Read this article in:



The modern "Protocols of Zion"
How the mass media now promotes the same lies that caused the death of more than 5 million Jews in WWII

Historical and Investigative Research
25 Aug 2005, by Francisco Gil-White


1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7

. . .continued from part 5

6. Why doesn’t the US government expose McGovern and Cannistraro?

The hypothesis that the Western mass media is pro-Israel predicts that it will expose McGovern and Cannistraro as liars, not that it will publish their views left and right. The same hypothesis predicts that the media will expose Cannistraro as a trainer of terrorists, not present him as a counter-terrorism ‘expert’ and allow him to publish editorials in which he defends the terrorist enemies of Israel. From the evidence examined here, therefore, it is difficult not to conclude that the Western mass media is anti-Israel.

What about the US government?

The hypothesis that the US government is pro-Israel predicts that the US government will expose McGovern and Cannistraro as liars, even if the anti-Israeli mass media doesn’t. But in fact that US government has not done this, despite the fact that this is terribly easy to do. Why? Could it be because the US government likes the fact that McGovern and Cannistraro are plastered all over the Western mass media making arguments that are harmful to Israel?

If so, that would agree with the hypothesis that the US government is anti-Israel.

And yet a puzzle remains. Because, you see, McGovern and Cannistraro specialize in attacking the US government in the most extreme way. Under what hypothesis would the US government neglect to expose as liars those who attack the same US government left and right all over the Western mass media?

To sharpen this question, allow me to refresh your memory.

McGovern's main activity is to attack the
US government

As you may recall, Raymond McGovern created VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) in order to bring together a coalition of ‘former CIA’ people who now devote themselves to attacking the US government publicly for misusing the intelligence services, and for outright lying. This is, in fact, Raymond McGovern’s main activity.

If you do a search in the Lexis-Nexis archive, limiting yourself just to the major papers, McGovern has appeared a total of 80 times since 1999. This gives a yearly average of about 13 appearances, which is already impressive and yet deceptive because McGovern’s exposure has been growing over time: in the last year alone (August 2004-August 2005) he has appeared 30 times, which is more than twice a month. Remember, this is just in the major papers that are archived by Lexis-Nexis; his total exposure is more impressive still, for he appears also in papers not archived by Lexis-Nexis, and in radio and television. (And none of this counts appearances of McGovern’s VIPS that do not mention McGovern specifically.) But now, to get a sense for how much of McGovern’s public identity is wrapped up in the ‘anti-Bush’ stance, one may ask the question: What percentage of McGovern’s appearances have to do with his stated opposition to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq? If you limit the above Lexis search for ‘Ray McGovern’ by adding the term ‘Iraq,’ we get 61 out of 80 total. In other words, over 75% of all McGovern appearances in the major papers concern his anti-invasion stance.

What this means is that Raymond McGovern is most identifiable as “outspoken Bush [Jr.] critic Ray McGovern.”[1] He is in fact the ‘poster boy’ for the anti-invasion movement, which is why the New York Times tells us that Robert Greenwald’s supposedly “sober and meticulous” anti-invasion film has Ray McGovern for protagonist:

“. . .the star of the show is Ray McGovern, an articulate and dryly funny former C.I.A. analyst who now heads the anti-invasion group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.”[2]

Another Lexis search reveals that fully 20% of all McGovern’s anti-invasion appearances concern the accusation that the US government used forged intelligence to make us believe that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons, there to provide themselves with an excuse to attack Iraq.

About this, you may recall that McGovern accuses the ‘neoconservatives’ of being behind the hoax, and one Michael Ledeen, ‘neo-con,’ of being the supposed author of the forgery. But instead of presenting, or even referring us to, any evidence against Ledeen, McGovern simply tells us that Vincent Cannistraro points his supposedly authoritative finger at this man. Ledeen denies having forged anything, but McGovern argues, as we saw, that Ledeen’s denials are not credible because he is associated with the Contra program, and people having anything to do with the Contra program, according to McGovern, should be assumed to be lying. Which is funny because Vincent Cannistraro, whose accusation against Ledeen is all that McGovern has, is who created, trained, and ran the Contra program.

Now, the US government -- under massive attack from McGovern and his VIPS -- could point this out. And it could also point out who Cannistraro is, given that Cannistraro is also a high-profile critic of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. Consider:

“Critics of the White House include officials who have served in previous Republican administrations such as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan.”[3]

The above quote is from a Sunday Telegraph article with the following headline:

“THE CIA ‘OLD GUARD’ GOES TO WAR WITH BUSH: The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for the failings over Iraq.”

So, given

1)  that many people are upset with the Bush administration’s handling of the invasion of Iraq; and

2)  that the criticisms of ‘former CIA officials’ such as McGovern and Cannistraro have contributed greatly to feed a relatively large opposition movement,

Why then doesn’t the White House defend itself by pointing out what I have documented concerning McGovern and Cannistraro?

After all, it was terribly easy to do, and it would put “critics of the White House” on the defensive. Attention would be diverted to the hypocrite who threw a stone in his own glass house, and the attack against the Bush administration would look a lot weaker. So why doesn’t the Bush administration expose McGovern and Cannistraro? Could it be that the Bush administration actually smiles on McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s activities?

This possibility must be entertained, because the Bush administration is not defending itself when it easily could.

Just for the sake of argument, suppose for a minute that McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s anti-invasion attacks are carefully designed to harm the Jewish people -- say, by contributing to the widespread belief that ‘the Jews’ supposedly control the US government. How might this be brought about? Easy: just say that the attack on Iraq is all the fault of ‘the Jews.’ Below I will demonstrate that McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s attacks against the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq have precisely this structure. Assuming you find my demonstration below satisfying, the fact that the US government does not defend itself from McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s attacks by exposing them as liars, when it easily could, is consistent with the hypothesis that the US government has an anti-Jewish policy.

Perhaps this is all theater, in other words.

What I mean is this. Given that the best way to attack the Jewish people, in modern times, has been to convince everybody that ‘the Jews’ supposedly run everything in secret and mean to harm non-Jews, the best way to produce this hysteria again today would be to accuse ‘the Jews’ of controlling the US government, because the US is the lone superpower. If the ruling elite in charge of the US government had a desire to attack the Jewish people, it might take steps to generate the accusation, against itself, that it is supposedly controlled by ‘the Jews.’ This would not only mobilize antisemitism but would also place the blame for hated US foreign policy elsewhere. In this scenario, trusty alleged ‘former’ members of US Intelligence would be deployed to attack the US government in the media for supposedly being run by ‘the Jews.’

McGovern’s and Cannistraro’s anti-invasion arguments are meant to point the finger at… ‘the Jews.’

In June 2005, the Washington Post reported that many House Democrats had taken part in a “mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war” that was led by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich). It was a chance for “The lawmakers and the witnesses” present “to rally against the war,” said the Post. Of the four witnesses attending, the one who made the most noise, as you might expect, was one Raymond McGovern.

“The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel, and military bases craved by administration ‘neocons’ so ‘the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.’”[4]

And McGovern was not saying that the United States was even an equal partner with Israel, but that Israel had led the United States in this whole affair:

“[McGovern] said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.”

According to McGovern, then, Bush has been corrupted and therefore does what the Israeli prime minister wants. Since McGovern says that “Israel should not be considered an ally,” what he implies is that president Bush is a traitor controlled by an enemy state: the Jewish state.

In the prelude to World War II, German Nazi propaganda -- and pro-German fascists within the United States -- accused Franklin Delano Roosevelt of being a tool of ‘the Jews.’[5] This was part of the general ‘Jewish Peril’ hysteria that the Nazis helped popularize. It is not easy to distinguish that propaganda from McGovern’s statements.

The Democratic representative from Virginia, James P. Moran Jr., is who prompted McGovern’s answer by wondering out loud “whether the true war motive was Iraq’s threat to Israel.” When he heard McGovern’s reply, he “thanked McGovern for his ‘candid answer.’”

This was evidently part of a more complex effort to attack the Jewish people, because, as was reported in the same article,

“At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an ‘insider trading scam’ on 9/11 -- that previously have been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.”

So these Democrats not only blamed the Iraq war on ‘the Jews,’ with McGovern’s help, but they took this opportunity to also blame 9-11 on ‘the Jews.’ This is straight out of The Protocols of Zion: anything bad that happens anywhere must be the fault of ‘the Jews.’

When ‘the Jews’ were accused of causing the Black Death in the fourteenth century by supposedly poisoning wells all over Europe, the enraged Europeans who then massacred innocent Jews, and in some places exterminated them, did not stop to think about the contradiction: Jews were also dying from the Black Death. Why would they poison themselves? The same kind of illogic is at work in the above accusations.

The US response to 9-11 has produced an increase in antisemitic Islamist terrorism. If you suppose that ‘the Jews’ were behind 9-11, and also that they control Bush (hence also Bush’s response to 9-11), then you must suppose they did all that in order to…what? In order to increase the hatred non-Jews feel towards them? How could ‘the Jews’ be smart enough to control the lone superpower in secret and then stupidly use this power to increase the probability of once again being exterminated?

The war on Iraq, which has turned Iraq into an Islamist factory of terrorism and antisemitism, much worse than what Iraq was before the war, has hardly benefited Israel. This is especially true when you consider that the US withdrawal will effectively give Iraq to Iran, and that Iran is again boldly and publicly calling for the destruction of Israel.[5a] So again we are supposed to believe that Israel shrewdly used its allegedly vast and secret power over the US to harm itself.

Then there is the ongoing process to create a PLO state. Perhaps you will have noticed that the US is not under Israeli pressure to cede Texas to Al-Qaeda. What is happening is that, under US pressure, Israel is ceding strategic territory so that terrorists pledged to the extermination of the Israeli Jews can have total control over it, never minding that these terrorists never stop shooting at Israeli civilians even as the land is handed over to them. I reiterate, this is happening because of US pressure.[6] So what is the argument, here? McGovern says that “Bush. . .[does] the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.” He does? In other words, Ariel Sharon controls George Bush so that he can force Bush to force him (Sharon) to turn over strategic territory in the Jewish state to the antisemitic and genocidal PLO terrorists?

If your model of how the world works requires you to produce absurdities of this magnitude, you should worry that you have the wrong model. McGovern hardly worries: he knows that he is talking garbage. But the point for him is not to make sense. And those who listen to McGovern believe what he says not because it makes any logical or factual sense, but because it makes cultural sense. The aristocracies in both the Christian and Muslim civilizations have always mobilized propaganda to accuse ‘the Jews’ of being ‘evil’ and secretly powerful. As a result, this is how Westerners ‘perceive’ the world, and this flawed perception takes precedence over all rational processes and scientific documentation -- with catastrophic consequences for everybody, not just for the Jews (it wasn’t only Jews dying by the millions in World War II).

Now let’s come back to what McGovern said:

“…witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel, and military bases craved by administration ‘neocons’ so ‘the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.’”

Notice the accusation against the ‘neocons.’ It occurs simultaneously with the accusation against Israel -- i.e. against ‘the Jews.’ But not merely simultaneously. According to McGovern, the ‘neo-cons’ act so that “the United States and Israel [can] dominate.” But since, according to McGovern, Bush is Sharon’s puppet, McGovern’s implied argument is obviously that the ‘neo-cons’ are another tool wielded by ‘the Jews’ to control the US government. In other words, in this lingo, saying that the ‘neo-cons’ control the US government is just another way of saying that ‘the Jews’ control the US government. If you doubt this, just try doing a Google search on the ‘neo-cons’ and see if you can finish counting the times people complain that the Jewish ‘neo-cons’ are the ones truly running things.

Vincent Cannistraro, whose radically anti-Israel and pro-PLO position we have already examined, is, not coincidentally, also quite active pushing the line that the ‘neo-cons’ control US foreign policy:

“They’re gathering all the reins of foreign policy together,’ said former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro, who strongly disagrees with the way Bush has handled Iraq. ‘Clearly, it has a very strong message about the conduct of foreign policy in the next four years. Dissenting views of an aggressive foreign policy have been eliminated and it is a victory for the hardliners, the neoconservatives.’”[7]

“They’re gathering all the reins of foreign policy together. . .the hardliners, the neoconservatives. . .” -- the supernaturally superpowerful...Jews.

Which brings us full circle to Raymond McGovern’s accusation against one ‘neo-con’ in particular: Michael Ledeen.

Why do Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro accuse Michael Ledeen of being the Iraq-Niger forger?

As you may recall, McGovern uses the supposedly authoritative accusation by Vincent Cannistraro, and nothing else, to point the finger at Ledeen as the person responsible for forging documents employed in claiming that Iraq was seeking to get uranium from Niger.

Is it a coincidence that Michael Ledeen claims to be Jewish?

This is funny: McGovern and Cannistraro want you to think that the neoconservatives are the tools by means of which Israel controls US foreign policy. But US foreign policy toward the Jewish state involves applying pressure on Israel so that it will cede strategic territory to those terrorists who have promised the extermination of the Israeli Jews. If Michael Ledeen and the other ‘neo-cons’ are responsible for this, can they be considered pro-Israeli?

And sticking with the example of Ledeen, if he is a tool of Ariel Sharon, how come he publicly attacks Ariel Sharon by comparing him to the terrorist Yasser Arafat? Here is an example: “Both Sharon and Arafat are warriors, not statesmen, said Michael Ledeen.”[8]

Or consider this question: Can Michael Ledeen be pro-Jewish if he goes quite out of his way to protest a movie that documents the anti-Jewish horrors of WWII?

The Holocaust Museum produced a 14-minute film that the New York Times calls a “sober but wrenching account of the history and consequences of anti-Semitism, [which] describes the role of Christian churches in fomenting sentiment against Jews in Europe.”[9] That’s it -- just 14 minutes. According to the New York Times, “…the film does not attribute the Holocaust solely to religious anti-Semitism, [but] it documents the role of Christian churches in fomenting anti-Semitic sentiment.” Although there were certainly individual Christians who bravely opposed the anti-Jewish policies of the German Nazis and their allies throughout Europe, it is quite well documented that the institutional leadership of the Christian Churches tended to promote antisemitism and also to side with Adolf Hitler.[10] In addition, as stated in the same NYT article by the Rev. John T. Pawlikowski (professor of social ethics at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, and chairman of the Holocaust Museum’s Church Relations Council): “There was intense anti-Semitism within the Catholic and Protestant communities at a religio-cultural level which helped bring about the Holocaust. To pretend otherwise is to distort history.” He is right.

But Michael Ledeen pretends otherwise.

As reported also by the New York Times, Michael Ledeen co-authored a protest letter with other Jewish neo-conservatives that has “called the documentary, ‘Anti-Semitism,’ inaccurate and anti-Christian.” This can certainly qualify Michael Ledeen and his neo-conservative buddies for the labels pro-Christian and anti-Jewish, but it is hard to see how any such behavior fits with a pro-Jewish orientation.


Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


At this point you may be thinking: Whoa! There are contradictions at every turn. Yes, many contradictions, indeed. But throughout, one unwavering consistency: the Jewish people are always under attack:

1)  in the mass media’s reporting of Michael Ledeen’s attacks against the Israeli prime minister;

2)  in the mass media’s loud reporting of Michael Ledeen’s absurd Holocaust denying behaviors;

3)  in the public figure of Michael Ledeen, as a Jew vilified -- by dishonest darlings of the mass media -- with the accusation that he is a treasonous forger, which the mass media duly plasters everywhere, the better to revive the old and vivid caricature of the ‘scheming Jew’ (compare to the Dreyfus affair in early twentieth century France[11]); and

4)  in the representation -- by dishonest darlings of the mass media -- of Michael Ledeen and other Jewish neo-conservatives as ‘evil elders of Zion,’ secretly in control, supposedly, and for Israel’s benefit, of the lone superpower’s nefarious foreign policy.

Can this all be coincidence?

Well at the very least it is enough to make me wonder who really is in control of the Western mass media! I turn to this next.

Continue to part 7:

Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] A CONSUMMATE BUREAUCRAT ADEPT AT CURRYING FAVOUR, The Independent (London), June 4, 2004, Friday, First Edition; NEWS; Pg. 4, 658 words, ANDREW GUMBEL IN LOS ANGELES

[2] Revisiting The Road To Iraq War, Step by Step,  The New York Times, August 20, 2004 Friday,  Late Edition - Final, Section E; PT1; Column 6; Movies, Performing Arts/Weekend Desk; FILM REVIEW; Pg. 6, 684 words, By DAVE KEHR

[3] The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush 'The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for the failings over Iraq. It deserves some of the blame, but not all of it', SUNDAY TELEGRAPH(LONDON), October 10, 2004, Sunday, Pg. 33, 789 words, BY PHILIP SHERWELL in WashingtonBY ANNA GIZOWSKA in Sydney

[4] Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War,  The Washington Post, June 17, 2005 Friday,  Final Edition, A Section; A06 , WASHINGTON SKETCH Dana Milbank, 855 words, Dana Milbank

[5] “Roosevelt Betrays America”: a Nazi pamphlet by Dr. Robert Ley; German Propaganda Archive; Calvin: Minds in the Making; Calvin College.

[5a] "Bush Jr.'s War on Iraq: A general introduction"; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[6] To see just how hard the US has protected the PLO and pushed for a PLO state, and how it twisted Israel’s arm so that she would accept one, see the following sections of HIR's investigation, “Is the US an Ally of Israel?”:

“In 1982, The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.”

“The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs.'”

“In 1989, with Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

“In 1991, Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.”

“Perhaps as early as 1994, The CIA trained the PLO, knowing it would use this training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.

“Mahmoud Abbas, who in 2005 is being given total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.”

[7] PRESIDENT MOVES TO REIN IN 2 AGENCIES CHANGES, The Boston Globe, November 17, 2004, Wednesday,  THIRD EDITION, Pg. A1, 1151 words, By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff

[8] An ancient dispute renewed daily Bones of contention Palestinians: The last 50 years Big fight over small piece of land, Omaha World Herald (Nebraska), April 18, 2002, Thursday, SUNRISE EDITION, Pg. 10a;, 1669 words, By Jake Thompson, WASHINGTON

[9] Jewish Conservatives Attack Holocaust Film, The New York Times, January 20, 1998, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 14; Column 4; National Desk , 628 words, By JUDITH MILLER

[10] “The Pictures Tell the Tale: The Vatican and Nazism in Germany and Croatia”; Emperor’s Clothes; 22 April 2005; by Jared Israel

“Hitler’s Pope”  by John Cornwell; Vanity Fair, October 1999.

[11] Alfred Dreyfus. Born October 19, 1859, Mulhouse, France; died July 12, 1935, Paris.

French army officer whose trial for treason began a 12-year controversy, known as the Dreyfus Affair, that deeply marked the political and social history of the French Third Republic.

Dreyfus was the son of a wealthy Jewish textile manufacturer. In 1882 he entered the École Polytechnique and decided on a military career. By 1889 he had risen to the rank of captain. Dreyfus was assigned to the War Ministry when, in 1894, he was accused of selling military secrets to the German military attaché. He was arrested on October 15, and on December 22 he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the infamous penal colony of Devil's Island, off the coast of French Guiana.

The legal proceedings, which were based on specious evidence, were highly irregular. Although he denied his guilt and although his family consistently supported his plea of innocence, public opinion and the French press as a whole, led by its virulently anti-Semitic faction, welcomed the verdict and the sentence. In particular, the newspaper La Libre Parole, edited by Édouard Drumont, used Dreyfus to symbolize the supposed disloyalty of French Jews.

But doubts began to grow. Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart found evidence that Major C.F. (Walsin-)Esterhazy was engaged in espionage and that it was Esterhazy's handwriting found on the letter that had incriminated Dreyfus. When Picquart was removed from his post, it was believed that his discovery was too inconvenient for his superiors. The pro-Dreyfus side slowly gained adherents (among them, journalists Joseph Reinach and Georges Clemenceau -- the future World War I premier -- and a senator, Auguste Scheurer-Kestner).

The affair was made absurdly complicated by the activities of Esterhazy in inventing evidence and spreading rumours, and of Major Hubert Joseph Henry, discoverer of the original letter attributed to Dreyfus, in forging new documents and suppressing others. When Esterhazy was brought before a court martial, he was acquitted, and Picquart was arrested. This precipitated an event that was to crystallize the whole movement for revision of Dreyfus's trial. On January 13, 1898, the novelist Émile Zola wrote an open letter published on the front page of Aurore, Clemenceau's paper, under the headline “J'Accuse.” By the evening of that day, 200,000 copies had been sold. Zola accused the army of covering up its mistaken conviction of Dreyfus and of acquitting Esterhazy on the orders of the Ministry of War.

By the time of the Zola letter, the Dreyfus case had attracted widespread public attention and had split France into two opposing camps. The issues were regarded as far exceeding the personal matter of the guilt or innocence of Dreyfus. The anti-Dreyfusards (those against reopening the case), nationalist and authoritarian, viewed the controversy as an attempt by the nation's enemies to discredit the army and saw it as a case of national security against international socialism and Jewry, of France against Germany. The Dreyfusards (those seeking the exoneration of Captain Dreyfus) saw the issue as the principle of the freedom of the individual subordinated to that of national security and as republican civilian authority pitted against a military authority that acted independently of the state.

Amid uproar in the parliament, the government was pressed by the nationalists to bring Zola to justice, while anti-Semitic riots broke out in the provinces. A petition demanding revision of the Dreyfus trial was signed by some 3,000 persons, including Anatole France, Marcel Proust, and a host of other intellectuals. The trial of Zola began on February 7; he was found guilty of libel and sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a fine of 3,000 francs.

From 1898 to 1899 the Dreyfusard cause gained in strength. Major Henry committed suicide at the end of August 1898, after confessing his forgeries. Esterhazy, in panic, fled to Belgium and London. The confession of Henry opened a new phase in the affair, for it ensured that the appeal of the Dreyfus family for a retrial would now be irresistible.

A new ministry, led by René Waldeck-Rousseau, took office in June 1899 and resolved to bring the affair to an end at last. Dreyfus, brought back from Devil's Island for retrial, appeared before a new court martial in Rennes (August 7 -- September 9, 1899). It found him guilty, but the president of the republic, in order to resolve the issue, pardoned him. Dreyfus accepted the act of clemency but reserved the right to do all in his power to establish his innocence.

In 1904 a retrial was granted and in July 1906 a civilian court of appeals (the Cour d'Appel) cleared Dreyfus and reversed all previous convictions. The parliament passed a bill reinstating Dreyfus. On July 22 he was formally reinstated and decorated with the Legion of Honour. After further short service in the army, in which he attained the rank of major, he retired to the reserves. He was recalled to active service during World War I and, as a lieutenant colonel, commanded an ammunition column. After the war he retired into obscurity. The army did not publicly declare his innocence until 1995.

SOURCE: "Dreyfus, Alfred." Encyclopćdia Britannica from Encyclopćdia Britannica Online.
[Accessed January 1, 2006].

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list


 Part 1 - Introduction: The "Protocols of Zion" in the broadest historical perspective.

 Part 2 -  The mainstream Western media loves Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA agents and anti-Israeli propagandists.

  Part 3 -  Should you believe ‘former CIA officials’ such as Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro?

   Part 4 -  How the mass media covers for Vincent Cannistraro, terrorist, and creator of the Nicaraguan Contras.

   Part 5 -  McGovern and Cannistraro both attack Israel - with lies.

   Part 6 -  Why doesn’t the US government expose McGovern and Cannistraro?

   Part 7 -  Why do people say that ‘the Jews’ control the media? They don’t.




















































































































































































































Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list