under False Flag
By George Pumphrey
The hoax perpetrated by Marie Leone, a French woman who claimed
she was a victim of an 'anti-Semitic attack' on a suburban train
RER made a profound impact in France. George Pumphrey followed
the story and immediately after publication of the first
reports, he wrote:
I would be very careful about jumping to
conclusions about this incident. There are several things that
make this entire story smack of a hoax.
In the article
there is almost no information of WHAT happened. This
reminds me of the lynching/pogrom atmosphere that is usually
created. ANYONE asking for proof of the accused being the
culprits immediately becomes an accomplice or - in the
current vernacular - a "holocaust denier". Blind faith is
being called for, and nothing less will be accepted.
There has been
a campaign since some time to paint an image of France as
being an "anti-Semitic" (which in the current misuse of the
term means anti-Zionist) nation. Hence the image of 20 +
French(wo)men who did not intervene during the attack, nor
came forward as witnesses.
Now to the
culprit(s): They are said to be Beurs, North Africans. How
does one know? There are many who look like Beurs in France,
including many Jews from North Africa. I saw an
advertisement in Le Monde that was a veiled recruitment
notice for Sepharadim to join the Mossad. I don't doubt that
these recruitments are still taking place. So there is the
possibility that IF the incident DID take place, that the
culprits could have been Beurs but could also have been
people made to look and act the roles.
combination of Beurs and Swastikas don't go together in
today's context. The Beurs - and others who criticize Israel
- is not from the extreme right (Nazi) tradition, but from
the Arab tradition and a sense of violation of Arab rights.
And if they were fascists, they would not have made their
swastikas with magic markers when they were armed with
knives. If this were a hoax, the "young mother" could have
come into the RER with the swastikas marked on her stomach
and no one would have noticed.
example: I don't know how many of you remember the bomb that
blew up in the early 80s in front of the synagogue on rue de
Copernic. (Le Point 23 mars 1981 "Copernic: les tueurs
étaient palestiniens") Also there the PCF and MRAP jumped
out in front beating their chests calling for a big
demonstration only later to learn that Zionist organizations
had infiltrated the FANE. "On m'a demandé d'infiltrer la
FANE" declared Jean-Yves Pellay (Matin 28.11,1980) a former
légionnaire. Also there, when the news broke that Zionists
had sacrificed Jews - without having done anything to
prevent the bomb from exploding or to avoid human casualties
the chest-beating did not even lead to a self-critical "I'll
be more careful next time."
turning over of the stroller/baby carriage not bring to mind
another anti- Arab hoax: Think of the incubator babies on
the floor of the Kuwait City Hospital in 1991 which never
took place. Was this meant to be the image transmitted?
Think of the
target group. The line goes: because she lives in the XVIeme
Arr. She is supposed to be Jewish, but she turns out not to
be, so "just the fact that you are living in the XVIeme
makes you a target of the Beurs. So you'd better do
something about them before they get you." The MRAP calls
for new laws (to repress the Beurs or the fight chauvinism
against the Arabs?) In any case, not many people from the
XVIeme will join the MRAP but they will support laws to
repress, maybe even suppress, the Beurs.
gives extremely little facts about the attack itself, and a
helluvalot about all the notables who have decided to stand
shoulder to shoulder with Israel in her Zionist against the
Arabs. So each of the politicians and political groups have
to publicly come out and show that they are part of the
newly found consensus. That consensus is not there when a
gendarme summarily executes a young Beur on the sidewalk in
Southern France, after he had been subdued. Not to be
underestimated is also the effect of the World Court's
verdict on the wall.
The bombing in
Tel Aviv and elsewhere should also be seen in this context.
The headlines read today: "Sharon: We have the right to
protect ourselves against terror". At a time when the
Palestinians won an essential public victory, why would THEY
spoil it with a suicide bombing, that can only strengthen
the hand of Israel?
This leaves only 2 questions: With everyone
defending the young woman, who is left to defend democracy and
the Beurs, who are unjustly generalized as being anti-Jewish
because they are anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian?
of Achille Lauro
Here is an example of a case of Zionist false flag
terrorism. False Flag terrorism means that the terrorists
believe that they are following orders "to help the cause"
without realizing that their leadership has long since been
taken over by their enemy and it is (s)he who is calling the
shots, and they are all against the goals of "the cause".
A successful false flag terrorist attack that
discredited the cause of the terrorists is the case of the
Palestinian hijacking of the Italian cruse ship, "Achille Lauro"
in 1985. This operation was ordered by the Israeli secret
service and organized by their Palestinian agents inside
Palestinian terrorist organizations. The details of the
preparations are related by an insider to the upper echelons of
the Israeli secret services, Ari Ben-Menashe, former special
intelligence advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
-in his book, "Profits of War."
"Radi [a Jordanian military officer who was
unaware that he, since some time had already been smuggling arms
for the Israeli secret service] went back to his drinking and
womanizing and the money he made selling arms for Pearson all
drained away. At that very vulnerable point, in 1978, Pearson
stepped in again and offered Radi a £200,000 loan. This time,
Pearson made it quite clear to him that the money was coming
from an Israeli source. The desperate Radi accepted the loan and
was recruited to work for an antiterrorist group in Israel run
by Rafi Eitan. The group's methods were rather unconventional,
one could say heinous, but it had operated successfully for
years. An example is the case of the "Palestinian" attack on the
cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985. That was in fact, an Israeli
"black" propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cutthroat
bunch the Palestinians were. The operation worked like this:
Eitan passed instructions to Radi that it was time for the
Palestinians to make an attack and do something cruel, though no
specifics were laid out. Radi passed orders on to Abu'l Abbas,
who, to follow such orders, was receiving millions from Israeli
intelligence officers posing as Sicilian dons. Abbas then
gathered a team to attack the cruise ship. The team was told to
make it bad, to show the world what lay in store for other
unsuspecting citizens if Palestinian demands were not met. As
the world knows, the group picked on an elderly American Jewish
man [Leon Klinghoffer] in a wheelchair, killed him, and threw
his body overboard. They made their point. But for Israel it was
the best kind of anti-Palestinian propaganda."
Interesting in this account is that in order
to "show what a deadly, cutthroat bunch the Palestinians were"
Israelis activated their agents among Palestinian terrorists to
tell them to be particularly brutal to Jews, as Jews. What
Ben-Menashe does not mention in this anecdote is the second
objective sought by Israel: convince Jews of the merits of
Zionism and Israel as their sole "protector" on the planet.
Ben-Menashe mentions the "success" that
Eitan's methods were having. A major aspect lending to this
success is Israel's credibility. One would not suspect that
particularly the Israeli government would be so cold-blooded
toward Jews. Have them murdered to be able to point at their
adversaries and cry "anti-Semitism". They feign indignation at
the fate of Jews, who refuse to come live in Israel, where they
The international crisis created by the
hijacking was designed to capture headlines of the world's press
for about a week. The hijackers finally agreed to surrender to
Egyptian authorities. (Abu Abbas, who himself was not among the
hijackers, helped negotiate their surrender.) The German
Sueddeutsche Zeitung, recently furnished additional information
of what happened:
"The Egyptians wanted to send Abbas and the hijackers to the
PLO headquarters in Tunis. The plane was intercepted in flight
by US fighters and forced to land in Sicily, where the hijackers
were put on trial.
The prosecution indicted the actual hijackers but Abu Abbas
was called merely as a "witness" and permitted to flee the
country. The US had made a demand for Abbas' extradition for
murder of a US citizen. An Italian court convicted Abbas in
absentia to five life terms. The US withdrew its extradition
demand. And Abbas remained free.
In 1998 Abu Abbas was given official permission of the Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanjahu to visit the Gaza Strip. Israeli
authorities justified the official permission with the fact that
Abbas had in 1996 already been allowed to visit the Gaza Strip
to participate in Palestinian parliamentary elections. He had
also voted at that time for the resolution legally eliminating
the clause from the PLO Charter calling for the destruction of
Israel. Israeli Supreme Court also protected Abbas by refusing
the law suit calling for Abbas' expulsion from Israel and being
turned over to the US brought by the Klinghoffer family."
The leader who had planned and organized the
hijacking was sitting in safety and on the enemy payroll. Those
who carried out the action believed they were "helping the
cause". They had no idea that the murder of an innocent, invalid
reduced their "cause" in the public's eye from a struggle
against occupation and ethnic cleansing to one against Jews per
se, from a struggle for justice for the Palestinians to an
unjust "anti-Jewish" struggle. It would take the Palestinian
struggle a long time to overcome this setback.
The background of the Achille Lauro hijacking
and the international immunity enjoyed by Abu Abbas provides
useful insight into the workings of false flag terrorism. A
close look at many of the "suicide bombings" taking place in
Israel, would also raise doubts about many official versions of
* * *
Statistics of Anti-semitism
By George Pumphrey
After the hoax of Marie Leonie was completely disclosed, French
Jewish politician Strauss-Kahn alleged that "'If this is a
hoax, of course, it is to be criticized as such,' but if the
case 'turns out later not to have happened as alleged, to be
sure, there have been 20 others earlier that did take place.'"
One can imagine that referred to here are the
"Earlier this month, the Interior Ministry
reported 510 anti-Jewish acts or threats in the first six months
of 2004 - nearly as many as in all of last year, 593. Racist
attacks also rose: There were 95 attacks and 161 threats through
June, compared with a total 232 reported in 2003."
(France: Anti-Semitism is 'a reality that we must combat',
Haaretz, July 26, 2004)
There is a problem with these statistics
concerning attacks previously announced as having been of an
"anti-Semitic" nature - they may not have taken into
consideration that another motive was behind the attack. As
Churchill once quipped, "the only statistics I have faith in,
are the ones I, myself, falsified."
The question of "anti-Semitism" is political
capital. Political forces have an interest in manipulating the
perception of what qualifies as, and the quantifying of
anti-Semitism in a given society. Usually one goes on the
assumption that the original suspicion of an anti-Semitic
aggression or an anti-Semitic background to an aggression pans
out to have been the case. Just as with the case of Marie-Leoné
this can just as easily turn out to be false, with the
difference being, that we learned about this hoax, even though
ALL of the political forces were forcing this bogus case of
anti-Semitism down our throats.
Once upon a time, to be anti-Semitic meant
harboring animosity toward Jews, BECAUSE they are Jews. Today
"anti-Semitic" means - for the media and political "elite" (PCF
and MRAP included) - anyone who can stand in to be counted as a
"Jewish victim" (victim of anything, including a hoax.)
As soon as it was learned that Alexandre
Moïse, president of the Zionist Federation of France, was
arrested and convicted, after having sworn out warrants because
of numerous threats, that he had sent himself, in order to
appear a "Jewish victim," no one should have taken any of the
statistics seriously without knowing - case by case - how much
of it is true.
If a Jewish person happens to be the random
victim of a mentally disturbed assailant, (as in Epinay) it
becomes a case of anti-Semitism for the statistics and an affair
of state, even though the SEVEN other stabbing victims were
It would be interesting to learn if the RER-D
hoax still gets noted as an anti-Semitic attack in the
statistics. In any case, in 3 months few will remember that it
was a hoax, and any reference to "the rise of anti-Semitism in
France" people will include the memory also of this hoax.
When verbal or physical altercations take
place over women, football, money, the Middle East or simply
because one of the parties is obnoxious, one of the parties
being Jewish, regardless on which side of the argument (s)he
happens to be, can turn this argument into a new statistic of an
"anti-Semitic" threat or aggression.
When Jewish schools, synagogues or tombstones
are smeared with Nazi symbols - even though it is not known WHO
did it, it is recorded as an anti-Semitic act. As long as no
GUILTY party is found, EVERYONE is a suspect and ALL suspects
are considered INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. So until one learns
who did it and why, it is premature to conclude that it is was
NOT done by Zionists in order to provoke another "anti-Semitic"
What constitutes "a threat?" "I'll break your
jaw" or simply a look as if to say, "why don't you get the hell
outa my face?" Has anyone seen "threat" qualified or quantified?
"Go down Moses..."
One thing many media organs around the world
overlook is the fact that more than a month ago the Jewish
Agency announced its intentions to recruit "tens of thousands"
of Jewish French(wo)men to emigrate to Israel. Sharon even
declared recently (according to Le Monde 20.07.04) that he would
like to see 1 million Jews immigrate to Israel within the next
10 years, and he is particularly counting on the French
In order to achieve this, a particular
atmos"fear" has to be created. Check out the history of how
other immigrations to Israel were provoked, e.g. the emigration
of Jewish Iraqis (The Jews of Iraq were "enticed" to flee to
Israel through a Judeophobic terror campaign carried out by
Mossad agents with help from Arab accomplices. Naeim Giladi was
one of the Mossad agents at the time. He explains the methods
Israel seems to be in the process of pulling
off another "Iraq 1950". Agents of the Jewish Agency have been
sent to France and the media becomes filled with horror stories
about the victimization of Jews at the hands of North African
Arabs. In order to be "effective" propaganda, North Africans
have to be placed on a political/ideological continuum with the
German (European) Judeophobes and the phobia (real or imagined)
hyped up to correspond to that which culminated in Auschwitz.
(That the Mossad and the Jewish Agency were helped by and
cooperated with the Nazis, falls through the threshing floor of
today's propaganda mill. That Zionists and the Nazis share a
common view: that Jews and non-Jews cannot live together in
peace and therefore a common goal: a "Jew-free" Europe is also
Neither is mentioned the fact that extreme
fanatical Muslim groups are infiltrated - and therefore
manipulable - by the Mossad as are extreme-rightist
organizations. This is documented fact.) This is all used to
maintain the confusion between Jewish/Israeli/Zionist.
Of the list of "anti-Semitic" aggressions and
possible threats listed above, there is another reason why the
statistics have grown so rapidly recently: There is a completely
new category added, extending the definition of "anti-Semitism".
Sharon clearly expressed this extension in his unwelcome
suggestion to the Jewish French:
"In France today, about 10 percent of the
population are Muslims ... that gets a different kind of
anti-Semitism, based on anti-Israeli feelings and propaganda."
"Anti-Semitism" = anti-Israeli.
In the Conference sponsored by the OSCE and
the German government on anti-Semitism, which took place in
Berlin at the end of April 2004, 55 European and North American
nations reached an accord to include criticism of Israel as a
category of "anti-Semitism".
The UN reports on the conference: 'Agreement on the statement
was reached after Russia dropped its objections to a clause
outlining a link between anti-Israeli sentiment and
anti-Semitism, a U.S. delegate to the conference told
Haaretz (Amiram Barkat, April 29). (...)
'It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the
state of Israel, but the line is crossed when Israel or its
leaders are demonized or vilified, for example, by the use of
Nazi symbols and racist caricatures,'
Colin Powell said. "In June, the UN held a "seminar" on
anti-Semitism. Kofi Annan in his opening speech claimed: "It is
clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of this
phenomenon in new forms and manifestations. (...) This time the
world must not, cannot be silent."
In other words, what is supposed to be an alarming resurgence of
(Judeophobic) anti-Semitism is permitted to be compared to the
3rd Reich. Le Monde wrote "Friday, in the RER-D, a young
woman, who, in the ferocious view of 6 assailants, had become a
Jew for 13 minutes, had been the victim of Nazi methods."
("Méthode de nazis" Le Monde 13.7.2004).
It is only not "allowed" to compare the
current manipulation of the media to Nazi methods to create this
impression. The fact that I get hit by a car, is not a racist
victimization, unless it can be proven that the fact that I am
black, was the reason that the driver DELIBERATELY hit me with
* * *
How many of those accusations have been
proven just as fraudulent as this one, with the difference that
this one was played up by the whole political lynch-mob to be
shown up very soon afterwards as a hoax? There seem to have been
many. Of the synagogues burned and Jewish schools attacked, is
there proof of who stands behind these acts? Rumor has it that a
large number of those synagogues in Marseilles, for example,
were not among the "hard-line Zionist" supporters. (You know the
term, "self-hating Jew"? Well that would go also for these
synagogues if they don't toe the Israeli line without question.)
Zionist conspiracy, it could be as much as it could be a
neo-Nazi or "Islamist" conspiracy.
The difference between "hard-line" and other
Zionists is mainly one of development. They both share the same
goal, the promotion of an ethnic nationalism based on
"Jewishness", however any individual among them may want to
define the term and the means to be employed in order to achieve
their common goals. Would you know of anyone else who could
profit from drawing a line connecting Arabs to Nazis?
One gets the feeling from the press, that the
media has mainly made a sigh of relief: "Thank God, it was not
an anti-Semitic attack but a hoax." The general sentiment in
"western European" countries is that such attacks are bad only
as long as Jews happen to be the victims. When Arabs are the
victims, the attitude is more "well, who knows, they could be
guilty, if not of this one, then of another."
There are many who seem to agree with
Strass-Kahn, the hoax is to be criticized only for being a hoax
sous-entendu is that the intention is good [because it serves
the cause of Zionism].
The Egyptian writer Mohamed Sid-Ahmed once wrote:
If one makes the persecution of Jews an absolute sin, one
would tend to defend Jews as Jews and not as persecuted. One
would subordinate the notion of persecution to that of being
Jewish and not the other way around. By ricochet, the
persecution of Palestinians by Israelis is sidestepped. There is
an absolute negation of the rights of Palestinians. Such a
position could carry a reversed racism.
This is a very apt description of the
situation today. As soon as a Zionist sneezes all of political
Europe feels it HAS to respond in chorus: "à tes souhaits!,
Palestine? Iraque? Kurdestan? (...)?"
Does anyone ask, why it is the question of
the headscarf that has become such a question of "laïcité"
today, rather than that of the yarmulke long ago? This question
has little to do with laïcité and much more to do with
Arabophobia disguised as anti-Islamism.
France has a very big advantage over Germany.
There are many Jews in France that are raising their voices in
opposition to what Israel presumptuously claims is done in the
name of all Jews of the world. Germany is not yet so far. The
groups here are small, and not very prominent. The central
Jewish organization, more or less takes its orders from Israel
and acts as if Jews are not also Germans.
I find that too few Goyim dare speak out against Zionist
injustice, because of fear of the "anti-Semitism" bludgeon
wielded by Zionists. This to me is, in itself, a variation of
Because we -
the Goyim - agreed to give Jews the same rights WITHOUT the
same responsibilities toward the rest of humanity as
accept the persecution of Palestinians . This indifference
toward their suffering is not much different to the
indifference displayed by the "good Germans" in the lead-up
to the Second World War and the genocide that was to come.
But I guess the biggest problem is that there
is little understanding of the term "anti-Semitism". I made an
experiment a while back. I looked up the term "Semite" and got a
list of languages, and peoples who are Semites. Then I looked up
"anti-Semite" and lo and behold, it means only "anti-Jewish".
(In newer dictionaries it has been even further deformed to also
mean "anti-Israeli".) This is not only a display of a lack of
logic, it is also a political transformation of the reality.
The "suicide" bombings carried out in Israel
by the Israeli government against Israeli civilians (to pin the
blame on Palestinians) are just as anti-Semitic as the hoax in
the RER-D. They carry even more wide-ranging consequences being
both Judeophobic and Arabophobic. They usually furnish the
excuse for further protracted ethnic cleansing - the killing of
Palestinians, the destruction of homes, water supply, groves, -
but also the immediate killing of Israeli citizens.
Search the media as you wish, you will not
find the Israeli attacks against innocent Palestinians in the
Occupied Territories labeled "anti-Semitic" not even in the left
media. Just as with this anti-Semitic hoax, the general attitude
is, "it's ok as long as Jews were not the victims."
What is very dangerous in the media, is that
after they have played up this hoax - and I still don't believe
that this Marie-Léonie thought up this complicated (politically
charged) story by herself - there are many voices like that of
Straus-Kahn who are saying in other words "this hoax became
known, but all the other stories were the truth. "Marianne"
lists a few of the hoaxes and the most telling one is that the
official of LIKUD - France was caught making threats to
Why should anyone believe any act of
aggression against Jews in France, as long as one does not have
the culprit and he says that it is BECAUSE the victim was
Jewish, and (s)he does not like Jews. That is the only proof
that an act was Judeophobic. Otherwise we don't know whether the
act was done for example in order to create another hoax, an
arson was laid in order to get the insurance, someone got
punched in the nose because of jealousy, robbery, or as in one
case in France, schizophrenia (the aggressor had wounded several
non-Jewish victims before he wounded a Jew which made it a
"State's act" with Rafferin at the victim's bedside.