Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list



Psychological warfare and political grammar




0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10





Why do enemies of democracy attack the Jews?

Historical and Investigative Research / Aug 2015 / by Francisco Gil-White

Shoa (‘the Holocaust’) was a horrific slaughter and a Crime Against Humanity, but it was not an historical aberration. As Western historical processes go, the mass-killing of Jews may be the most recurrent and stable. Those who killed the Jews in World War II were enemies of human liberty. This, too, is not new. In the history of the West, whenever the Jews are under attack, everybody’s liberties are in danger. What explains this? One simple fact: for 2500 years, Jewish thought has been the engine of Western political liberation, and Western enemies of liberty have always understood this.


The authors of World War II were enemies of all human liberty and haters of democratic government. Their goal was to enslave Westerners through police and military thuggery. Also, to kill the Jews—all of them.

This was not a coincidence.

Few can really perceive it, because our academic system—and hence our schooling—portray the Holocaust as an aberration born of ‘irrational’ hatred. Thus, Holocaust scholar Terence de Pres dares to write that “the destruction of the European Jews had no rational motive whatsoever... This was genocide for the sake of genocide.”[1]

I disagree. Reactionary power elites mobilized vast resources to kill the Jews because the Jews are important to Western political freedoms. The long arc of our history stands in evidence.

Rolling that history backwards, consider that the Nazi conquest was the largest, most violent attack against the modern political grammar of the West, which includes universal citizenship and suffrage, constitutions, parliaments, human rights and freedoms for all, separation of Church and State, etc. This grammar is recent, established in the pan-Western revolutions of 1848, when, astonishingly, simultaneous uprisings exploded on the streets of almost every European country, and in the colonies (Part 2).

Why did 1848 happen? Largely because 1789 happened.

The French Revolution of 1789 was a profound and extended shock to the Western aristocrat, a former god now trembling in his breeches as Napoleonic peasant armies surged out of revolutionary France and conquered everything, undoing the feudal privileges—based on thuggery—to which he felt so entitled.

When Napoleon was finally defeated in 1815 the relieved Western aristocrats twisted the screws on the lower classes and tried to turn back the clock. They were sitting on a powder keg that blew in 1848, when, inspired by the memory of the French Revolution and its interrupted world-changing goals, the peoples of the West rose up and forced the power elites to accept a new order of universal liberal rights and freedoms. (Such humiliation breeds hatred...)

Now, whence the French Revolution? It comes from the European Enlightenment, the intellectual and ethical movement that from the 17th c. rapidly transformed many middle and upper class minds, preparing them, in alliance with the always suffering lower classes, to sweep away the feudal world. Most educated Westerners understand this.

But few understand this: The Enlightenment was a gift from the Jewish people (a gift Napoleon repaid by liberating every ghetto in his path).

How so?

For the Enlightenment to happen, the ship of Western scholarship (i.e. the community of medieval Catholic priests) first had to be steered away from the superstitious mysticism of Plato (inherited via Augustine) toward the scientific reasoning of Aristotle. The helmsman doing the steering was the 13th c. Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas, author of the earth-shaking Summa Theologia. How did he get so smart? By reading a Spanish rabbi: Moses Maimonides. As one historian explains:

“Thomas [Aquinas] exhibits no qualms about borrowing the ideas of Maimonides in prodigious quantities.[1a]

Maimonides was astronomer, mathematician, famous medical doctor, and perhaps the greatest anti-Platonist, pro-Aristotelian philosopher of his generation (which immediately precedes Aquinas). This consummate genius was also the foremost Talmudist of his time (arguably of all time), and hence the greatest authority on the Mosaic Law—the 613 commandments of the Law of Moses, contained in the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), the legal and political constitution of the Jewish people.

“Thomas [Aquinas]... approached the Mosaic Law under the influence of... The Guide of the Perplexed of Moses Maimonides. In part three of the Guide, Maimonides seems to argue for the inherent reasonableness of the precepts of the Torah, attempting to grasp the rational intention behind the Sinai legislation...”[2]

Applying the Aristotelian rationalism learned from Maimonides, and many of the rabbi’s specific arguments, the learned friar came to what was, for a Christian, a startling conclusion:

“...that the polity of the Old Testament is in fact the answer to the question concerning the best regime. Despite Christianity’s view of the Mosaic law as abrogated, Thomas [Aquinas] attempts to salvage the political wisdom of the Old Testament by arguing that the Mosaic regime can still serve as a guide for Christian political thinkers.[3]

A radical idea. The law of the liberated slaves—of those who shook the yoke of Pharaoh (Exodus) to establish an equal and free society, but were re-enslaved by Christian popes and princes—was the key to building a just and compassionate Christian society.

As Aquinas became the giant influence on churchmen, his hero Aristotle gained an authority almost equal to the Christian Bible, and Europe was firmly nudged in its steady crawl toward science. But Renaissance thinkers would have to launch a concerted attack against Aristotle, by then an unyielding dogma that stifled further progress. The torch that shone the way from the Renaissance into the Enlightenment was lit by another Iberian Jew: Baruch Spinoza.

Thoroughly modern, Spinoza argued against that prevailing “despotic statecraft,” in which “the supreme and essential mystery [is] to hoodwink the subjects... with the specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for slavery as for safety, and count it not shame but highest honor to risk their blood and their lives for the vainglory of a tyrant.” He passionately advocated “a free state,” where “deeds only could be made the grounds of criminal charges, and words were always allowed to pass free.”[4] He prophesied the creation of a republican government based on universal suffrage to protect the basic rights of the empowered citizen.

Political freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion: the modern Western political grammar was born in Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise, a giant influence on Enlightenment thinkers.

Christian students of Spinoza have often sought to deny him his Jewishness. But though he was excommunicated by the Amsterdam synagogues for his ‘atheistic’ view of God, his social and intellectual upbringing were Jewish. In fact,

Spinoza... was greatly influenced by the Maimonidean account of the imaginative character and political utility of the prophetic writings in the Bible.”[5] (my emphasis)

His contemporary intellectual rivals understood this. Take the German thinker Gottfried Leibnitz:

“Leibnitz in his time asserted that the foundation of Spinoza’s system can be traced to... [Moses] Maimonides’ Guide, a book which [Spinoza] diligently studied.”[5a]

Leibnitz, everybody agrees, “was not a democrat.”[6] He wished to preserve the feudal aristocracy—which in all of Western Europe was of Germanic origin [7]—and re-center it firmly around the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, “ ‘the born defender of Christians against infidels,’ ” as Leibnitz called him.[8] Since the most persecuted infidels in Europe were the Jews, we may ask: What did Gottfried Leibnitz, German baron of the Germanic Holy Roman Empire, think of the Jew Spinoza?

“ the years immediately following [Spinoza’s] death, an incubation period of modernity, Spinoza’s influence was widely felt. His ideas, Leibnitz said in 1704, were ‘stealing gradually into the minds of men of high station who rule the rest and on whom affairs depend, and, slithering into fashionable books, are inclining everything towards the universal revolution with which Europe is threatened.’ ”[9]

That “universal revolution” began just 85 years after Leibnitz nervously—and prophetically—wrung his hands.

He was hardly the first reactionary Western aristocrat to worry in this manner. The Church and the European princes—everywhere of Germanic origin [7]—had together created the Inquisition to combat Jewish ideas. Undoubtedly hardest on Jews, the Inquisition affected everybody, for it turned Europe into a Police State.[9a]

This was not a coincidence: attacks against Jews are the traditional means employed by Western power elites to oppress everybody.

The pattern goes back to antiquity, when the totalitarian Roman Empire exterminated the Mediterranean Jews to forestall a revolution.[10] Later, allied with the Catholic Church, the Empire sought to keep Christians obedient slaves by vaccinating them against Jewish ideas with horror stories about the ‘God killers,’ a tradition continued into the Germanic or ‘Gothic’ Middle Ages.

Psychological warfare is old.

But Jewish ideas of political freedom influenced Christians anyway. So, from the late Middle Ages until the 20th c., Church diatribes blamed the Jews for every European movement of liberation: the proto-Protestantism of Jan Hus, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the revolutions of 1848, and the accelerated spread of political freedoms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Starting in the 19th c., the color of Church propaganda acquired a distinctively modern hue.

In 1825 the Italian Father Ferdinand Jabalot claimed, in a widely distributed booklet, that ‘the Jews’ were a vast conspiracy controlling the economic power and secretly become a “ ‘state within a state,’ ” (in reward the pope named him worldwide head of the Dominican order). Never mind that in 1825 “Jews had not yet been given equal rights in any part of Italy, nor in most of the rest of Europe.”[11]

After the shock of 1848 the Church became more explicit: the Jews, it accused, were undermining the moral order of ‘Christian Civilization’ by injecting liberal ideas such as freedom of the press and democratic government into European thought. The Jews had authored the French Revolution, and to achieve further ‘nefarious’ ends they were taking control of the money and of the law itself, of governments even, becoming the ‘oppressors’ of Christians.[12] By the turn of the 20th c. this was rolled into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Tsarist forgery that would soon become the centerpiece of Nazi propaganda in the Third Reich. This ‘Third Reich’ in its very name claimed successor status to the Prussian Hohenzollern Empire, founder of unified ‘Germany’ (Second Reich), and to the Germanic Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages (First Reich). Allied with other eugenicist—which is to say German supremacist (Part 5)allies, industrialist Henry Ford distributed the barely mutated Church propaganda of The Protocols within Hitler’s Germany and throughout the world.[13]

The propaganda worked, and turned millions against the Jews.

Recruited urgently thus against the bearers of the political tradition—long-neglected within the Christian Bible—which had finally begun to liberate them, Westerners supported the fascists who destroyed their hard-won freedoms in order to ‘protect themselves’ from the ‘Jewish peril.’

We have come full circle.

The reactionary power elites that plunged us into WWII in order to abolish the hated Enlightenment and re-enslave Westerners always understood that Jewish thought had freed their former slaves. The Holocaust was not a coincidence. It was revenge.

And it was practical politics. For if the Jews remain, the people will rise again.

Western political history has not ended. The authors of WWII were proximately the German Nazis and their European allies but ultimately the eugenicist and self-consciously ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (i.e. Germanic) power elites in the US and Great Britain (Part 5). These elites were never deposed, and they established a postwar psychological (or political) warfare regime with which to continue the fight against the Enlightenment (Part 1). Their mass media thus represents the Israeli Jews as oppressors, and their foreign policy routinely undermines the security of the Jewish State (Part 8).

It is not a coincidence. 

NEXT: Part 10 | Grammatical Realism: Outline of a geopolitical approach


Related Readings

The Horizontal Society, by José Faur

The Origins of the Messianic Ideal, by Robert Wolfe

THE COLLAPSE OF THE WEST, by Francisco Gil-White

The Lie That Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion



Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] Prologue to: Steiner, J.-F. (1994 [1966]). Treblinka. New York: Meridian.(p.x)

[1a] Kries, D. (1990). Thomas Aquinas and the Politics of Moses. The Review of Politics, 52(1), 84-104. (p.89)

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid. (p.84)

[4] The full excerpt reads like this:

(18) But if, in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery be to hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them down, with the specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for slavery as for safety, and count it not shame but highest honour to risk their blood and their lives for the vainglory of a tyrant; yet in a free state no more mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted. (19) Wholly repugnant to the general freedom are such devices as enthralling men's minds with prejudices, forcing their judgment, or employing any of the weapons of quasi-religious sedition; indeed, such seditions only spring up, when law enters the domain of speculative thought, and opinions are put on trial and condemned on the same footing as crimes, while those who defend and follow them are sacrificed, not to public safety, but to their opponents' hatred and cruelty. (20) If deeds only could be made the grounds of criminal charges, and words were always allowed to pass free, such seditions would be divested of every semblance of justification, and would be separated from mere controversies by a hard and fast line.

SOURCE: A Theological and Political Treatise, by Baruch Spinoza (Chapter 1)

[5] Nadler, S. (2009). The Jewish Spinoza. Journal of the History of Ideas, 70(3), 491-510. (p.498)

[5a] Waxman, M. (1929). Baruch Spinoza's Relation to Jewish Philosophical Thought and to Judaism. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 19(4), 411-430. (p.411)

[6] Riley, P. (1994). "New" Political Writings of Leibniz. Journal of the History of Ideas, 55(1), 147-158. (p.149)

[7] From Part 5:

“After the ‘Western’ Roman Empire came to a close towards the end of the 5th c., it was German military aristocrats who became overlords of the non-Roman, non-German populations formerly under the Roman boot. The new German lords were Visigoths in Spain; Ostrogoths and Lombards in northern Italy; Franks in what is now France, most of Germany, and the Low Countries; Anglo-Saxons and then also Normans in Britain. The Scandinavians in the north, never ruled by Romans, were also German. When Charlemagne, German-speaking conqueror of most of Europe, was crowned ‘Holy Roman Emperor’ by Pope Leo III in the year 800, the Empire was reborn as a Germanic affair, and the European nobility was founded on the basis of land grants to Charlemagne’s Germanic military allies all over Europe.

In the second half of the 19th c., this proud memory of Germanic ancestry became the solidary glue for Western power elites finding common cause against the (to them) horrifying imposition of democratic civil liberties and human rights in the modern world.”

[8] Yapp, M. E. (1992). Europe in the Turkish Mirror. Past and Present, 137(The Cultural and Political Construction of Europe - November), 134-155.

[9] Carroll, J. (2001). Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.412)

[9a] As one historian explains, for the case of Spain:

“...racial legislation was introduced to ‘purify’ the upper regions of society. Statutes of limpieza de sangre [‘purity of blood’] were passed banning descendants of Moors and Jews (especially the latter) from universities and religious orders. The Inquisition effectively controlled their enforcement and progressively extended their scope... [T]he fact that virtually everyone of any importance was vulnerable increased its power.”—Johnson (1976:306)

What established itself in Spain, under Church administration, was the following combination: 1) an ideology that identified Jews not as a religious movement but as a filthy race whose blood was to be eradicated; 2) the accusation that behind any undesirable political or religious movement was the hand of Judaism; 3) a totalitarian State that made of everyone a suspect and used that climate of terror to impose uniformity and control; and 4) a campaign to find clandestine ‘Jews,’ especially in the upper classes, alleging by implication that the clandestine ‘Jews’ somehow controlled the levers of power.

The great Spanish pedagogue Juan Luis Vives wrote that “ ‘We live in such difficult times that it is dangerous to speak or remain silent.’ ” One of his pen pals, Rodrigo Manrique, wrote: “ ‘Our country is a land of pride and envy and, one may add, of barbarism; one cannot there produce any culture without being suspected of heresy, error, and Judaism’ ” (Johnson 1976:307).

Sound familiar?


Johnson, P. (1976). A History of Christianity. Atheneum (USA): Simon & Schuster.

[10] A fully documented account of how the revolutionary content of Jewish law threatened the oppressive ancient Romans may be found here:

[11] Historian David Ketzer explains that

“[Jabalot’s] booklet resurrected many of the traditional Catholic accusations against the Jews: Jews were guilty of deicide, and were crazed with lust for lucre and the desire to bring about the ruin of Christians. So intense was their hatred of Christianity that no evil was too great for them: ‘They wash their hands in Christian blood, set fire to churches, trample the consecrated Host... kidnap children and drain them of their blood, violate virgins,’ and so on.”

These were ‘traditional’ accusations, leveled against the Jews throughout the Middle Ages (resulting in many mass killings of Jews). But the booklet also contained accusations with a more political and therefore ‘modern’ flavor. While Jews, in the Christian imagination, continued to be the same thieves, con-men, murderers, and vampires of yore, always searching for the opportunity to deceive and harm Christians because their sacred books supposedly demanded precisely this, it was now added that they were a vast political and economic conspiracy.

“ ‘In many parts of our land the Jews have become the richest property owners. In some cities money cannot be had, except through them, and so great has the number of mortgages they hold over Christians become, that it is only barely that the Christians have not yet become their vassals.’ ”


“Along with the traditional Catholic charges, Jabalot’s text provides some of the germs of what would become the major focus of later nineteenth-century Catholic characterizations of the Jews. Wherever they live, wrote the Dominican, the Jews ‘form a state within a state.’ Unless Christians act quickly, the Jews ‘will finally succeed in reducing the Christians to be their slaves. Woe to us if we close our eyes! The Jews’ domination will be hard, inflexible, tyrannical...’ ”

Then as now the evidence hardly mattered. As Kertzer points out:

“The year was 1825. Jews had not yet been given equal rights in any part of Italy, nor in most of the rest of Europe.”


Kertzer, D. I. (2001). The Popes against the Jews: The Vatican's role in the rise of modern anti-semitism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. (pp.64-65)

[12] Pope Pius IX, better known to many as Pío Nono, was temporarily ousted from the Vatican in the revolutions of 1848, and he blamed the Jews for his troubles. In 1864 the pope published his Syllabus of Errors to express eighty propositions denouncing everything modern.

“In the eightieth proposition, a cover-all denunciation, he declared it a grave error to assert that the ‘Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.’ ”—Cornwell (1999:11)

Behind every objectionable thought, movement, or group—and for Pius IX these were liberal thoughts, movements, and groups—were always the Jews: the “synagogue of Satan” (Kertzer 2001:126-28).

Pius IX would launch a concerted antisemitic propaganda campaign that would be continued by his successors.

“The most influential Catholic periodical anywhere in the world—founded at the request of Pope Pius IX and supervised by the popes and their secretaries of state—was the Jesuit biweekly, Civiltà Cattolica [Catholic Civilization]. The Jesuit journal kicked off its long campaign against the Jews in December 1880 with a series of thirty-six fiercely anti-Semitic articles which were published over the following forty months.

...Here we see one of the most common themes of Catholic writings on the Jews in the late nineteenth century. The argument goes something like this: We told you to keep the Jews in the ghettoes, to prevent them from coming into contact with Christians, and yet you ignored our warnings and gave them equal rights. Now look what’s happened! Thanks to the Jews, religion is everywhere threatened and social disorder spreads. Our only hope of restoring social harmony and economic security is to bring back the special laws that kept them in their place.

...As others were coming to terms with the changes that, since the French Revolution, were transforming European society, the Vatican was lashing out ever more indignantly against them. Pius IX had pioneered this path in the 1860s with is Syllabus of Errors, condemning modern ideas. When the elderly pontiff, having served as pope for thirty-two years—longer than any of his predecessors—died in 1878 his successor, Leo XIII, continued to portray himself as a ‘prisoner of the Vatican.’ But something happened under Leo XIII—who himself served for a quarter-century—that would transform Church views of the Jews in a dramatic and deadly way. Increasingly, it was the Jews who were portrayed by the Vatican as the masterminds of the conspiracy aimed at the Church’s destruction.

Civiltà Cattolica’s anti-Jewish campaign, coming when it did, proved crucial to the rise of modern anti-Semitism. ...[A] few themes were endlessly repeated... As history has shown, the Jesuit [author of the articles] wrote, ‘if this foreign Jewish race is left too free, it immediately becomes the persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, thief, and devastator of the countries where it lives’... Also, …‘The Jews—eternal insolent children, obstinate, dirty, thieves, liars, ignoramuses, pests, and the scourge of those near and far—...immediately abused [their newfound freedom] to interfere with that of others. They managed to lay their hands on... all public wealth... and virtually alone they took control not only of all the money... but of the law itself in those countries where they have been allowed to hold public offices.’ ”—Kertzer (2001:135-37)

Starting in 1890, the Church’s campaign through Civiltà Cattolica became even more intense when Father Raffaele Ballerini wielded the pen. “The Jews, he wrote, ...had rejected and murdered the Messiah, and believed that they were themselves divinely ordained to rule the world. ‘The whole Jewish race... is conspiring to achieve this reign over all the world’s peoples.” Ballerini everywhere saw Jewish monopolies and usury that oppressed Christians, and especially Catholics (Kertzer 2001:143)

In the words of another historian:

“In 1890 Civiltà Cattolica again turned its attention to the Jews in a series of articles republished in pamphlet form as Della questione ebraica in Europa (Rome 1891), aimed at exposing the activity of the Jews in the formation of the modern liberal nation-state. The author charged that ‘by their cunning,’ the Jews instigated the French Revolution in order to gain civic equality, and thence they insinuated themselves into key positions in most state economies with the aim of controlling them and establishing their ‘virulent campaigns against Christianity.’ The Jews were ‘the race that nauseates’... The pamphlet concluded by calling for the abolition of ‘civic equality’ and for segregation of Jews from the rest of the population.”—Cornwell (1999:28)


Kertzer, D. I. (2001). The Popes against the Jews: The Vatican's role in the rise of modern anti-semitism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Cornwell, J. (1999). Hitler's pope: The secret history of Pius XII. New York: Viking.

[13] Around the turn of the twentieth century, the Russian Tsar’s secret police, the Okhrana, produced a hoax that accused ‘the Jews’ of controlling all of the governments of Europe, and the United States, in addition to leading all the revolutionary movements, plus the capitalist enterprises. The document was called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and it pretended to be the minutes of a secret meeting conducted by a circle of super-powerful Jews who in secret controlled everything. These supposed Jewish elders absurdly represented themselves as evil in the document, and explained to each other how they were going to destroy ‘gentile [read: Christian] civilization.’ They were just up to no good. In producing this hoax, the Tsar’s people were trying to prevent the revolution that was brewing by distracting the oppressed Russian masses with the danger that this especially oppressed and destitute minority, ‘the Jews,’ supposedly posed for everybody. The revolution was not averted, but the hoax of The Protocols had for consequence a series of pogroms, which is to say episodes of vandalizing and sacking of Jewish communities in the Russian Empire, including widespread massacres that cost tens of thousands of Jewish lives.

The Protocols subsequently became a bestseller all over Europe and the United States, quite despite the fact that in 1921 Phillip Graves from the Times of London published a front-page demonstration that it was a cut-and-paste job from three works of fiction, but especially from Maurice Joly’s Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, a political analysis of Napoleon III’s repressive regime that had absolutely nothing to do with Jews, one way or another. In order to show this, Graves put excerpts from Joly’s  Dialogues in Hell and from The Protocols side by side so that readers of the Times could see that they were practically identical. To no avail. The Protocols continued to sell madly all over the Western world thanks to the sponsorship of wealthy antisemites such as Henry Ford and many others. The anti-Jewish hysteria continued to grow, and when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany he made The Protocols required reading in German schools. In this way, a large multitude of ordinary Westerners was made to believe that they were in mortal danger from ‘the Jews’: the so-called ‘Jewish Peril.’

This fearful hysteria prepared the ground for extermination.

Read more:

Cohn, N. (1981). Warrant for genocide: The myth of the Jewish world-conspiracy and the Protocols of the elders of Zion. Chico, CA: Scholar's Press.

Ben-Itto, H. (2005). The Lie that Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. London: Vallentine Mitchell.

“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







0. Introduction

The present series of articles amounts to a primer. It contains strategic historical knowledge minimally sufficient to abandon the ‘Establishment model’ of geopolitical processes and to begin constructing an alternative model that will explain and predict the world of international relations. The alternative model agrees with the Establishment model that the Middle East ‘Peace Process’ is important, but disagrees about almost everything else. In the alternative model, the US-Iran nuclear deal makes perfect sense. It may or may not agree with you, but it will no longer surprise you.

1. Psychological warfare, communication research, and the media

PSYOPs originally refers to psychological warfare operations conducted by the military against the enemy. But PSYOPs have domestic applications as well. We review here historian Christopher Simpson’s documentation of how social science was corrupted in the United States so that power elites could bend ‘democracy’ to their will using psychological warfare.

2. Political grammar : ¿How does psychological warfare work?

Psychological warfare is governed by grammatical rules. Power elites with a good command of such rules can deploy psychological warfare to manipulate citizens into doing things they otherwise wouldn’t—even into destroying their own liberties. We here explain the basic operation of Western political grammar, created in 1848, and how it may be manipulated.

3. Principal-Agent Theory (PAT), the citizen, and the State

Principal-agent theory (PAT) examines how ‘principals’ can manipulate ‘agents’ to do their bidding. It has been applied to political behavior but, perhaps not too surprisingly, in such a manner that it will not challenge the perception that Western States are functioning democracies whose governments are duly responsive to the citizenries. Here we explore an alternative picture that takes into account what power elites can do through psychological (or political) warfare.

4. Is US geopolitics meant to strengthen or weaken democracy?

The study of geopolitics is meant to account for the foreign policy behaviors of the various States. However, geopolitical scholars have certain taboos about which kinds of hypotheses may or may not be entertained. In particular, the prevailing political grammar in the Western media and academic system appears to rigorously forbid that anybody question the purity of intention of those making foreign policy decisions in Western states. Why?

5. The goals of the US power elite in historical perspective

The US power elite’s most important players were responsible for setting up the US psychological warfare regime after World War II (Part 1). These same players had a major hand in precipitating the onset of World War II. This information is of some importance in evaluating the probable aims of US power-elite geopolitics today. But it is next to impossible to pursue this analysis because the US power elite role in causing World War II has been almost completely expunged from historical education..

6. US postwar policy toward Nazi war criminals

Few people are aware that the US government recruited Nazis after WWII. And most of the aware believe this was just a handful of Nazi scientists employed in rocket development (Operation Paperclip). In fact, the US government shielded from justice a giant multitude of Nazis—including many war criminals who had bathed themselves in innocent blood—and used them to create the postwar US intelligence infrastructure. This affected both domestic and foreign policy. The self-imposed silence of the Western media on this topic is diagnostic of the psychological warfare regime that dominates.

7. The aims of the US power elite in WWII

Certain important events surrounding the causes and aftermath of World War II may be recruited to defend a model of the US power elite as pro-Nazi. This model naturally needs to provide satisfactory special reasons for important behaviors of the same power elite that appear anti-Nazi. But the same applies to the Establishment model: it must provide satisfactory special reasons to explain why, if the US power elite has been anti-Nazi, it involved itself so intensely with sponsorship and then recruitment of Nazis. We examine these issues here.

8. US foreign policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict

Given US power elite’s sponsorship of the eugenics movement, which became German Nazism, and the same US power elite’s creation of the postwar psychological warfare regime, it is reasonable to ask whether US postwar foreign policy has been consistent with the aims of the eugenicists and the German Nazis, namely, to destroy democracy and to kill Jews. That is the question we ask here.

9. Why do enemies of democracy attack the Jews?

Shoa (‘the Holocaust’) was a horrific slaughter and a Crime Against Humanity, but it was not an historical aberration. As Western historical processes go, the mass-killing of Jews may be the most recurrent and stable. Those who killed the Jews in World War II were enemies of human liberty. This, too, is not new. In the history of the West, whenever the Jews are under attack, everybody’s liberties are in danger. What explains this? One simple fact: for 2500 years, Jewish thought has been the engine of Western political liberation, and Western enemies of liberty have always understood this.