More About Jews and Eugenics -The Information The So-Called "Caring" Liberal Society Hides From You

Below is an article on the same topic that I was covering here, here, here, here, here and here. Also, see this old article with Francis Galton about Jews and Eugenics.

Just another part of good old "Happy-Face" Fascism. People have to realize that a form of slavery is still being practiced today. It is just hidden from us. The people in power realized long ago that it is in their best interest to lie and tell us that we have freedom.

Even if you don't agree with this statement, you have to acknowledge that our current "liberal", "secular" and "tolerant" society is hiding some very interesting facts from us.  That is what I am trying to show on this blog. They have set up a technocracy run by a group of rulers that think they can pretty much do whatever they want.  (See here also.)

As I have pointed out, the worst part is that the technology is not only invasive and controlling, but it can be fatal. To top it off, much of what they are doing is being funded by taxpayers under the guise of protecting people from "terrorism".

Some of them are literally financing their prosperity from taxpayers. Drug dealers, hedge funds and resource and mineral companies to name a few. This also plays into the United States foreign policy project of Africom. (Ever wonder why a resource-rich content like Africa is in the state it is?) See here for what I wrote about Cointelpro and the alternative media. 

After reading the article below, read this and this. Also, learn more about Transhumanism. (Go to the Transhumanism category of my block here. Be sure to scroll down and go through all the articles there.) It is important to point this out, because, people have to realize that Leviathan is a combination of eugenics and technology, both of which have the potential to become idol worship. It is also important to note that eugenics and our modern idea of "mental illness" in the DSM manual, (see this about the DSM manual,) both rely on the bell curve --- both which have limitations. Even worse, what is being categorized today as "mental illness" could be caused unintentionally or intentionally from technology.

========================================================================

Jewish Eugenics, by John Glad. Washington, DC: Wooden Shore Publishers, 2011; 464pp. (Downloadable here. 

John Glad begins Jewish Eugenics by noting that “much of what might be termed  ‘accepted eugenics narrative’ is in crass discordance with the historical facts” (p. 8). In other words, we are about to enter one of those academic minefields where “truth” is rigorously cleansed to make sure it is compatible with ethnic interests. Indeed, “writing books about Jews used to be a far easier undertaking than it is today, with Jewish anxieties over ‘anti-Semitism’ having been so elevated as to render dispassionate scholarly discourse nearly impossible” (p. 8).

I am not so sure that dispassionate scholarship is impossible, but it is surely the case that findings that diverge from the self-image desired by any ethnic group will surely be vigorously contested by academic activists or, more probably, consigned to oblivion. Dr. Glad assures me that in his case, it is the latter, writing of his frustration at the silence that has greeted his work. Welcome to the club.

As a university professor, Glad is quite attuned to the politics of having a good career. Critics of eugenics, like the notorious Ashley Montagu (a disciple of Franz Boas), get fat honoraria for delivering superficial, factually challenged lectures sponsored by numerous academic departments and programs. (Glad characterizes a lecture by Montagu as “an impressive demonstration of indoctrination” [p. 91].) On the other hand, those who defend eugenics “are subjected to academic shunning” (p. 91), their books are not used in classes and not purchased by academic libraries. They get no invitations to attend conferences or deliver lectures.

Broken down to its bare essentials, eugenics aims to incorporate human reason to influence the future human gene pool. Rather than let nature take its course, the idea is to plan our genetic future with the same care and rational concern as we plan the future in other areas, such as urban planning or animal husbandry. In general, eugenicists have prized traits like high IQ and behavioral restraint, seeking to maximize these traits in the population, and to minimize low IQ, genetic diseases, and psychopathology.

The logic behind eugenics is impeccable. In its classical form, it proposes that qualities such as health, intelligence, and moral character are socially valuable. Eugenicists were correct that there are strong genetic influences on these traits, and they argued that society can promote these qualities by policies such as discouraging reproduction of people with negative traits (negative eugenics) and encouraging reproduction of people with positive traits (positive eugenics). Many of those who advocated eugenics were leftist social radicals with utopian visions, including Jewish radical Emma Goldman who “was arrested on a morals charge for distributing a 4-page pamphlet in English and Yiddish entitled Why and How the Poor Should Not Have So Many Children” (p. 162). (Goldman’s extensive Wikipedia biography leaves out any mention of her advocacy of eugenics.)

In the case of eugenics and Jews, the reason for this historical obfuscation is clear: In recent decades, eugenics has been reconstructed as an anti-Jewish ideology—indeed, as the ideology of the Holocaust. Therefore, all Jewish involvement in eugenics must be expunged from the historical record. “You are reading a book on a topic that supposedly not only does not exist, but one that is even inconceivable” (p. 10). Given this motivation, it is not surprising that when Glad refers to what he labels the “eugenics-bashing industry,” that he notes that the industry is “mostly Jewish” (p. 21). “Even as Russia was shaking off the mythology of Lysenkoism, the West was celebrating its betrothal to Lysenko’s heirs. An intellectual coup d’état had taken place, and many of the purge masters were Jews shoving aside other Jews” (p. 27).

Nevertheless, the reality is that Jews have been prime beneficiaries of eugenic practices. Glad’s thesis is that “for all its excesses, eugenics has been an astounding, indeed an existential success for Jews, molding them into a uniquely resourceful and intelligent people, and the current assault on eugenics by an understandably emotion-driven minority Jewish faction represents a frontal assault on the very essence of Judaism” (p. 11). This group has intimidated Jewish supporters of eugenics, at least in Western countries. As we shall see, a watered down version of eugenics is alive and well in Israel.

Surprisingly perhaps, Glad ignores the vast amount of population genetic research showing substantial genetic commonalities among widely dispersed Jewish populations, instead quoting two gynecologists to the effect that although “contemporary Jews share several chromosome markers and polymorphisms as well as genetic mutations … there is no such thing as a Jewish genome and Jews are no more likely to share sequences with fellow non-Jews than with each other” (p. 39). While it is true that there is no such thing as a Jewish genome (no one ever said there was, probably because the idea is incoherent), there is a great deal of evidence against the latter claim (see here for discussions of recent papers in Jewish population genetics).

For Glad, then, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, Judaism is nothing but a cultural construct, albeit one with a particular eugenic dynamism. That is, according to Glad, Judaism is not about preserving an ethnic coherence but about creating a superior group with no ethnic connotations. My view is that it is both about ethnic  coherence and that eugenics was an important force in shaping modern Jewish groups, particularly the Ashkenazim.

A prime area where Jews have benefited is intelligence. Glad accepts the idea that Jews are smarter on average as a result of eugenic practices, although he doesn’t provide any detail on exactly how this happened or how much smarter they are. He rejects a purely internal model of selection for intelligence within the Jewish community such as proposed in Chapter 7 of my A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, claiming that it “would probably reduce the absolute number of high IQs. In any case, ‘marrying brains’ would be a zero sum game if practiced only within one’s own community” (p. 29).

Neither of these arguments is coherent. In traditional societies, assortative mating for intelligence resulted in a higher mean intelligence for the group as a whole because intelligent people tended to be wealthier, and wealthier people had more children.  Within-group assortative mating for high intelligence was a standard part of the eugenic argument from the beginning—nothing more than Darwinism applied to human mating. It’s the same in animals were it is common for females to select mates with desirable qualities to pass down to the offspring. Doing so is not a “zero sum game” even in small breeding populations. The important thing is that some genotypes contribute to evolutionary success more than others and are therefore passed on disproportionately.

Supporting the theory of eugenic selection within the traditional Jewish community, Glad quotes well-known Jewish anthropologist Maurice Fishberg writing in 1917 who claimed that in traditional Jewish society “wealthy persons and scholars were little concerned with the physical appearance of their future sons-in-law. Intellectual abilities were the main thing. If a bridegroom was a significant, promising scholar, even a physical defect was ignored” (p. 168). (Interestingly, Fishberg also notes that in addition to eugenic practices, traditional Jewish communities encouraged everyone to marry, even people with gross mental and physical defects. Eugenics can still work under such circumstances if the well-endowed have more children, as was the case in traditional societies.)

A standard aspect of eugenic thinking was that natural selection wasn’t doing its job anymore because of medical science and welfare benefits for low-IQ people, with the result that the average genetic potential  for IQ was declining. Lothrop Stoddard (The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man), for example, was keen on this point, and among recent exponents of eugenics, Richard Lynn and Helmuth Nyborg make the same argument.  Such arguments can easily be tied to concerns about the future of the race. For example, Stoddard argued that without eugenics the White race would gradually degenerate and be in a relatively less competitive position vis-à-vis other races. It would seem that Lynn and Nyborg are similarly concerned about the future of Europeans.

Glad proposes “infiltration theory” as an alternative to internal eugenic selection, proposing that Jewish IQ increased as a result of the infiltration of high-IQ non-Jews into Jewish groups. While there is a great deal of evidence for eugenic practices for IQ within Jewish groups as prescribed by canonical Jewish religious writing, Glad does not provide evidence for his infiltration hypothesis apart from non-Jewish Soviet citizens attempting to emigrate to Israel in order to flee the USSR.Even if true, this would not explain why higher Jewish intelligence was apparent long before the late 20th century.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Jews had a policy of admitting high-IQ non-Jews. In traditional societies — and Jewish IQ was clearly shaped well before the modern spike in intermarriage — non-Jewish representation in the Jewish gene pool was always illicit and occurred at very low rates. A substantial percentage of the genetic inflow in traditional societies may have resulted from rape, an unlikely source of eugenic benefits. It is an intriguing possibility that genetic inflow from Europeans contributed substantially to Jewish intelligence. However, I know of no data that show this.

Glad’s data suggesting a 9.1% intermarriage rate in Germany in 1875 may be correct, but this is far higher than occurred in the pre-modern era and, in any case, it is unlikely that the offspring of mixed marriages remained within the Jewish community.  Glad quotes a Jewish publication from 1845 discussing “the great evil” of marrying a non-Jew (p. 113); as a quote he provides from 1846 shows, in those days (far more than now), the intermarried couple and their children would be banned from the Jewish community, so that there could be no eugenic effect on the Jewish gene pool.

Recent studies suggest there was some admixture in founding populations but that marriage within the group was the rule after that. And in any case, there are subsets of the Jewish population that have remained completely untouched by intermarriage—particularly the Orthodox and in Israel. Indeed, the importance of retaining racial purity was a prime motivation for the racial Zionists in establishing Israel (see below). Oddly, given that Glad believes that Judaism is nothing but a culturally created eugenic group, he bemoans the high rates of intermarriage because of its effects on “uniquely Jewish genes” (p. 34).

Glad sees Jewish intelligence as entirely benign vis-à-vis the people and culture of the West. He quotes Seymour Itzkoff’s Fatal Gift: Jewish Intelligence and Western Civilization: “Had Western civilization been able to proclaim the truth that Jewish accomplishment was not part of a sinister conspiracy to take over the world, here a people apart, tainted with peculiar cultural traditions, could we have not been able to stop the insanity of ‘National Socialism’ and other pseudo-egalitarian crusades against human accomplishment?” (p. 21).

The problem with Jews is not that they are intelligent or that they are an elite. All societies necessarily have elites, and because of their high intelligence and ethnic networking, Jews have tended to be an elite throughout history. The problem has been that Jews in European societies have tended to form a hostile elite, supporting policies, such as massive non-White immigration, that are not in the interests of the great majority of the non-Jewish populations. (Glad mentions “Jewish-promoted immigration of non-Jews” [p. 111] without discussing why Jews are thus motivated.)

Indeed, Glad has a wonderful quote from German Studies scholar Sander Gilman illustrating well the hostility of Jews toward the people and culture of Germany, and showing as well that Jewish scholars often have very sharp axes to grind when they approach their academic subjects:

I will no longer hear the libel of anti-Semites within the field; I reject their claim for a ‘fair hearing’ within the profession because their fair hearing will be used, as it always has been, to vilify me, to dehumanize me and my pain. The Holocaust remains and must remain for me … the central event of modern German culture, the event toward which every text, every moment in German history and, yes, culture, moved inexorably. I am not neutral. I am not distanced, for serving as an outsider does not mean to be cool and clinical, it must mean to burn with those fires that define you as an outsider. My stereotypes of the German (and my awareness of them) lead me to examine the stereotypes that the German has of me. It is from this that I must move. For me this is not the age of ‘post-modernism,’ it is the post-Holocaust age. That is the silent marker for our present world, and our work is to understand the world of the German in the light of that moment in history. (p. 88)

It’s easy to find similar statements by important Jewish intellectuals (reviewed in The Culture of Critique). The problem is that the academic world is full of Jews like Gilman brimming with hatred because of their perceptions of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions in the past. Obviously one cannot expect unbiased points of view in their scholarship.

The greater problem is that people like Gilman generalize their hostility far beyond Germany and Germans to the entire people and culture of the West. And of course, these attitudes pervade not only the academic world but also Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and SPLC, as well as Jews in the media and in politics.

Glad is also a bit facile in discussing Jewish assimilation, citing sporadic claims by individual Jews to have assimilated in Germany prior to the rise of National Socialism without evaluating the evidence that the great majority of Jews retained a sense of separateness and sense of cultural alienation from Germany. (Sander Gilman is an exemplar of this attitude in the contemporary world.) This alienation is generally true now throughout the West: For example, even though Jews are in some sense assimilated to American culture and indeed have had a very large impact on American culture, in general they retain a strong sense of Jewish identity that informs their attitudes and behavior. Compared to the traditional White people of America, their attitudes are far more favorable to massive non-White immigration, and they tend to be far more hostile to traditional icons of American culture, such as Christianity in the public square. Jewish assimilation has therefore not precluded hostility toward and conflicts of interest with the traditional people and culture of America.

Glad shows that Jews were prominently involved in the assault on biology in the social sciences. He calls attention to Marx, Freud, and Boas and notes the special role of Jews in the furor over E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology (all themes ofThe Culture of Critique). He also mentions three other villains of the assault on biology discussed in The Culture of Critique:  Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin. Jews also were the main force behind Lamarckianism in the USSR and in the West, at least until certain critical experiments were shown to be frauds.

Glad is particularly colorful in describing E. O. Wilson’s opponents:

Wilson’s attackers were not Bible-belt fundamentalist preachers with eighth grade educations, but his sophisticated secular Jewish colleagues at Harvard — evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin —precisely those who logically could have been expected to be his most enthusiastic supporters. … Wilson’s opponents were soon emulated by a largely Jewish cottage industry of anti-Darwinian scholars and activists who reviewed each other’s books and appointed each other to academic positions. (p. 77)

Glad is also correct when he describes the basic trajectory of the New Left: “The New Left fused with the counterculture to produce a ‘revolutionary consciousness’ with overwhelming Jewish participation and leadership” (p. 78). However, as the left identified Israel as “Kosher imperialism” after the Six Day War, “Jewish participation in leftist activities fell off, and the belief that eugenics had been the driving ideological motor triggering genocide of the Jews became accepted Holocaust narrative” (p. 78).

At the same time that Jews dominated the left in the Diaspora, Zionist Jews have always had a strong attraction to eugenics and biology (reviewed also in Chapter 5 (p. 152ff) of Separation and Its Discontents).  The following are some choice quotes from Glad:

• Proto-Zionist Moses Hess: “The Jewish race is one of the primary races of mankind that has retained its integrity, in spite of the continual change of its climatic environment, and the Jewish type has conserved its purity through the centuries” (p. 115).
• Vladimir Jabotinsky, the patron saint of the now dominant Israeli right: “The preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own…. If you should ask me in a sense of revolt and outrage: but surely in that case you want segregation at all costs! I would answer that one must not be afraid of words and not of the word ‘segregation’” (p. 136).
• Arthur Ruppin, a prominent early Zionist: Jewish racial pride “was passed on all the more easily thanks to the racial hatred of the Jew for the non-Jew, and its reaction — the racial hatred of the non-Jew for the Jew” (p. 139). Notice the claim that racial hatred is a fundamental, presumably biologically-based human emotion.

Glad notes that “the major Anglo-American eugenicists came out forthrightly against racial hatred” while at the same time “eugenicists were arrested, exiled, and murdered under both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention facing fierce hostility in the United States.” Nevertheless, “it is also true that antipathy toward Jews was evident among an undetermined minority of eugenicists.” Here Glad singles out Madison Grant and his views on Africans and Jews. Regarding the former, Grant claims that having Blacks adopt the accouterments of White culture does not make them into White people—a claim that is surely quite within the mainstream of the racial research of Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton. Grant expressed similar concerns about the lack of assimilability of Polish Jews “whose dwarf stature, peculiar mentality, and ruthless concentration on self-interest” (p. 62).

It is perhaps odd that Glad is eager to dismiss genetic arguments on Jewish behavior at the same time that he enthusiastically argues that Jews have in fact used eugenics to promote certain traits, particularly intelligence. It is unclear what Grant meant by the “peculiar mentality” of Eastern European Jews, but it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that the upward mobility and intense activism displayed by this group can be attributed at least partly to genetic causes. On the face of it, a strong sense of self-interest vis-à-vis outgroups would be a very advantageous trait to have in intergroup competition. I have argued that hyper-ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness are traits that distinguish Ashkenazi Jews. If, as Glad argues, intelligence is a result of Jewish eugenics, I see no reason why he should preclude the other traits as being exaggerated as a result of eugenics, producing what Grant terms a “peculiar mentality.” In fact, all of these traits show substantial heritability and thus are prime candidates for eugenic selection.

Where Glad is at his best is in discussing the Jewish politics of eugenics. He notes that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has an exhibit that states that eugenics caused the Holocaust. This mantra is also endlessly repeated in the mass media. Glad rebuts this assertion by first quoting from a Rabbi’s sermon given in 1926: “”Whether regarded hygienically, morally, or religiously, the whole purport of the Torah, the Law of Moses, is to separate Israel from the rest of mankind as a Chosen People, in order to be a noble people, a well-born race of men for their own superior happiness, as well as, by way of example, to be a blessing to the world” (p.  63). And he shows that eugenic practices are alive and well in the contemporary Jewish community, especially genetic screening for Jewish genetic diseases. Indeed, “eugenics lies at the very core of Jewish identity” (p. 64).

Glad notes that many Jewish scientists contributed to the academic journalEugenics Quarterly prior to its name change to Social Biology in 1985. In the list provided, I note Benson E. Ginsburg (a behavior geneticist, expert in wolf behavior, and my Ph.D. thesis advisor) and Nathaniel Weyl (who published on Jewish intelligence and accomplishment). But more surprisingly, the list includes Ashley Montagu and Melville Hershkovits (disciples of Franz Boas), as well as Richard Lewontin and Jerry Hirsch (both prominent opponents of behavior genetics and sociobiology); all are discussed in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique as ideological opponents of Darwinism as it applies to humans. Glad’s list would seem to show that Eugenics Quarterly published articles from a wide variety of views indeed, including some from an anti-eugenics perspective.

One element of the campaign against eugenics is the association between National Socialism and eugenics. Glad defuses this by showing that Churchill was also an advocate of eugenics, deeply concerned about the propagation of the feeble-minded and unapologetic about the conquests that Whites as a “stronger race” carried out against other races.

But Jews have been able to have their cake and eat it too:

The upshot of the situation is that a group of largely Jewish activists have so successfully undermined the very eugenic mechanism that made Jewry what it is as to pose an existential threat to Jewry. But Jewish common sense … has not only continued to hold sway in the practice of eugenics, it has even managed to surf the scientific tide of newly found genetic knowledge— all the while paying lip service to the Holocaust-from-eugenics gospel. (p. 72)

The movement against eugenics was part of a much larger picture for Jewish activists:

In 1975, the UN General Assembly … declared that Zionism is “a form of racism and racial discrimination,” essentially declaring the state of Israel to be illegitimate. As a counterbalance, Jewish groups massively funded the Holocaust Memorial Movement.  In it turn, the Holocaust Memorial Movement attacked the eugenics movement with every increasing fury.

However, the last 20 years has seen a huge upsurge of identifying eugenics as the cause of the Holocaust. Between 1945 and 1992, only one book associated the Holocaust with eugenics. Since that time, 51 books have mentioned this connection.

The supposedly causal relationship was accepted with no mention of Jewish participation in the eugenics movement, of the fact that eugenics was popular among the left and the right, of the condemnation by Anglo-American eugenicists of Germany’s National Socialist Regime, or of Jewish eugenicists who had perished in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. The eugenics-is-evil message was imprinted, almost indelibly. (pp. 79-80)

Since [the beginning of the crush of books on the Holocaust in 1968], four decades have passed, and all the while a cohort of Jewish writers continues to attack the eugenics movement, which supposedly threatens at any moment to rip out the stake driven into its vampire heart and once more stalk the planet in search of new victims. In the meantime, precisely as feared by Jewish eugenicists for over a century, the Jews are decimating their own ranks by low fertility and high intermarriage rates. [Note that Glad seems to condemn intermarriage as non-eugenic despite his theory that genetic infiltration was the cause of high Jewish IQ.] Soon there will be no need for Shabbat goy to turn out the lights on Shabbat; there won’t be any Jews left. (p. 81)

Many of these books (Glad emphasizes Daniel Kevles’ In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity ) were intensively promoted in the prestigious mainstream media where there is a large Jewish ownership and influence. For example, Glad notes that Kevles’ influential book was serialized in The New Yorker, at the time owned by Samuel Irving Newhouse.

Eugenics is alive and well in Israel, although the word ‘eugenic’ is typically avoided. Glad cites an expert suggesting that the first human clones will probably be in Israel; this will occur with the support of Orthodox Jews. Yael Hashioni-Dolev shows that Israeli geneticists and the Israeli public strongly favor eugenic practices. Israeli women are “heavily pressured to engage in selection of their embryos, or, in the ultra-Orthodox community, to marry according to ‘genetic compatibility.’” This can be seen as an aspect of racial Zionism that dominates contemporary Israeli political culture.

Nevertheless, these eugenic practices, while important, miss a critical aspect of classical eugenics thinking mentioned above: that steps should be taken to prevent the deterioration of IQ in modern populations resulting from the relaxation of natural selection. See, for example, Helmuth Nyborg’sdiscussionof decline in the genetic potential for IQ in the Danish population where he notes that by 2072

the damage implies that even if fertile low-IQ non-Western immigrants are the ultimate winners in the third demographic transition [i.e., when low-IQ immigration is added to internal forces lowering Danish IQ], they will conquer a lesser country. Danish average IQ will, for example, then have approached 90, or perhaps even be close to the projected mean immigrant of IQ 86.

These internal dysgenic forces must be assumed to be acting on Jewish IQ as well, since natural selection has been relaxed in Jewish groups. Indeed, the only Jewish groups that are reproducing themselves are the Orthodox and the fundamentalists, and they are likely to be less intelligent than the secular Jews who have been so upwardly mobile and so prone to intermarriage in Western societies. According to the Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations, the average IQ in Israel is an unexceptional 94.

As well, Glad does not mention attempting to use eugenic practices to build a more competitive race or ethnic group. As discussed above, Glad conceives Judaism as a non-ethnically defined but eugenically vigorous group.

These two aspects of traditional eugenics de-emphasized by Glad are critical in the long run. That is, racial groups would be well advised to engineer their own future in all of the ways recommended by the classical eugenicists like Stoddard. Failure to do so means that groups that fail to plan for their genetic future will lose out to those that do. The fact that Jewish activists have dominated the anti-eugenics movement in the West and that they tend to hold hostile views toward the traditional people and culture of the West suggest that their opposition to eugenics may also have another motive lurking in the background besides their hatred for anything associated with National Socialism: facilitating the genetic decline of the West as an outgroup. Jewish promotion of massive non-White immigration may also be similarly motivated, although the negative effects of non-White immigration extend far beyond a population decline in IQ (e.g., loss of political power of Whites, less willingness to contribute to public goods like health care, increase in social strife and political alienation).

National Socialism had a strong concern about securing and preserving the racial future of Germans. It is not surprising then that Jewish hostility toward National Socialism would also extend to hostility toward the ability of Germans (and by extension, other European peoples) to take charge of their own genetic future as championed by many in the classical eugenics movement. In the  end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect of the ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.

My impression in reading Glad is that he definitely sees Jews as a superior group. As noted throughout this review, he quite happily states that Jews successfully promoted anti-biological views in the social sciences, mass immigration, the 1960s counterculture, and the “eugenics caused the Holocaust” myth. This would presumably be enough to get him labeled a “self-hating Jew” by the ADL which is always eager to deny that Jews have any influence at all.

Glad’s acknowledgment that Jews are influential is a natural corollary to his views that Jews are superior. Unfortunately, I do not think that he adequately deals with how Jewish influence has often been to the detriment of the interests of non-Jews, particularly non-Jews of European descent.

However, Glad is to be congratulated for his work in showing that Jewish activists were able to manufacture the “truth” that eugenics caused the Holocaust out of thin air. This should not be surprising. The same has happened with the left in general in establishing the currently regnant culture of critique. The leftist social scientists reviewed by Glad — Boas, Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, Gould — managed to create a great many “truths” in the area of IQ and genetics that still remain unquestioned in the prestigious media and throughout much of the academic world. It is therefore no surprise that Jewish activists were able to accomplish truth creation with the “eugenics caused the Holocaust” myth.

Needless to say, this ability to create “truth” out of thin air is a major component of Jewish power in the West today.

UW Study Shows Direct Brain Interface Between Humans

The article that is linked below is showing once again, how one brain can influence another. Intelligence agents have known about this for years.  Unfortunately, like so many other important facts in this world, they are covering this up from you. This is what I am showing here, here, here, here and here. 

Click Here to Read the Full Article

Zionism Moves Against the United Nations

As an addition to the article below, see this, this, this, this and this.

The United Nations (UN) has been shelved, sidelined, consigned to the trash heap—at least temporarily—by the one world dreamers who once saw the global body as the means of establishing a world hegemon.

Today’s imperialists—standard bearers for an ancient philosophy hostile to all forms of nationalism other than their own—now envision the United States as the driving force to implement the New
World Order of which they have dreamed for generations. The United States is their “New Jerusalem” and they intend to use America’s military might to achieve their aims.

For nearly 50 years, the major media in America told Americans—and people around the globe—that the UN was “the last best hope for mankind.” That theme was a ritualistic mantra in American public schools. Anyone who dared criticize the UN was marginalized— damned as an “extremist” hostile to humanity itself.

However, in the 1970s, things began to change. As Third World nations emerged from their colonial status, and as Israel’s oppression of the Christian and Muslim people of Palestinian-Arab heritage
became a topic of worldwide concern, the UN took on a new complexion— at least as far as the media monopoly in America was concerned.

Suddenly, the UN was no longer considered such a wonderful thing after all. Finally, when—in 1975—the UN passed its historic resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism, the wheel turned full circle. For issuing a direct challenge to Zionism, the foundation behind the establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel (as well as a spiritual capital of an impending worldwide Zionist empire), the UN was painted by the media—much of it in the hands of Zionist families and financial interests—as an unquestioned villain.

Suddenly, criticism of the UN was quite “respectable.” And in the United States, an emerging so-called “neo-conservative” movement— led by a tightly-knit clique of Jewish ex-Trotskyite communists under the tutelage of one Irving Kristol and his acolyte, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the American Jewish Committee’s highly influential monthly journal, Commentary—made the burgeoning attack on the UN a centerpiece of its agenda.

However, it was not until the ascension to power in January, 2001 of President George W. Bush’s administration that the effort to “get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.” (or variants
thereof) became part of the actual policy-making framework in official Washington.

The appropriation of the American national security establishment by a host of neo-conservatives appointed to office by Bush—every single one of them, to a man, proteges of the aforementioned
Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol, a powerful media commentator and behind-the-scenes policy maker in his own right—assured that the campaign against the UN would be central to Bush administration policy.

In addition, of course, the anti-UN rhetoric received increasingly even more widespread support throughout the American media. For example, writing in The New York Daily News, a journal published by Mortimer Zuckerman, the former president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (the governing body of the American Zionist movement), one columnist, Andrea Peyser, referred to “the anti-American, anti- Semitic rats infesting the banks of the East River.”

Should anyone still doubt that the reason for opposition to the UN stemmed from the fact that the world body stood in the way of the demands of Israel, note the revealing commentary by
Cal Thomas, a long-time associate of Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the most vociferous advocates for Israel in America today.

In a Dec. 12, 2004 column for The Washington Times, Thomas endorsed long-time criticisms of the UN which he—by his own admission—previously considered the work of “the fringe.” Thomas said that “the world would be better off without this body.”

Noting that many Americans never felt the UN would be good for America, Thomas asserted that he always felt that those who said such things were to be ignored. Here’s what Thomas wrote:

In college days, I was aware of them. They were the fringe, and beyond, those who believed Dwight Eisenhower was a closet communist; the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations were part of the drive for “one world government”; Jewish bankers ran the world economy, and the United States should get out of the United Nations.

According to Thomas: “Without buying into the paranoia and conspiracy theories, I am now a convert to the last one.” Thomas’s assertion in this regard is a candid exposition of the Zionist
lobby’s attitude toward the UN, now that the world body has very clearly fallen out of the hands of the Zionist movement and is considered, in their view, “un-manageable” or “beyond repair,” so to
speak.

In fact, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the Zionists do indeed perceive the United States as the new mechanism by which they seek to accomplish their goals, pushing the
UN to the sidelines. The grand scheme for a New World Order—in the wake of America’s new “imperial” role—was imparted quite directly in a major two-part policy paper in the Summer 2003 and Winter 2004 issues of The Journal of International Security Affairs, voice of the definitively influential Jewish Institute for National Security Policy (JINSA).

Previously a little-known Washington think tank, JINSA is now often publicly acknowledged as the guiding force behind Bush foreign policy today. One JINSA critic, Professor Edward Herman,
has even gone so far as to describe JINSA as “a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

The author of the JINSA paper, Alexander H. Joffe, a pro- Israel academic, has been a regularly featured writer in JINSA’s journal, certainly reflecting the high regard in which his views are
held by the Zionist elite. His two-part series was entitled, The Empire That Dared Not Speak Its Name, propounding the theme that “America is an empire,” suggesting that, yes, this is a very
good thing.

The new global regime to be established would find America as “the center of a new international system” in “a world that looks like America, and is therefore safe for all.” However, what
America “looks like” is what the Zionists want it to look like—not necessarily what the American people perceive America to be.

Joffe stated flatly that: “The end of the General Assembly as a credible body may plausibly be ascribed to the infamous ‘Zionism is Racism’ resolution in 1975,” (which, incidentally, has
since been repealed). The JINSA author contended that the world should be “grateful” that the UN has been “discredited, reduced to farce and ultimately ground to a halt.” As a result of the UN being shelved as a world government vehicle, wrote Joffe, “We now have the opportunity, and obligation,
to begin again.” However, he warned that even the emerging European Union (EU) is a threat to the dream of a global empire (at least, obviously, in the view of the Zionist movement).

The JINSA writer asserted that the EU is an “alternative vision for the international community,” one that, as he put it frankly, is “the authentic counter-vision to an American Empire.” According to Joffe, the biggest problem with Europe and the EU is that “culture remains at the core of Europe’s problems. Nationalism was a doctrine born in Europe, as were its vicious mutant offspring: fascism and communism.” (A fervent advocate of Israeli super-nationalism, the writer doesn’t seem to see the logic in his attack on other peoples’ nationalism.)

Joffe complained that although “the new European Empire is multicultural in theory … in reality it is dominated politically and culturally by France and economically by Germany.” Today, in the
EU, he said, “Driven by a sense of postcolonial guilt and postwar ennui, the door has been thrown open to all ideas. At the most sinister levels it has permitted and even legitimized a vast explosion
of unhinged thought and action, namely anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a wide variety of conspiracy theories.”

In any case, what Joffe described as “the other kind of liberal internationalism” is what the Zionist movement favors. Joffe defined it as such: Given our history and our values, that future lies in leveraging the American Empire in such a way that it becomes the basis of a new democratic
international system.

In the second-part of his extended essay, published in the winter 2004 issue of JINSA’s journal, Joffe pursued this further, expanding on his call for what he described as “an empire that looks like America.”

Yet, in spite of his rhetoric about “democracy,” Joffe frankly talked about the United States engaging in massive imperial conquests in the trouble-torn regions of Africa—presumably after the
United States has already made havoc in the Arab countries of the Middle East: The conditions under which America and its allies would simply take over and restore African countries are far from clear. What are the thresholds for intervention? What are the procedures and outcomes? Who will fight and who will pay? The restoration of Africa would involve long-term commitments and immense costs, of the sort that could only be paid for by Africa itself. That is to say, it would probably require American economic control to go along with political and cultural control.

Colonialism is always pay as you go, and it is not pretty. The question is both whether Africa can pay the price (or afford not to), and whether America has the stomach. Of course, Africa is not the only target of Joffe and his likeminded schemers. Joffe wrote of a wide-ranging global agenda—
well beyond the African continent. In the end, however, Joffe let the cat out of the bag about the real intentions of those who are using United States military power as the mechanism for a bigger agenda.

“New arrangements,” he said, “must come into being under American leadership to provide an alternative for states that are willing to accept rights and responsibilities.” Joffe dreams of a
United Nations that has been re-made under the imperial force of the United States. And ultimately, he predicts the possibility of a world government, writing: Possibly, after a period of chaos and anger,
which in any event would simply intensify existing states of being, the institution [the United Nations] might be bludgeoned into changing. [emphasis added]

Rather than a club that admits all, the 21st century United Nations might—someday, somehow—
be remade into an exclusive, by invitation, members-only group, of free, democratic states,
sharing similar values. Or in the end, replaced by one. That day, however, may be decades off.
Should there be any doubt that he is talking about world government, note Joffe’s concluding words:

The best way to preserve the American empire is to eventually give it up. Setting the stage for
global governance can only be done with American leadership and American-led institutions of the
sort schematically outlined here.

What it all comes down to is the use of America’s military power to advance another (secret) agenda altogether. Here, in the pages of a Zionist journal, we have learned precisely what the “story behind the story” actually is. It has nothing to do, even with a “strong America” or, for that matter, even with America itself.

The United States is simply a pawn—albeit a powerful one—in the game, being ruthlessly shifted about in a scheme for world dominance by an elite few operating behind the scenes. Further evidence that this is indeed the view of the Zionist movement comes from no less a source than Israel’s former ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold. In his 2004 book, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Gold outlined a scenario for a new global regime—under United States diktat—pushing aside the UN. He wrote: The United States and its Western allies won the Cold War but obviously no longer have the common goal of containing Soviet expansionism as the
glue holding together a coalition. Still, a coalition of allies could start with neutralizing the greatest
threat to international peace today: global terrorism, another threat that the UN has failed to counter
effectively … the issue of terrorism relates to a number of other concerns common to all of these nations: the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of sensitive military technologies, terrorist financing and money laundering, and the incitement of ethnic hatred and violence in national media as well as in educational institutions. Their commitment to curtailing these threats would lead democracies around the world to join together and take action …

Such a democratic coalition would be far more representative of the national will of each country’s citizens than the UN currently is. Oddly, by going outside the UN, these countries would be
recommitting themselves to the principles of which the UN was originally founded. They would embrace the principles laid out in the UN Charter and insist that members of the coalition fully adhere—not just give lip service—to a basic code of international conduct … in short, while Gold and his Zionist allies see global government worthy of support, they do not see the UN as the means by which to achieve it. Gold elaborated further, describing a new mechanism for achieving a New World Order: Because the UN has lost the moral clarity of its founders, the United States and its allies must take the lead. The world will follow in time. If more than one hundred nations wanted to join the Community of Democracies, the democratic ideal must be powerful.

In fact, although it was not widely noticed at the time, a so called “Community of Democracies” was inaugurated by the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in June, 2000. So the mechanism is already in place. Gold concluded that the United States and it allies might ultimately “reinvigorate the UN and make the organization’s system of collective security,”
but, he added, “That day is a long way off.” In the meantime, media voices for the Israeli lobby have promoted Gold’s concept of what might be described as a “parallel” UN under the domination of the United States and its purported allies.

For example, on February 6, 2005 writing in The Washington Times, Clifford D. May raised this question: “Is it not high time at least to consider alternatives to the United Nations, to explore
possibly developing new organizations in which democratic societies would work together against common enemies and for common goals?”

However, the evidence is indisputable that this is not just the Zionist propaganda line. This philosophy directed the thinking of the Bush administration. When President George Bush made his
call for a worldwide “democratic” revolution in his second inaugural address, he was doing little more than echoing the opinions of Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, an influential figure
who is considered more hard-line than even Israel’s ruling premier, Ariel Sharon. Not only did Bush publicly and warmly endorse Sharansky, but media reports revealed that Sharansky played a major part in helping draft Bush’s inaugural address.

This is particularly relevant in the context of Sharansky’s harsh words for the UN and what he has offered in his own work, The Case for Democracy, widely touted as “the bible” of Bush foreign policy. In the closing pages of his book, Sharansky summed it up: To protect and promote democracy around the world, I believe that a new international institution, one in which only those governments who give their people the right to be heard and counted, will themselves have a right to be heard and
counted can be an enormously important force for democratic change … This community of free
nations will not emerge on its own … I am convinced that a successful effort to expand freedom
around the world must be inspired and led by the United States.

So it is once again: the concept of the United States being the force for global realignment. And although there was worldwide criticism—even from so-called “democracies”—of Bush’s call for
worldwide democratic revolution based on the Sharansky model, the American Jewish newspaper, Forward, noted on January 28, 2005 that “one world leader endorsed Bush’s approach unreservedly”— former Israeli Prime Minister (and current finance minister) Benjamin Netanyahu.

Citing a speech the Israeli leader recently gave in Florida, Forward said Netanyahu proclaimed:
President Bush called for democratization and he’s on to something very profound. Can the Arab
world be democratized? Yes—slowly, painfully. And who can democratize it? As in everywhere else in the world, in all societies, whether it’s Latin America, the former Soviet Union, or South Africa, democracy was always achieved by outside pressure. And who delivered that pressure? One country: the U.S.

To say more would belabor this simple conclusion: Although, for years, the Zionists denounced American patriots for saying that it was time to “Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of
the U.S.,” now that the Zionists have lost control of the UN—which they originally perceived as their vehicle for establishing a New World Order—the Zionists are targeting the UN precisely because
they have determined that the military and financial resources of the United States are their best bet for establishing that New World Order of which they long dreamed. The Zionists want the United States to serve as the engine for assembling a world empire under their control.

In the end, this does tell us who “The High Priests of War” are and what their agenda really is. Remaining to be seen is what the American people—and all other real patriots around the
globe—intend to do about it. The question is this: will the world finally decide that it is time to declare war against The High Priests of War?

Private Intelligence Agencies Receiving Government Contracts

Please see here , here and here about private and outsourced intelligence fronts. See here for the evidence of the CIA working with drugs and organized crime. Also, see these previous posts on private intelligence agencies here, here, and here. 

See here for where Homeland Security started from and the driving force behind it. See here for more about the ADL working with the police and its ties to organized crime. See here for more about the precursor to this program. As these articles show, the technology that these people have access to is beyond what most people could even comprehend. The mainstream and the alternative media are lying to you, this blog is telling you the truth. They are telling you some truth, but, they are lying by omission. They are not telling you how bad it is or who is predominantly behind it and why. These people (predominantly Israeli apologists,) are engaging in broadcasting the lives of people like reality TV shows, while remotely torturing them with electronic warfare. 

They are complete psychopaths. They are so crazy and out of control, it is beyond what most people could even imagine. It sounds unreal --- and they know this. IT IS THE TRUTH. It is the intention of these government torture programs to be as violent and harsh as possible so victims sound crazy when they describe the events. The tactics used by the CIA/DoD (department of defense) for massive human experimentation has not changed. Acting like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde allows them cover and plausible denial while they cower back into the fringe and shadows of government. If they made the experiments mild, people would be more likely to believe the DoD/CIA conducted this kind of torture research.

Congress in the United States and the House of Commons in Canada are a part of the problem, they are going along for the ride. It is time that people begin to call these losers out, they are complicit in these criminal governments. They are not representing the people. We must fight to spread the truth through word of mouth and other yet to be controlled information channels. Ignorance is the only enemy and everyone working to keep secrets or spread disinformation are merely the unimportant pawns to be sacrificed in this classic metaphorical battle between good and evil.

The United States and Canada, (because of their joint border protection contracts that have sprung up since September 11th,2001 and their special relationship with Israel, example here,) have become like Banana Republics. The people that have access to this technology are above the law. They are essentially organized crime with intelligence contracts and high-security clearance. They are the real ones running the United States. 

========================================================================

What is A Private Intelligence Agency?

Before reading any of this, see here and here. Also, see this. The privatization of "bads" or questionable governmental practices (like warfare and intelligence,) has always been looked at as something that would be unacceptable to do because it leaves less accountability. These contracts are being awarded to companies and are paid by taxpayers. Please see here for when the Soviet Union fell apart and the so-called "privatization" that took place. Are we seeing something similar in the United States? Massive looting while the government falls apart?  

A 'PIA' or Private Intelligence Agency is a private sector (non-governmental) or quasi non-government organization devoted to the collection and analysis of information, most commonly through the evaluation of public sources (OSINT or Open Source INTelligence) and cooperation with other institutions. Some private agencies make their services available to governments as well as individual consumers; however, most of these agencies sell their services to large corporations with an interest or investment in the category (e.g. crime, disease, corruption, etc.) or the region (e.g. Middle East, Vietnam, Prague, etc.).

The private intelligence industry has boomed due to shifts in how the U.S. government is conducting espionage in the War on Terror. Some US$56 billion or 70% of the US$80 billion national intelligence budget of the United States was in 2013 earmarked for the private sector according to the New York Times' Tim Shorrock.

Functions previously performed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and other intelligence agencies are now outsourced to private intelligence corporations. The AMC series Rubicon was devoted to the fictional intelligence consultancy American Policy Institute (API).

Outsourcing Intelligence 

Outsourcing Intelligence is a method by which a country gathers information using non-governmental employees. In the United States of America, at least 50% of intelligence gatherers are contractors instead of governmental employees. 

The government of a country may outsource intelligence gathering that may not be obtainable through other means, they may also need to use human intelligence such as the CIA's National Clandestine Service (NCS). It may mean outsourcing to foreign nationals from a country of interest, they may outsource to private companies as well to gather the specified intelligence needed. For a company, the ways of outsourcing intelligence are the same, in which third party individuals and corporations are hired to obtain data and other intelligence. Intelligence can also be outsourced for analysis by a third party, in a similar fashion to what the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence does.

Former analysts and officers of the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of National Intelligence are allowed to leave their government positions and go work for companies in the private sector the next day doing the same job. This is known as "butts in seats." The reason one former government analyst did go work for a private intelligence firm was that the pay in the private sector was about 50% higher than the one he had from the government.

Private Sector Dominance

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States Congress increased the funding flow to the intelligence community. In November 2005, a CIA official revealed the intelligence budget to be $44 billion, which increased from a $26.6 billion budget reported by CIA Director George Tenet in 1997.

The intelligence community is allowed to keep its budget secret. With this secrecy comes speculation that at the absolute least 50% of the entire budget now flows to the private sector. It is also estimated that in the intelligence community much of the 15,000 analysts are drawing private-sector paychecks as a result of “butts in seats.”

According to R.J. Hillhouse, "Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) workers revealed at a conference in May that contractors make up 51% of the staff in the DIA." Hillhouse goes further to say that, "the CIA has a similar situation…between 50% and 60% of the workforce of the CIA’s most important directorate, the National Clandestine Service (NCS)… is composed of employees of for-profit corporations.” Hillhouse also says that in terms of oversight the ratio is 1:25 (one government employee supervising twenty-five private contractors), which means that it will "involve multiple companies and multiple layers of administration."

Since the September 11 attacks, U.S. telecommunications giants AT&T and Verizon have actually outsourced all their controversial NSA-mandated internet and telephone surveillance to the contractors Narus andVerint respective, both of which have close ties to Israeli intelligence services, although they maintain headquarters in the U.S.

Some Notable private intelligence companies

• AEGIS (UK-based)
• Black Cube (Israel&UK-based)
• Booz Allen Hamilton (US-based)
• Control Risks Group (UK-based)
• Groupe GEOS (France-based)
• Hakluyt & Company (UK-based)
• Kroll Inc. (US-based)
• OPSEC (UK-based - West Africa specialist)
• Oxford Analytica
• Pinkerton National Detective Agency (US-based but worldwide)
• Smith Brandon International, Inc. (US-based)
• Stratfor (US-based)

NGOs: The Missionaries of the United States Empire - Fronts for the CIA Part 3

Please see my past posts on this issue located here and here. This post is not about Human Rights Watch, but, it is still related to the same topic. 

Many people know that the CIA funds various covert operations throughout the world. They do this through front organizations including known CIA operations groups which funnel funds to “various non-governmental agencies” (NGOs) which then use those funds to achieve objectives both foreign and domestic.  There is a tremendous history of this funneling to quasi-private organizations … but it’s also interesting how overt some of it is.  Much of how the CIA operates has bubbled up due to failures and successes around the world in places like Venezuela, Egypt, Libya, Haiti, Pakistan and Eastern Europe thanks to some American whistle-blowers.

The #1 thing you have to understand about this…all of this taxpayer money (your money) that is being spent to further geopolitical and corporate goals is not just money spent to overthrow foreign governments…a good amount of that money is being spent to influence the hearts and minds in America too. 

America is a case study of how to successfully let the tail wag the dog; there are LOTS of journalists, editors and influential people on the take (propaganda assets).  And there is always a concerted effort to punish those of us who know or attempt to share any semblance of truth. (See here, here, here, here, here, for what I wrote about the Phoenix Program and the system they have set up to find potential political dissidents. This is the precursor to Homeland Security and it is a joint operation between the intelligence agencies. See here for the origins of Homeland Security. See here and here for some of the tactics they use. See here for some more about CIA front groups that are set up near political dissidents.)

To see a video introduction with Mike Wallace about NGO's, Charities and Think Tanks that front for the CIA, see here. This video series is from 1967,  but that doesn’t make it any less relevant to today. The explanation of how the CIA operates begins at about 5:23.

One point I want to make about this, in some situations, the CIA has decided to select a strategy to create revolutions in countries that are non-bloody and leave very little trace of what they are doing. A case example would be to occupy a country by infiltrating its government and media, then begin to influence elections. They would then proceed to take the country over without anyone really knowing what is going on. We can see something similar happening in Canada right now. Canada has pretty much become another state of the USA, just like Israel has.

Non-governmental organizations are an increasingly important part of the 21st century international landscape performing a variety of humanitarian tasks pertaining to issues of health, poverty, the environment and civil liberties. However, there is a dark side to NGOs. They have been and are currently being used as tools of foreign policy, specifically with the United States. Instead of using purely military force, the US has now moved to using NGOs as tools in its foreign policy implementation, good examples of this are the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House.

National Endowment for Democracy

According to its website, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is “a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world,” however this is sweet sounding description is actually quite far from the truth.

The history of the NED begins immediately after the Reagan administration. Due to the massive revelations concerning the CIA in the 1970s, specifically that they were involved in attempted assassinations of heads of state, the destabilization of foreign governments, and were illegally spying on the US citizens, this tarnished the image of the CIA and of the US government as a whole. While there were many committees that were created during this time to investigate the CIA, the Church Committee (led by Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho) was of critical importance as its findings “demonstrated the need for perpetual surveillance of the intelligence community and resulted in the creation of the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.” The Select Committee on Intelligence’s purpose was to oversee federal intelligence activities and while oversight and stability came in, it seemed to signal that the CIA’s ‘party’ of assassination plots and coups were over. Yet, this was to continue, but in a new way: under the guise of a harmful NGO whose purpose was to promote democracy around the world- the National Endowment for Democracy.

The NED was meant to be a tool of US foreign policy from its outset. It was the brainchild of Allen Weinstein who, before creating the Endowment, was a professor at Brown and Georgetown Universities, had served on the Washington Post’s editorial staff, and was the Executive Editor of The Washington Quarterly, Georgetown’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, a right-wing neoconservative think tank which would in the future have ties to imperial strategists such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.  He stated in a 1991 interview that “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” 

The first director of the Endowment, Carl Gershman, outright admitted that the Endowment was a front for the CIA. In 1986 he stated:

We should not have to do this kind of work covertly. It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the ‘60s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created. (emphasis added)

 It can be further observed that the Endowment is a tool of the US government as ever since its founding in 1983, it “has received an annual appropriation approved by the United States Congress as part of the United States Information Agency budget.”

No sooner than the Endowment was founded did it begin funding groups that would support US interests. From 1983 to 1984, the Endowment was active in France and “supported a ‘trade union-like organization that for professors and students’ to counter ‘left-wing organizations of professors,’” through the funding of seminars, posters, books, and pamphlets that encouraged opposition to leftist thought. In the mid and late 1990s, the NED continued its fight against organized labor by giving in excess of $2.5 million to the American Institute of Free Labor Development which was a CIA front used to undermine progressive labor unions.

Later on, the Endowment became involved in interfering with elections in Venezuela and Haiti in order to undermine left-wing movements there. The NED is and continues to be a source of instability in nations across the globe that don’t kneel before US imperial might. Yet the Endowment funds another pseudo-NGO: Freedom House.

Freedom House

Freedom House was originally founded in 1941 as a pro-democracy and pro-human rights organization. While this may have been true in the past, in the present day, Freedom House is quite involved in pushing US interests in global politics and its leaders have connections to rather unsavory organizations, such as former Executive Director David Kramer being a Senior Fellow to the Project for the New American Century, many of whose members are responsible for the current warmongering status of the US. 

During the Bush administration, the President used Freedom House to support the so-called War on Terror. In a March 29, 2006 speech, President Bush stated that Freedom House “declared the year 2005 was one of the most successful years for freedom since the Freedom House began measuring world freedom more than 30 years ago” and that the US should not rest “until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation” because “In this new century, the advance of freedom is a vital element of our strategy to protect the American people, and to secure the peace for generations to come.” 

Later, it was revealed that Freedom House became more and more supportive of the Bush administration’s policies because of the funding it was getting from the US government. According to its own internal report in 2007, the US government was providing some 66% of funding for the organization. This funding mainly came from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US State Department, and the National Endowment for Democracy. Thus, we see not only the political connection of Freedom House to US government but major financial connections as well.

It should be noted, however, that Freedom House was not alone in supporting the government. Under the Bush administration, the US government forced NGOs to become more compliant to their demands. In 2003, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios stated in a speech given at a conference of NGOs that in Afghanistan the relationship between NGOs and USAID does affect the survival of the Karzai regime and that Afghans “believe [their life] is improving through mechanisms that have nothing to do with the U.S. government and nothing to do with the central government. That is a very serious problem.” On the situation in Iraq, Natsios stated that when it comes to NGO work in the country “proving results counts,but showing a connection between those results and U.S. policy counts as well.” (emphasis added) NGOs were essentially told that they were tools of the US government and were being made part of the imperial apparatus.

Most recently, Freedom House was active in the Arab Spring, where they aided in the training and financing of civil society groups and individuals “including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen.”