Was the Apostle expressing something that millions–perhaps even billions–of people nowadays could easily relate to?
From Venezuela to Ukraine, from Iran to Occupied Palestine, from Syria to Russia, from Argentina to New Zealand—and certainly here in the US—there are, I suspect, quite a few people nowadays finding themselves “severely tested by the plots of the Jews.”
By Richard Edmondson
“I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews.”
Those are the words of the Apostle Paul from the New Testament Book of Acts, chapter 20, verse 19. I wonder how many people today might feel an affinity, or at least a measure of empathy, for the sentiments the apostle was expressing.
From Venezuela to Ukraine, from Iran to Occupied Palestine, from Syria to Russia, from Argentina to New Zealand—and certainly here in the US—there are, I suspect, quite a few people nowadays finding themselves “severely tested by the plots of the Jews.”
Paul was writing, of course, at a time when there was a semi-autonomous Jewish state (subject to the rule of Rome), with Jews additionally residing in virtually every other known part of the world. We now live in an era in which Jews, once again, have their own state, only this time subject to no curbs or rules imposed by any other state. And as in Paul’s day, Jewish populations, of varying sizes, can be found in numerous other countries, but with the important difference that today, through their organized lobbies, they wield enormous power and influence, corrupting governments, often to the extent of overriding the democratic will of the majority of their fellow citizens.
A War for ‘Democracy’
In 2003, a small group of Jews in America, known as neocons, decided they wanted a war with Iraq. Such a war would have been opposed by a huge portion of the American people, and the neocons knew it, so they enlisted the help of their friends in the mainstream media, who also happened to be mostly Jewish. (This is not an “anti-Semitic” statement, it’s simply a fact.) Saddam Hussein at the time had been paying out money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, in some cases $20,000 per family, but that aspect of the matter was downplayed. Instead, the Jewish neocons and their media friends were able to convince large numbers of people that the Iraqi leader possessed “weapons of mass destruction” and that he was intent upon blowing up America.
A war was thus deemed justifiable; the plunder and destruction of an entire nation took place, and millions of Iraqis found themselves “severely tested by the plots of the Jews.” And neither was it just the Iraqis. Thousands of (mainly non-Jewish) Americans died in that war as well.
One of the neocons who talked up the Iraq war in a really big way was Richard Perle, sometimes called the “Prince of Darkness.” Recently Perle confessed that he and other neocons never really wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, but instead were simply fooled by all the misleading “intelligence” information. Furthermore, he believes blaming neocons for the disaster that Iraq has become over the past 11 years is a pattern of behavior he ascribes to anti-Semites—in fact the very word “neocon” is seen by Perle as a “code word” that is “often used to describe Jewish Americans,” as he puts it.
Perle’s remarks were discussed in an article by Palestinian writer Ramzy Baroud, who duly quotes the former US official from earlier interviews, given during the days of the Bush administration, in which he spoke glowingly about the prospects for democracy in Iraq.
“Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform,” Perle once said. The Iraqi nation, he added, “won’t be Westminster overnight, but the great democracies of the world didn’t achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. The Iraqis have a decent chance of succeeding.”
At the time of the 2003 invasion, Perle was one of the leading so-called intellectuals who was known for his strong support of right-wing Israeli parties, and for his particular closeness to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He served as an advisor to the Netanyahu election campaign in the mid 1990s, and, along with other leading neocons, made Israeli security – read regional domination – a top American priority.
Controlled Demolition and the Counting of the Omer
Of course the Iraq war is not the only “plot of the Jews” that the world has had to contend with. No serious official investigation of 9/11 has ever taken place. The nearly 600-page 9/11 Commission Report curiously does not even mention the collapse of Building 7. That building, of course, wasn’t hit by an airplane, and there is considerable evidence, video as well as forensic evidence, that it was brought down by controlled demolition. And on that score, we even have the words of Larry Silverstein, the Jewish businessman who collected some $4.6 billion in insurance payouts after 9/11, and who in a 2002 PBS interview talked about having made a decision to “pull it,” referring to Building 7. How do we view Silverstein’s words other than as an inadvertent confession?
Silverstein secured a 99-year lease on the entire WTC complex on July 24, 2001, even though the buildings had been condemned for asbestos earlier that year. Now here’s something interesting you may not know. July 24 was exactly 49 days before the 9/11 events. Curiously, the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, or “Feast of Weeks,” takes place exactly 49 days after Passover. The latter holiday celebrates the exodus from Egypt; Shavuot, on the other hand, marks the divine dictation of the Torah to Moses, a happening which supposedly occurred on Mt. Sinai exactly seven weeks, or 49 days, later. On the first occasion, Jews were delivered from slavery—then on the second, according to Old Testament narrative, they were given the “law” that purportedly made them a “nation.” Shavuot means, literally, “weeks,” and each year observant Jews make a big to-do of counting the weeks and days between the two holidays, an annual ritual known as the Counting of the Omer.
Was Silverstein “counting the Omer,” so to speak, during the 49 days between July 24 and September 11? Hard to say, of course, but one thing we do know: normally Larry breakfasted each morning at the Windows on the World restaurant, at the top floor of the north tower, but on the morning of September 11 he didn’t show up—supposedly because he had to see a dermatologist. And oh yes, in addition to not mentioning the collapse of Building 7, the 9/11 Commission also never considered Silverstein, despite the financial motive he may have had for arranging the destruction of his heavily insured property, as a possible suspect. In fact the name “Silverstein” is only mentioned briefly in the report, on page 281:
Six weeks before the September 11 attacks, control of the WTC was transferred by net lease to a private developer, Silverstein Properties. Select Port Authority employees were designated to assist with the transition. Others remained on-site but were no longer part of the official chain of command. However, on September 11, most Port Authority World Trade Department employees—including those not on the designated “transition team”—reported to their regular stations to provide assistance throughout the morning. Although Silverstein Properties was in charge of the WTC on September 11, the WTC fire safety plan remained essentially the same.
That’s it. That’s the only mention of Silverstein in the entire report, and you’ll notice that it doesn’t reference him directly, but only his company—plus they got the number of weeks wrong as well, mistakenly reporting the property acquisition as taking place six, rather than seven, weeks before the attacks! So to reiterate: no mention of the collapse of Building 7 and no examination of possible motives of actors other than the 19 alleged hijackers, who were motivated solely by religious extremism. The report even tries to build a case that the hijackers were assisted by Hezbollah and Iran, and that “Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations”, a view that flies totally in the face of the Sunni-Shia war we see engulfing the Middle East today, but of course maybe such a war was unimaginable to the members of the 9/11 Commission when they released their report ten years ago.
In either event, the 9/11 Commission Report obviously suffers from a number of glaring deficiencies. Why would that be? Maybe venturing into such areas of inquiry as the collapse of Building 7 was thought inadvisable by the commission’s executive director, Philip Zelikow, a US-Israeli dual citizen. One report, here, states that Zelikow “ran the commission and took charge of the writing of its final report.” ( And see also: Zelikow’s Key Role in 9/11Cover-Up, with Maidhc Ó Cathail, plus The Corbett Report, Learn History with Philip Zelikow! )
Aside from the activities of the 9/11 Commission, a 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund (VCF), set up by Congress, was also overseen by a Jew—Kenneth Feinberg—who decided how much, or how little, each claimant would receive, while a Jewish federal judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, has presided over litigation brought by 9/11 victims. But in reality there have been very few lawsuits. In order to get compensation from the VCF, victims were forced to waive their rights to go to court. Of all those eligible to file claims, 97 percent elected for cash payment from the fund.
“I was told by an attorney that at my age (60) I would have to wait for possibly 20 years to recover any money from litigation,” said one 9/11 victim
“From what I experienced, the fund was shut up money,” said another.
The few who did elect to pursue legal action ended up in Hellerstein’s courtroom and basically got nowhere in their pursuit of justice. In July of this year, a sharp increase was reported in the number of 9/11 emergency responders who have contracted cancer, the number now standing at 2,518. That figure represents a huge jump from the 1,140 cases reported as of last year. Those newly diagnosed with cancer will have the same choice afforded to all other 9/11 victims previously—that is, of accepting a payment from the VCF or going to court and having their case presided over by Hellerstein. Both Feinberg and Hellerstein, you’ve probably guessed by now, have ties to Israel.
The 9/11 attacks provided the justification for America’s “global war on terror,” a war still raging to this day with no end in sight; as a result people in a host of countries—lands that have been bombed and ripped apart by US aggression—and yes, even Americans themselves, as we see, have found themselves “severely tested by the plots of the Jews.”
Argentina and Iran
If 9/11 was an Israeli false flag attack, and there is strong evidence it was, it would not by any means be the only such operation by the Jewish state. A newly-released documentary on the AMIA bombing in Argentina points to Israeli involvement in that episode as well. AMIA stands for Associación Mutual Israelita Argentina (Argentine Israelite Mutual Association). Basically it is a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. The bombing there took place just over 20 years ago, resulting in the deaths of 85 people, and almost immediately following the explosion Israeli officials showed up on the scene to “assist” with the investigation.
The title of the documentary is AMIA Repetita, or “AMIA Again,” a reference to the fact that two mysterious terror incidents took place in Argentina in a space of two years: the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires on March 17, 1992 and the bombing of the AMIA on July 18, 1994. Both events were blamed on Iran and Hezbollah, yet as in the case of 9/11, the official version of the story has severely frayed and unraveled over the years.
In the early 1990s trade relations existed between Argentina and Iran. Negotiations had gotten underway also on certain nuclear issues, including the delivery of uranium and the training of nuclear scientists, and it is widely believed now that the disruption of these ties between the two countries was the motivation for both bombings.
Under pressure from the US, then-President Carlos Menem called a partial halt to some of the agreements, but declined to break off relations completely, and in 1993 Iran received a shipment of uranium reportedly enriched to nearly 20 percent—a level which would have made it suitable for nuclear medicine applications but not for constructing a bomb. The timing of that delivery is significant—one year after the embassy bombing yet one year before the AMIA attack. And even though Argentina was in the process of scaling back some of its commitments, Iran had nothing to gain by sponsoring a terrorist event inside a country with which it still maintained a potentially beneficial trade relationship. In fact, cordial relations between the two countries dated as far back as the Peron presidencies, and as one interviewee in the documentary mentions, in 1953 when Mosaddegh was nationalizing oil in Iran, Peron was doing the same thing in Argentina.
But the cordiality largely came to a halt in July of 1994 when Argentine government officials signed onto the Israeli narrative and accused Iran of the AMIA bombing, this after media reports, both local and international, began portraying the event as a rabid act of anti-Semitism. One of those interviewed in the documentary is Argentine lawyer Juan Gabriel Labake, who notes that both bombings, the 1992 embassy bombing and the ’94 AMIA attack, followed similar patterns.
“The building was being renovated, there were bricklayers inside, huge bags moving in and out. In both cases we were told about a car bomb, but no crater, no evidence, no remains (of a bombed-out car) were found,” Labake says. “Still in both cases, 24 hours later, the security chief of the Israeli embassy comes up to the police and says, ‘It was done with a car bomb.’ The Argentine government buys the whole thing. It is a turnover. Some official agents change their declarations, some experts too.”
The initial findings, including by firefighters who showed up at the scene, was that the blast had been an internal explosion, but it seems Israeli investigators were intent on portraying the event as a suicide car bombing, identifying the driver as a South American operative of Hezbollah supposedly acting under the direction of Iranian diplomats. But there were many problems with this story, one of which being, as Labake notes, that the explosion left no crater in the street. It seems also that the vehicle theoretically disintegrated entirely, or else it managed (as was later woven into the official fantasy-narrative) to get submerged underground by the force of the blast and then covered up with dirt again. In any case, the car, with the exception of what were purported to be small pieces of it, was never recovered.
“I interviewed Major Laborda (Osvaldo Laborda, called as an “expert” witness to prop up the official line) because he was a key expert,” Labake says. “And I asked him, in the AMIA case, where is the rest of the bombed car? I showed him photos of 14 attacks with a car bomb where the car remains almost destroyed—but the chassis remains. He said there was such an amount of explosives that the car was buried three meters under the pavement, which is just impossible. I said why don’t we dig? The damaged car will be an evidence. He said, ‘No need, it’s already proved.’”
In January 2013, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced a memorandum of understanding (MOU) under which Argentina and Iran would set up a commission to reopen the investigation. The commission would be made up of five independent judges, none of whom would be from Iran or Argentina. The documentary includes footage of Kirchner discussing the matter in a session of Congress in March 2013—and receiving a standing ovation for her words.
“We must try to find solutions! I reject cowardice!” Kirchner says. She adds: “I want to know who did it, who hid the evidences. We owe it to the victims. We owe it to the victims. And if nothing changes we will never know the truth.”
It was a fairly unprecedented step. Imagine if a future president of the US were to publicly acknowledge that the 9/11 Commission Report had been a whitewash and were to call for a new investigation to be handled by an independent international body. Large numbers of Americans would certainly welcome it, along with much of the world as well.
But the leaders of Argentina’s Jewish community vehemently opposed the setting up of the “truth commission,” as it was referred to, and Kirchner’s announcement was also attacked in a public statement by the Anti-Defamation League, which criticized “the shocking cooperation of the government of Argentina” with Iran—described in the same ADL statement as “the world’s most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.”
In a second statement, issued on February 13, 2013, the ADL called for the Argentine Congress to block approval of the agreement, and here it must be noted—the ADL is a US-based organization. So what is it doing interfering, and that in essence is what it amounts to, in the internal affairs of Argentina? But it did so…and things didn’t stop there either…
On March 1, after Argentina’s Congress disregarded the ADL entreaties and voted to approve the MOU, ADL Director Abe Foxman penned an article entitled An Unhealthy Nexux: Iran and Argentina that appeared in the Huffington Post and in which he called Kirchner “blind,” accused the Congress of “failing to act in the interest of the Argentine people,” and repeated long-since discredited accusations about former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
A fourth ADL statement, issued May 23, 2013, commented on the MOU in the context of Iranian elections that were then approaching, while a fifth, on July 15, 2013, described the MOU as “a roadblock to achieving justice long denied to the victims.”
In fact, in the year 2013, the ADL issued a total of seven public statements concerning the MOU, all opposing the formation of the truth commission. Additionally that same year, letters were sent by the ADL to two Jewish leaders in Argentina (available in PDF here and here), in which the organization discussed the bombing, mentioned the MOU, and pledged to “continue to raise this issue at the highest levels in our meetings with the U.S. government and international leaders until justice is served.”
The efforts seem to have paid off. On May 29, 2013, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman issued a written report in which he accused Iran of setting up “clandestine intelligence stations” in Latin America for purpose of carrying out “terrorist attacks.” Then in November of 2013, Nisman petitioned an Argentine Court to overturn the MOU, and on May 15, 2014, the court obligingly issued a ruling declaring the MOU unconstitutional. The case is reportedly being appealed to the Supreme Court.
Nisman, by the way, is described as “fanatically pro-Israel” in an interview, here, with Argentine journalist Adrian Salbuchi.
“At the end of 2007, for example, Mr. Nisman was a special guest at the Annual Meeting of the American Jewish Congress,” said Salbuchi. “In March 2009, he gave a presentation at the Queensborough Holocaust Library in New York City. At the end of 2008 he personally submitted a full report on the status of this case to the Supreme Court—not of Argentina, as you might expect, but of Israel in Tel Aviv. Clearly, Mr Nisman acts as Special Prosecutor not on behalf of Argentina but of the State of Israel!”
Apparently the only investigations allowed into events like 9/11 or the AMIA bombing are Jewish-approved, Jewish-supervised ones. Thus it would seem that the people of Argentina as well, for the last 20 years no less, have been “severely tested by the plots of the Jews.” Or as Kirchner said of the attack, “It has been a shock in Argentinians’ history.”
Is it “good for the Jews?”
The world is of course a wide place, and Jews make up only a tiny portion of its total population, so how many “plots” of this nature could there possibly be? Apparently more than you would think possible. Here are just a few others:
- Also in Argentina, Jewish vulture capitalists, armed with a recent US court decision, are endeavoring to exploit the country’s national debt for personal profit; bankruptcy of the nation is said to be possible at this point;
- In 1967 Israel carried out a false flag attack upon the USS Liberty;
- In 2014 a Jewish employee of the US State Department instigated a coup in Ukraine, ushering in a regime that has killed hundreds of people in the eastern part of the country;
- Under the guise of promoting “democracy,” the State Department has also been pushing for the overthrow of the government of Syria, financing terrorist groups that have killed and butchered thousands of Syrians; the overthrow of the Assad government has also been called for by Israel, which on several occasions has carried out missile attacks in Syria as well;
- Somewhat similar efforts are under way in Venezuela, where the main opposition leader, the Jewish Henrique Capriles, apparently supports US regime change objectives;
- Western media conglomerates, largely owned or controlled by Jews, have conjured up the latest “Hitler du jour” in promoting wars of present and past decades. Most recently their attacks have focused on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Unquestionably the most catalyzing event of the modern era—‘catalyzing’ in the sense that it has caused the largest number of deaths (surely up in the millions by now)—is 9/11. Regardless of what you want to believe about who carried out that attack and why, the undeniable facts are these: that a Jewish-supervised 9/11 Commission conducted the investigation, and that what we have today is a Jewish-authored 9/11 Commission Report. And those of us who point to that report and say that it is inadequate or a whitewash are labeled “conspiracy theorists” by the Western media conglomerates. Are we conspiracy theorists? Was Paul a conspiracy theorist? What did the apostle mean when he said, “I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews”? The New Testament actually gives us an answer. Paul was met by hostility from Jews in a number of places to which he traveled. In Damascus they tried to kill him (Acts 9:23); in Corinth they went before a Roman proconsul and accused him of preaching a religion that had not been sanctioned by Rome, hoping to have him imprisoned; the Roman official denied their petition (Acts 18:12); in Ephesus they maligned the new faith he was preaching (Acts 19:9); and on at least five different occasions he was beaten and flogged by Jews (2Corinthians 11:24). But perhaps the worst ordeal of all was in Jerusalem.
Arriving back in Jerusalem following his third missionary journey, Paul came under attack by a mob of angry Jews who sought to surround him and kill him, creating a disturbance so tumultuous that the commander of the Roman garrison in the city was forced to intervene to restore public order (Acts 21:30-32). But the plot didn’t end there; it simply went underground. A group of 40 Jews got together and hatched a plan to murder Paul, taking an oath among themselves that they would neither eat nor drink until they had succeeded in killing him. But the son of Paul’s sister got wind of the ambush they were planning and alerted Paul, who in turn informed the Roman commander. And thus the plot was averted.
But why all this Jewish angst over Paul to begin with? Why so much hostility toward him from his fellow Jews? Because he was preaching the teachings of Christ, and in the process calling into question the validity of Jewish law. This was his great offense. Jews have traditionally blamed Christianity for a host of problems they have experienced over past centuries, but Paul’s story shows us that the animus that eventually developed between the two faiths did not initiate with Christians.
In Paul’s time a very key, very crucial role was played by the Romans in terms of curbing excesses by Jews and providing restraints upon Jewish behavior. This is a very important factor to consider. I say that because comparable such restraints no longer exist today. Where Western governments are concerned, there literally is no limit to what Israel may be allowed to get away with. The Jewish state could set up an interconnected system of guillotines and an assembly line for mass producing Palestinian beheadings, and the West would refer to it simply as “just defending itself.”
The checks once maintained by Rome are nowhere to be found. And perhaps not so coincidentally, the world finds itself on a dangerous precipice, with the Jewish-lobby-controlled US president seemingly doing all in his power to provoke a confrontation with Russia, and the Jewish-controlled Western media conglomerates egging him on in it, portraying the Russian leader as the latest “Hitler du jour.” At some point, however—if the world survives, that is—I suspect humanity is going to get fed up with being “severely tested by the plots of the Jews.” This has already happened on a number of occasions in history, and quite likely it will again, possibly on a scale not yet seen. When and if that time comes, how much of an effort do you suppose will be made to tell the “good Jews” from the “bad Jews?” Probably there will be some, but what is perhaps at least as predictable is that it will be an exceedingly difficult determination to make.
And I suspect that this is precisely what the “bad Jews” are counting upon.