly, Johnson’s arrival in the Oval Office represented a sea change in American Middle Eastern policy, establishing for Piper the Israel-First direction of every American Chief Executive from LBJ onward, to the detriment of the independence of the American government from the undue influence of the Israeli lobby, the maintenance of regional peace and stability in the most dangerous area of the globe, and any vestiges of hope for positive American political relationships with the Islamic world.
The Vanunu-Piper allegations about Israel will not go away. The revelations of direct Israeli connections to key members of the Neo-Conservative foreign policy team of George W. Bush most desirous of conflict with Iraq; the virtual ownership of the United States Congress by the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC); and the sycophancy of John Kerry toward these same interests, will culminate in a political boiling point in the United States if an expanded American involvement in a Middle Eastern war, the re-institution of an American Draft, and further instances of Middle East-related terrorism in the American homeland end up being connected by the public to the interests of Israel and Zionism and not those of the United States. Further exposure and corroboration of the Vanunu-Piper charges that the Israeli government was the driving force behind the death of John F. Kennedy–in conjunction with further exposure of Tel Aviv’s ongoing manipulation of the American government and media in issues of War and Empire–will commence a mass revolt against the policy elites that neither Tel Aviv nor Washington will be able to contain or control.
Between now and the first Tuesday in November, the policy elites will do their best to conceal fair disclosure and debate over who controls the present process and benefits by it. Suppression of information will be their modus operandi. Bush, Kerry, and their respective pals in Corporate America and Big Media will do their best to obfuscate the truth, ignore the discussion of the core issues of War and Peace, and hide the real identity of their financiers and handlers through such information suppression. Suppressing any serious examination or dissemination of the Vanunu-Piper case against Israel is already a done deal. It is a real shame. Pity us, the “free” American Republic, that no one will ask our two Presidential aspirants some pressing questions in the days ahead, including what they think of the following Presidential document from 41 years ago.
July 5, 1963
Dear Mr. Prime Minister (Levi Eshkol of Israel):
It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.
You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits [i[i.e.: inspections]o Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27th. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits [i[inspections]o Dimona.
I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion’s May 27th letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.
I am sure you will agree that these visits should be nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.
Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27th letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination.
Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.
John F. Kennedy
THE JEWISH HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD had lost a fierce battle with President Jackson with regard to keeping their Central Bank. For in 1834, Jackson removed all government deposits from the Rothschild’s “Second Bank of the United States.”
A new System of National Banks was established in 1862 eliminating the Jew-controlledCentral Bank up through 1901. It was on September 6 1901 that President William McKinley was assassinated through the intrigues of the Rothschilds and their hit-men.
With McKinley out of the way, the path to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was easily paved through the pawns of Jewish agents of the House of Rothschild. Two such Rothschild agents were the powerful Jewish bankers Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg.
President William McKinley was known as a “hard money” man. This was because he advocated a gold standard. Unlike his opponent, William Jennings Bryan, McKinley was against “easy money” with no backing — printed by Jewish lenders at interest to the borrower – namely the US government. This was the essence of McKinley’s 1896 & 1900 successful campaign against William Jennings Bryan who advocated for “free and unlimited coinage of silver.”
BUT BY McKINLEY FIGHTING AGAINST “easy money,” (translate Jew-coined & printed-at-interest money) McKinley sealed his death warrant. A death warrant signed, sealed, and delivered by the powerful House Of Rothschild, criminals in bankers’ suits.
Through his many Jewish business connections, Theodore Roosevelt Sr. founded the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the American Museum of Natural History, and the New York Children’s Orthopedic Hospital. All of these institutions were and are Jew-intensive.
Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt had been groomed by the powerful NY Jewish political machine to be the Governor of NY and future President of the United States. In 1900, McKinley was forced by Republican partisans of the Jews to appoint “Teddy” Roosevelt as Vice President to get the “Jewish vote.” McKinley’s appointment of Roosevelt soon turned out to be his demise.
EMMA GOLDMAN & LEON CZOLGOSZ
ON SEPTEMBER 6 1901, a 28 year old Polish Jew, Leon Czolgosz, walked into the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo NY where McKinley was speaking and shot McKinley twice in the abdomen at point blank range. McKinley died a week later and “Teddy” Roosevelt was sworn in as President, much to the delight of the NY Jews.
Prior to the assassination, Leon Czolgosz had fallen in with Emma Goldman’s Jewish anarchist crowd at Sach’s Cafe on Suffolk Street, their headquarters in New York City’s Lower East Side. (NYC’s Lower East Side was where Trotsky, owing to Jacob Schiff’s financial support, had recruited many communist Jews to travel with him to Russia to incite the October Revolution of 1917.)
Emma Goldman’s crowd had broken away from main-line socialists who were “under the eye of a paternal government.” Instead, Goldman’s crowd preached that social change could only be achieved through violence and assassinations. They preached that capitalists would never change on their own volition. Thus it was here at Sach’s Cafe that the assassination plot against President McKinley, a “capitalist,” was hatched.
One member of Emma Goldman’s group, the Jew, Julius Edelson, was quoted by the NY police as saying to them:
— “No matter how much Czolgolz has been damned for his good work, we know that he was a great man. He was a true hero.” — See: “Anarchists Attack Police” Here
And not only this, but the Jew, Emma Goldman, is extolled by Jewry as a “heroine” — even though she preached violence to attain her anarchist aims as recorded in The Jewish Women Archives:
— “Emma Goldman refused to condemn Czolgosz and other like-minded individuals who were driven to acts of violence against representatives of the capitalist system. Emma Goldman admired the sensitivity that led Czolgosz to this extreme.” —
Indeed – in Emma Goldman’s autobiography, Living My Life, when describing her arrest after McKinley’s assassination, she wrote, “My sympathies were with Czolgosz.”
See: Emma Goldman’s Use Of Violence-Tragedy At Buffalo, October 6 1901, Here. (Click On “Full Image” & Scroll Down)
FOUR DAYS AFTER Czolgosz’ assassination of McKinley, on September 10 1901, Emma Goldman was arrested (but released!) in Chicago under suspicion of corroborating in President McKinley’s assassination. She was arrested many times prior to and after this arrest for “inciting to riot and violence.” Here
Emma Goldman assisted Berkman in his attempted assassination of Frick by obtaining a pistol for him to use Here (1st paragraph) And: Here. But at the trial Berkman refused to testify against his Jewish-communist lover, Emma Goldman.
Goldman visited Berkman in prison where they talked about their future anarchist plans Here. Both Goldman and Berkman were associated with the “Haymarket Anarchists,” a group led by 8 Jewish communists who threw a bomb into a crowd which killed 7 police officers during their Chicago anarchist rally in 1886 Here.
Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, being communists, were most likely funded by the powerful communist-supporter, Jacob Schiff, the renowned Jewish banker of Kuhn Loeb, who funded the burgeoning Bolshevik movement in Russia.
Through Emma Goldman’s association with Schiff, and other powerful Jews, she was *never* charged with her numerous crimes which included her role in the McKinley assassination as well as inciting violence against American police.
Eventually Emma Goldman was finally deported to Russia where she joined the Bolsheviks and later assisted them in inciting the communist rebels against the Christian loyalists in the Spanish Civil War.