Israel is the deep state within the deep state, outside the state. It’s not that Jews, Israel, and Mossad control the West, but rather that Israel and Mossad exist to serve the West.

The origin of Israel was partially well explained by Alex Krainer in the main video of one of my posts where I praised him. The story he presented was good but not complete. Unfortunately, he recently reverted to his theory of the “imaginary evil British” being responsible for all the evil in the world, while praising America as a force for good — which is completely wrong. Anyway, here is the post and the fragment I was referring to.

Intellectual Honesty and Integrity Based on the Cases of Alex Krainer and Judge Napolitano.

28:42

Israel is an element of destabilization for the whole region. So, we have to kind of take a step back and understand Israel in more realistic terms. Because, you know, I grew up always being told that Israel was the aspiration of the Jewish people, that it's a homeland for them where they can be safe and secure, and that it's the end of the pogroms and Holocaust that they suffered through history and so on. But actually, that's all a cover story. That's the narrative. The reality is that Israel, even from its conceptual beginnings at the end of the 19th century, has always been an imperial project.

It was created there in order for the British Empire to maintain their hegemony in the region, which they understood is not only resource-rich, but also extremely important to global trade. It always has been. It's where the East and West come together, and even from Roman times, this area, the whole Eastern Mediterranean, has been extremely important in economic terms, and it's always been very wealthy for that reason, because it was the trade hub of the whole world. So, to maintain their hegemony over the region and control the resources of the Middle East, Israel was created. And, you know, as the alumni of Alfred Milner's Roundtable group in London said, the plan was to seed the region with a particularly patriotic stock. And that was Alfred Milner and his Roundtable Group, which is pretty much the main think tank of the British Empire.

And then we had, in 1917, the Balfour Declaration, which was issued by British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild. Lord Walter Rothschild's son was Nathan Rothschild, who was best friends with Arthur Balfour and who hung out with him at the Foreign Office practically all the time. They were close associates. And so, the Rothschild banking family - it is always the bankers, the money-lending oligarchies who are keen on maintaining hegemony over resource-rich regions, because then those resources can become collateral of their own banking systems. And then their clients, the companies that bank with them, can get the loans to go and develop those resources. And thereby, as these resources are turned into financial flows, they ensure that those flows go towards their banking institutions in the West. This is how empires function.

So, you know, long story short, the narrative that this is a homeland for the long-suffering Jewish people is the publicly palatable, acceptable narrative over the whole enterprise. Whereas the reality is that it's an imperial project. And so, from Iran's point of view, this is always a threat, because it was created there as a beachhead to prevent Iran from rising as a regional power, gaining strength economically, militarily, and politically. And so, this is why Iran is so vitally interested in neutralizing Israel, or at the very least, forcing it to accept the two-state solution, and forcing them to allow the creation of the Palestinian state right next door to Israel. Or, better yet, to force Israel to become a one state of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And that way, you dilute this aspect of Israel, which is that it's a beachhead for the Western Empire, first the British Empire, but then the whole agenda got simply transferred to a new headquarters in Washington D.C., or Wall Street, however you wish to define it. And the same strategy has been in place ever since.

This explanation is great, but unfortunately not complete. I agree with everything he said. The only thing I would add is the involvement of the American deep state, led by Allen Dulles and Meyer Lansky, with James Jesus Angleton playing a key role as one of the most important figures in the deep state. Meyer Lansky was one of the heads of the Mafia, which in reality was a crime syndicate (small note: he was a Jew of Polish descent — it's not important, but as a Pole, I would like to point out that many of the brains behind real power, the deep state, were of Polish descent, like Meyer Lansky, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Paul Wolfowitz of "Wolfowitz Doctrine" fame). When people think of the Mafia, they usually think about Italians and figures like Lucky Luciano, which is actually the result of a CIA and deep state psyop — a fact explained in one of the videos from the Eyes Wide Open channel, which I posted earlier:

The real people behind the Mafia's crime syndicate were primarily Jewish and Irish, see quote below:

38:41

Even this Cosa Nostra definition excluded key members of organized crime due to its Sicilian specification. Chicago mob boss Al Capone's family, for example, was from Naples in southern mainland Italy, not Sicily; yet, he was arguably the most important mob figure, profiteering from Prohibition. Other famous New York mobsters, Vito Genovese, Frank Costello, and Albert Anastasia, all hailed from southern mainland Italy, not Sicily. Therefore, "La Cosa Nostra" was an accurate term for the existing organized crime networks in Sicily before and after World War II, but in terms of its application to an American context, it remained overtly limited, only encompassing a small subset of organized crime activity confined to a specific subculture of a specific ethnic group. This had the effect of shifting law enforcement and the public's attention away from the wide variety of mobsters, not only from elsewhere in Italy but most prominently from Irish and Jewish communities as well. Due to the obviously limited applicability of this terminology, the La Cosa Nostra paradigm eventually evolved into the more encompassing term of "Mafia." Today, "Mafia" is used as a catch-all term for any organized crime. For example, I have used the term in the Chinese context, referring to Chiang Kai-shek's Green Gang network as a Chinese Mafia, which in our modern parlance does evoke the right imagery. However, when the term came to prominence, the Mafia was, according to official definitions anyway, a strictly Italian criminal organization encompassing the Sicilian mobsters of La Cosa Nostra as well as the southern Italians that were swept under the rug with the previous definition. To the general public, the existence of an Italian Mafia became undeniable as New York District Attorney and future Governor Thomas Dewey, a person I've talked about quite a bit actually, undertook his war against the Italian mobsters in his state in the 1930s, leading to Lucky Luciano's infamous arrest and incarceration in 1936 on prostitution charges. This was over half a decade after a young director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, was building his legacy with the first arrest of Al Capone in 1929. Oh, why not you, oh, have J. Edgar Hoover. All right, stand back now. Now, now, come on. Of course, it would not be his early FBI arrest that would lead to his long-term imprisonment, but a later IRS investigation into Capone's rampant tax fraud that would spell his end. That said, during the late 20s and early 1930s, Hoover's FBI and New York local law enforcement under Thomas Dewey appeared to be leading a serious effort to root out the Italian Mafia that had been spearheading the smuggling of booze into the United States during Prohibition. This spurt of Mafia-related arrests was short-lived, however, and Hoover and Dewey's later dealings with the American underworld would continue to undercut any serious efforts to reprimand the top of the organized crime hierarchy.

And this brings us to the essential problem with the ethnic component of this term "Mafia." During Prohibition, which saw the rise of American organized crime as we know it today, the Italian gangsters only formed one half of the nationwide network that was unfolding. As the prime bootleggers in this whole network, the Italian Mafia worked as the essential smugglers, moving booze across the border and into speakeasies across the country. However, on the other side of the fence in Canada were the liquor distributors, which were largely Jewish and Irish businessmen. Therefore, by popularizing and propagandizing the "Mafia" term, the authorities were in a sense shielding the prominent business interests that were profiting from the top of the illegal booze industry, and I will argue here that these top business interests were in a sense part of organized crime. Therefore, by popularizing and propagandizing the "Mafia" term, the authorities were in a sense shielding the prominent business interests that were profiting from the top of the illegal booze industry. This practice of segregating the Mafia complex through the use of exclusively Italian terms would continue to work to hide a parallel power structure at the top of the organized crime financial pyramid, which undeniably intermingled extensively with big business. These forces, of course, also happened to be the ones interfacing with the legitimate political world in Washington D.C., yes, but also across the country in most major cities. For example, during Prohibition, much of the illegal alcohol that entered the United States was produced by the liquor giants Schenley and Seagram's, owned by the Rosenstiel and Bronfman families on the other side of the border. In the same New York neighborhoods that Italians Lucky Luciano and Frank Costello operated, were also a young Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel, engaging in the same bootlegging activities as their Italian counterparts. Yet, the Mafia at the time remained, in establishment conceptions anyhow, a strictly Italian affair. Take also, for example, a man like Joseph Kennedy, the father of John and Bobby Kennedy. It has also often been theorized that Joe Kennedy made part of his family fortune largely from bootlegging, working through the Bronfman and Rosenstiel liquor empires north of the border. Joe Kennedy would remain particularly close to Lewis Rosenstiel after Prohibition as he continued to work in the import of liquor. And this is not even speaking of Joe Kennedy's extensive ties to organized crime in Hollywood during the 1920s. Yet, as an Irish American, he was once again excluded from the Italian Mafia consensus and allowed to establish the Kennedy family as apparently legitimate members of the American elite. The same could not be said about their Italian counterparts.

The reason that I spend so much time deconstructing the Italian-American Mafia myth is because this myth remains prevalent in establishment history circles to this day, despite the overwhelming evidence of the existence of what many have come to call a national crime syndicate, which emerged in the late World War II years and remained present throughout most of the Cold War to this day. The concept of a national crime syndicate, a multiethnic, geographically dispersed network of symbiotic crime, continues to be disputed by reputed sources as a conspiracy theory of sorts. This line of thinking continues to perpetuate the original myth of an Italian-American exclusive network of organized crime. J. Edgar Hoover, for example, the FBI director, despite famously arresting Al Capone in the late 20s, refused to acknowledge the existence of any organized crime until at least 1961. This is including even Italian organized crime, and at that time his definition remained a limited, once again, Italian Mafia depiction. Now, why would this myth continue to be perpetuated even into modernity when all the signs seem to show there was this massive, amorphous organized crime network? In short, and as I will continue to show throughout the rest of this video and into future videos, the denial of a broad, multiethnic national crime syndicate served to obscure the deep financial ties between the overt US elite and the largely Jewish-dominated financial circles of American organized crime, specifically the money laundering networks that, as Whitney Webb puts it in "One Nation Under Blackmail," quote, "transform dirty money into seemingly clean investment capital," end quote. By hyper-focusing on the Italian aspect of this paradigm, we only get the boom and bang side of the story without the money trail that inevitably interlocks with, among other areas, legitimate business, federal law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the governments of the United States, Latin American countries, and maybe most controversially and maybe most explosively, the state of Israel. Often, the American national crime syndicate is described as Italian muscle backed by Jewish finances, and that is not entirely incorrect. Meyer Lansky, the mob's accountant, for example, was only formally prosecuted by law enforcement in 1972, when he was an old, frail man. For nearly five decades, it was an open secret that Lansky remained the main accountant and moneyman for the ever-expanding National Crime Network. That was until 1970, when Lansky was hit with federal tax evasion charges. From there, he immigrated to, of all places, the state of Israel under the law of return. In alleged poverty, he lived there for two years, then he was deported back to Miami to finally stand trial. Despite overwhelming evidence of tax fraud and his contempt of court for the last two years, Lansky somehow walked free thanks to the help of his lawyers arguing on technicalities. Lansky was allowed to retire quietly in his native Miami, highlighting his lifelong evasion of law enforcement. The focus instead, throughout most of the accountant's career, turned instead towards Lansky's closest ally, Lucky Luciano, the fall guy of sorts, who had been deported to Sicily in 1946 by the man who had built his political legacy off his arrest, now New York Governor Thomas Dewey. Luciano would interestingly help establish the French heroin connection through contacts with Corsican gangsters after his exile there in Marseilles. The French mob was employed, much like they had in New Orleans at the beginning of the syndicate's history, as strikebreaking thugs to keep the dope flowing to the US and the war materials flowing to Southeast Asia for the French War there that I've covered extensively. Behind the Luciano connection back in the United States, Lansky helped establish the financial channels that, as I have shown throughout my videos and will continue to show, often interconnected with legitimate business and intelligence agencies. Therefore, the likes of Lucky Luciano could be prosecuted, but the likes of Lansky could not due to the fundamental ties to the overworld inherent in Lansky's dealings and the disconnected nature of Luciano's street dealings. Organized crime was and likely remains to this day simply a slush fund and an enforcement arm for the legitimate overworld of quote-unquote respectable business and politics. Like any network, this National Crime Syndicate was organized amongst several competing nodes of power, working mostly cooperatively but also sometimes competitively for more power within the system. Amongst these mobsters, much like amongst the business elite, shared class interests kept different factions in line when it came to opposing shared existential threats such as overzealous law enforcement and the threat of socialism, especially within organized labor.

This fragment mentions Whitney Webb’s work and the figure of J. Edgar Hoover, both of whom are also discussed in another great video from this channel:

In this video, which is mainly based on the work of Whitney Webb, the author mentions the fact that J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual crossdresser. Meyer Lansky had evidence and images of J. Edgar Hoover crossdressing and engaging in homosexual activities, which explains why Hoover refused to acknowledge the existence of the Mafia until 1961, as mentioned above. Interestingly, this video also mentions James Jesus Angleton.

36:21

1952. Edgar Hoover had allegedly been compromised by sexual blackmail long before he met Roy Cohn in 1952. Countless historians and scholars have speculated that Hoover and his long-time second-in-command, Clyde Tolson, were gay lovers. Both men were lifelong bachelors, they traveled everywhere together, and were the fuel of gossip pages across the United States. Most notably for our story, however, as early as 1946, Hoover was the target of blackmail. Several sources have claimed that both James Angleton, the future head of counterintelligence for the CIA and Allen Dulles's prodigy, and Meyer Lansky, the brains behind the National Crime Syndicate, a nationwide criminal underground network, had in their possession compromising pictures of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover receiving oral pleasure from allegedly his second-in-command, Clyde Tolson. It was electronics expert and CIA affiliate Gordon Novel who claimed that Angleton had showed him the compromising photos of Hoover in 1967. According to Novel, Angleton showed him the compromising pictures of Hoover to prove that he was not all-powerful in his orders to stop the lawsuit that Novel was pursuing against JFK investigator Jim Garrison. There was also John Weitz, a former OSS officer, who alleged to have been shown the photos of Hoover by Angleton at a dinner party hosted in the 1950s. Angleton identified the two men in the photo as Hoover and his deputy, Clyde Tolson. Hoover's homosexuality was such an open secret around Washington D.C. power that Allen Dulles's mistress, Mary Bancroft, even called him "that Virgin Mary in pants," referring to Hoover's female name, Mary. This is actually the same name that Susan Kaufman, wife to Rosenstiel and Blue Sweet whistleblower, reported Hoover being called at the orgies she witnessed. As for Meyer Lansky's possession of the photographs, authors such as Whitney Webb are divided as to whether Angleton gave the photos to Lansky or if Lansky gave the photos to Angleton. The important thing to know here is that if we are to take these allegations at face value, and I still feel like I need to insert an "allegedly" here, so allegedly, the CIA and the mob worked together to blackmail the highest ranks of the FBI. Therefore, this clearly displays that the CIA and the mob had shared interests, which, throughout this series, we have shown to be the free flow of narcotics, specifically heroin at this point, throughout the United States and the continued activity of the mob. This compromising blackmail gave both organizations a weapon against the FBI to maintain the free activity of organized crime and the continued flow of narcotics. As we will see later, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, or the FBN for short, the predecessor of the modern DEA, which would have been the other major authority involved in intercepting drug trafficking alongside the FBI, was largely complicit with the CIA and the Mafia in allowing the crime syndicates to continue their domestic operations. We'll touch on that in a bit, but my point here is that the CIA and Mafia together coerced the FBI to turn the other way.

(A little side note: Roy Cohn is mentioned and he was a Jewish mobster and blackmailer. He was also the mentor of Donald Trump and allegedly gave Trump the idea for his book The Art of the Deal.)

Both Meyer Lansky and James Jesus Angleton were Jewish. From other sources, I have heard that Meyer Lansky was involved in the creation of Israel by financing it, while James Jesus Angleton has two graves — one in America and another in Israel. I also heard from other sources that Angleton was involved in helping Israel steal nuclear weapons from America.
Meyer Lansky was one of the bosses of the American crime syndicate, and James Jesus Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence — and both played roles in the creation of Israel.
This is the part that Alex Krainer either missed or didn’t know about. It shows that it wasn’t only the "evil British" responsible for the creation of Israel. In my opinion, he is correct about the involvement of the British Roundtable group in London, but what he missed is the involvement of the American deep state and the crime syndicate in the creation of Israel through figures like Meyer Lansky and James Jesus Angleton.
Basically, the American deep state — meaning the CIA — and the American crime syndicate are one and the same, as mentioned earlier. It all started with the operations of the underworld, driven by the brilliance of Meyer Lansky, which was explained in the book I linked before, The Yankee and Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby.

Page 28 

"Operation Underworld"

German U-boats had already been sinking defenseless U.S. merchant ships within sight of East Coast beaches when a string of sabotage incidents on the East Coast docks climaxed in 1942 with the burning of the French liner Normandie, just on the eve of its rechristening as an Allied freighter. The event showed Roosevelt how easily Mussolini's saboteurs could strike at the base of U.S. shipping.

Meyer Lansky, meanwhile, chief minister of organized crime, was troubled because certain Mafia families were proving reluctant to join the larger Syndicate which he had been building since Prohibition under the yellow and black colors of Lucky Luciano. Luciano had been jailed in 1937 by New York D.A. Thomas Dewey, and Lansky had been operating since as his top man in the world of the other capos, where his main problem was how to persuade the Sicilian holdouts to accept the executive leadership of a Jew, Lansky's leadership. Different students of organized crime in America interpret Lansky's role in different ways. The perceptive and original Alfred McCoy, for example, in The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (1972) treats Luciano himself, not Lansky, as the first wholly modern executive of crime and attributes to him, not Lansky, the insights that led to the current federation of previously autonomous criminal groups around particular rackets and particular cities.

But Hank Messick, who develops the point in a string of unique books of crime reportage, notably Lansky (1971) and John Edgar Hoover (1972), thinks Luciano's greatest genius lay in his grasp of Lansky's greater genius, and that Lansky was always the main strategist in bringing big crime to accept the standpoint of the Harvard Business School and the necessity of monopoly-style business rationalization. McCoy would agree that Lansky at least became the top boss after Luciano's sudden death by heart attack in a Naples airport in 1962. I follow Messick on the point if only because Lansky was Luciano's front man in the real world during the nearly ten years Luciano was imprisoned and carried out the concrete tasks that actually brought the new super corporate organization, "the Syndicate," into existence.

But this difference matters little for the current point. Whether it was Lansky's or Luciano's doing or the doing of "social forces" pushing towards "multi-corporatism" in every sphere of exchange, in business and politics as well as in crime, in Hughes's and Rockefeller's and Nixon's worlds as well as Lansky's, the fact of expansion and integration, of the centralizing of business authority in an unimpeachable bureaucracy, is the main fact of organized crime's inner life from Prohibition on, and it seems appropriate to associate this general movement with the long period of Lansky's preeminence.

Roosevelt's problem then was how to guarantee the security of the docks against Fascist sabotage. Lansky's problem was how to complete the organization of the Syndicate. What artist of the possible saw the convergence of these two problems in a common solution?

The precise origins of "Operation: Underworld" are not public knowledge. Both McCoy and Messick fasten upon a Brooklyn shipyards office of U.S. Naval Intelligence. That would not mean the initiative was necessarily federal or the Navy's. The idea could have been dropped there by any messenger. In any case, it came down to a straightforward proposition. Lansky first turns to the reluctant capo and says: What if I can free thy leader, Luciano? Then he turns to the anxious Roosevelt and says: What if I can secure thy docks against sabotage?

The offer Lansky made in particular was simply for Roosevelt to intervene in the Luciano matter, although from the prosperity enjoyed by organized crime during World War II, it may appear to imply that the deal went much further and actually entailed federal protection for certain areas of Syndicate wartime activity, e.g., smuggling.

Luciano was moved right away from the remote Dannemora Prison to the more comfortable and spacious Great Meadow Prison north of Albany. His accessibilities thus improved, he lived out the war years in a style befitting the prisoner who is also the jailer's benefactor and a party to a larger arrangement with the throne. Promptly on V-E Day, his lawyer filed the papers that opened the doors for his release and deportation to Sicily. He would shortly return to his Godfatherly duties in the exile capital Lansky had been preparing all the while in Havana. Lansky delivered Luciano and won federal protection. The Syndicate was made.

But that only began it. Syndicate collaboration with the American war effort went much further.

The Sicilian Mafia, for example, had been all but wiped out by Mussolini in fascism's long violent rise to power. The Mafia was a power rival, and Mussolini crushed it bloodily. But when General George Patton landed on Sicily with the Seventh Army's Third Division in 1943, he came with instructions to fly Luciano's black and yellow scarf along with the Stars and Stripes and to seek out the tactical support of local Mafiosi, who would offer themselves as guides and informants. This support may or may not have been of measurable military value. The Kefauver Committee theorized later that it was too slight to have justified the release of Luciano on patriotic grounds. But what Patton's tanks meant to the Mafia was purely and simply its restoration to power in Sicily.

Then in 1944, Roosevelt wanted Batista to step aside in Cuba. The most persuasive confidential ambassador he could think of, the best man for delivering such a message to Batista, Messick reports, was Lansky himself. Whom else would Batista listen to?

Lansky and Batista had first met ten years before in the year of Repeal, 1934. Lansky had seen that the coming legalization of liquor might give an enormous business opportunity to those who had run it when it was illegal. So as Repeal drew nearer, he started shopping for raw material sources, for all the world like a run-of-the-mill corporate-imperial businessman.

He got to Havana in 1934 shortly after Batista first won power. The two men found themselves in deep harmony. Lansky stayed three weeks and worked out with Batista the arrangements that would bring molasses from Cuban cane to Syndicate-controlled distilleries and set up Havana as a major gambling capital of the Western hemisphere.

From these beginnings, the Lansky-Batista association prospered greatly over the next decade. No one better than Lansky could have carried Roosevelt's message, nor could Batista have whiled away his exile period in a more appropriate or comfortable setting than the Palm Springs mansion which Lansky made available. When the wind changed yet another time in the early 1950s and it was time for Batista to go back to Cuba and resume command, it was again Lansky who gave Batista the word to move.

Since "Operation Underworld," the American deep state — back then the OSS, later the CIA — was deeply connected to Lansky's crime syndicate. I have argued before that the CIA was essentially an American Gestapo, as mentioned in a short video I posted earlier.

6:59

So, they begin the episode by praising William J. Donovan, who was the founder of the CIA, or the founding father of this entity. He founded the OSS and other bullshits. Um, but basically, a precursor to the CIA, and he was instrumental in its formation. Um, and he has arguably the most propaganda-polished, like positive, Wikipedia page I've ever seen, like more than American presidents. There is not a single negative word about this guy in a huge Wikipedia article, which is telling in and of itself. Yeah. Um, especially when they, uh, behind very like buried within the article, they had the fact that this guy took a look at the Gestapo and was like, "I want to make that, but for the U.S." Yeah, this is actually, he was like, "I want to make an American Gestapo," and the CIA idea was based on basically an American Gestapo, which, um, yeah, if that's all you need, that is basically all you need to know, really. Anyway, so this douchebag basically traveled all around the world, befriending every fascist dictator, helping them set up death squads to fight communism, all that nonsense.

I argue that the CIA is the American Gestapo, and that the Mafia — the crime syndicate led by Meyer Lansky — served as the armed wing of the American Gestapo to maintain deniability. Just like in Nazi Germany, when the Nazis wanted someone killed, the Gestapo carried it out directly. However, when the American deep state — meaning the CIA — wanted someone killed, it was done through the Mafia, allowing the deep state to claim, "Look, we don't kill people — it's the Mafia and organized crime that do it.

This way, America’s deep state can operate similarly to Nazi Germany, but unlike Nazi Germany, they can falsely claim they don't engage in political killings.

Drug Trade and Organized Crime

You might wonder why I focus so much on organized crime. It’s because the American deep state is deeply connected to it. You could even argue, as Aaron Good does in the main video I shared, that organized crime and the deep state are inseparable.

13:07

They have a tripartite state, and there is a democratic aspect to this and to the regime in terms of their being elections. People vote, and they determine who is going to be, you know, the president, congressman, etc. But there's this deeper anti-democratic force that intervenes, and it can even intervene—we can call this the deep state. It's really oligarchy; we could say it's capitalism in the most generic sense because it always produces top-down rule by an oligarchy of wealth. But it's this bigger entity; you could call it the establishment.

The entire capitalist system is connected to the deep state and organized crime. Before the rise of American capitalism, the American deep state, and American global dominance, it was the British capitalist system that led the way, exemplified by the Opium Wars against China. Before the Americans and the CIA, the British were the bigger crime syndicate and the largest drug dealers in the world. In one of the videos from the Eyes Wide Open channel that I linked earlier, it was even mentioned that some of the American founding fathers were drug dealers involved in the opium trade against China.

2:20

Often, when talking about modern American history, discussion gravitates towards oil as a key driver of US policymaking. Although this is largely true for many recent US interventions, the history of the CIA is undeniably linked to two even more sinister commodities: cocaine and heroin. We will leave cocaine aside for now, as this will only become relevant later on in our story when the CIA becomes heavily involved in Latin America during the Cold War. In the beginning of American intelligence history, the CIA and its wartime predecessor, the OSS, promoted and protected global opium production and smuggling to finance anti-communist allies and illegal activities around the globe.

So, let's get into a bit of the history of opium. This is going to be a very short history, but I think it's important background though. Opium has been a global commodity since the colonial era, when British, Dutch, and French empires controlled opium flows from the Middle East and Southeast Asia to the West. This narcotic became widely popular, firstly as a recreational drug used by European and American elites in opium dens, and eventually by colonial residents in opium-rich regions. In the 1800s, the British fought two successful wars with China to maintain the export and sale of opium following attempts by the emperor to ban the highly addictive substance in China. This just shows how important opium was as a commodity to the British and to all the colonial empires. By 1900, China's population of 300 million people was made up of thirteen and a half million opium addicts who consumed some 38,000 tons of opium yearly, making China the largest producer and consumer of opium at the time.

As much as the British got rich off of opium, Americans also participated in the highly lucrative trade. Illustrious American families gained their fortunes in Shanghai and Hong Kong, shipping large amounts of the narcotic to the United States. For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's maternal grandfather, Warren Delano, established their family's fortunes by shipping heroin to the United States. This highly lucrative trade gave rise to a global epidemic of opium addicts and later heroin addicts across the globe. Opium was not just a narcotic; it was a global commodity that was essential to building the wealth necessary to create the colonial empires of Europe. Colonial governments were granted monopolies on opium production, and the incredibly lucrative returns from such exploits allowed the colonial regimes to raise massive amounts of capital necessary to expand. Opium became a cash crop much like coffee, tea, sugar, and nicotine before its global prohibition in the 1930s. Opium was viewed as an accepted substance in the Western diet. To put this into perspective, in 1900, China's opium crop was comparable in bulk to Japan's tea production, an incredible commodity at the time. By the end of the 19th century, opium was replaced by the pharmaceutical morphine and the narcotic heroin, two chemical derivatives of the opium plant.

The Bayer Company, one of the six firms that would make up IG Farben, the German chemical firm that we talked about in episode 1, first synthesized heroin in 1898. Subsequently, in the early 20th century, heroin was used to treat a variety of illnesses and could be legally purchased from pharmacies across the United States and Europe. It was believed that the drug was not addictive and acted as a miraculous cure to all pain, although, as we know today, and they soon discovered at the time, heroin is highly addictive. In the 1920s, the United States and the rest of the world began the century-long policy of prohibition that would eventually evolve into the war on drugs in the 1960s. The League of Nations convened in the 1920s and 30s and created a series of global drug conventions to reduce the illegal production and sale of opiates around the world to curb addiction to this horrible narcotic. These measures decimated the legitimate opium industry but had a devastating side effect: prohibition drove all opium and heroin production underground towards organized crime and illegal organizations. Up to today, global heroin consumption and trade has not ceased; it has simply shifted towards the world of organized crime, and of course, this is where American intelligence: the OSS and the CIA became involved.

The Deep State Within and Without

As I pointed out in the above fragments, the Western empire is, in reality, an evil empire shaped by criminals, the drug trade, and murder. We can argue, as Aaron Good did, that capitalism as a system is inherently corrupt and inevitably leads to the creation of such a criminal empire.
Before the American capitalist empire, there was the British capitalist empire, which was also built on crime, drug trafficking, and violence.

Now, you might ask what this has to do with Israel. As Alex Krainer’s quote explains, the British were involved in the creation of Israel. As I have also established, the American deep state and the American crime syndicate were involved as well.
Israel was a joint venture of the British and American deep states to create an outpost in the Middle East, destabilizing the region to secure control over it. Israel functioned as a kind of Western "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the Middle East.
This idea was recently touched upon in a video from The Jimmy Dore Show, which discussed the Jordan Peterson controversy, where Peterson demanded antisemitic censorship from Joe Rogan.

28:04

Let's remember why they have to put this full-court press on and why they have to project their evil onto other people who are against the evil, because that's what this is. And they want guardrails, guardrails on Joe Rogan's show—the show you used to hate, but now you want them because somebody's telling the truth about Israel. This is the guy, remember this, this head guy at Palantir, a CIA think tank, is an often overlooked part of this battle. We kind of just think these things that are happening across college campuses especially are like a sideshow. No, they are the show, because if we lose the intellectual debate, you will not be able to deploy any army in the West ever.

So look, this fight against antisemitism is not about protecting Israel or Jewish people, and it’s not because Israel, Jews, or Mossad control the West. It's because the West needs narrative control regarding Israel in order to justify sending military forces to the Middle East to destabilize and control the region.
Israel serves as a Western vassal and a tool to control the Middle East, providing both an excuse and a narrative for Western intervention. It’s not that Israel compels the West to intervene on its behalf — rather, Israel’s creation was orchestrated by the West to provide a beachhead and a pretext for intervention and destabilization, serving not to protect Jews or Israel, but to advance the capitalist interests of our corrupt empire.

(Short side note for all you right-wing fanboys: how does it feel to see your great hero, Jordan Peterson, arguing for censorship to prevent antisemitism? The real left figured out long ago that Peterson was full of nonsense, but it’s funny now watching right-wingers perform mental gymnastics to defend him. Funny how he was so adamantly against "woke" censorship, yet now he argues for censorship to combat antisemitism. I love his pseudo-intellectual speeches trying to justify it.

1:28

But anyway, so listen to what he said to Joe Rogan. He says all the things that they complained about—establishment media, corporate media—saying about Joe Rogan during COVID, they are now going to do. But he does it in a very… a lot of words, uses a lot of words. Watch this. And so he… so Douglas Murray was the bad cop, and now Jordan Peterson is the good knight's cop. He's going to try and butter Joe up but try to get him to put guardrails. Watch.

...poked up into—well, you also set that conversation up—but it poked up and made itself manifest in that conversation. And the issue is, how do you identify the psychopathic pretenders, and it's even worse now, and then make a barrier? Right now, the right was calling for the left to do that for decades, and they didn't and they couldn't. And the left is not good at drawing barriers, partly temperamentally. The right is somewhat better, but there's no shortage of monstrosity there. And so then the question is, how do you draw the line? And that's kind of what I was… because I've been watching these right-wing—they're not right-wing—these psychopathic types manipulate the edge of the conservative movement for their own gain, and a lot of that's cloaked in anti-Semitic guise. There's plenty of anti-Semitism on the left too, by the way, so it's not unique to the right, but particularly now, yes, yes, yes, particularly now. And so, you know, you've let your curiosity guide you, your curiosity and your desire for knowledge, this quest. You've let that guide you as a podcaster. And I'm, by the way, I'm trying to work through exactly the same sort of thing. Um, how do you know, given your rapid increase in stature over the last 10 years, how do you know when your curiosity and even your skepticism about the fact that things aren't the way that people say they are—because that's certainly been demonstrated in the last 10 years—how should anyone decide what guardrails to put up? Like, what do you look for? Do you… do you have a conceptual system worked out for that? Like, in what… what do you mean, in what way? Well, how do I look for in terms of people to talk to? Yeah, yeah, because you have this insanely immense platform, and you're inviting people onto it, and you know, you said to Douglas, and I know this to be true, that you're not really thinking about the outcome exactly, you're thinking about, "This is an interesting person to talk to, and I'd like to go on that quest." But then you have the additional conundrum—we're trying to work this out on the Daily Wire side of things too, not to say that that's exactly the same situation—it's like, once you gain in reach and authority, then how do you know… that how do you take great care that the people you're talking to aren't, what would you say, eliciting or feeding a subculture? Yeah, that's right, that hasn't got the proper aims. Like, I guess the legacy media probably worked that out by having people, mediators, right, and guests, and that was also back when we could rely on the structures of authority in some sense to filter. And now we're in this helter-skelter world where everything is...

Now I would like to link a great video on “Orwell's Warning: The Insidious Nature of Political Language” and double speak.

6:29

A third kind of doublespeak is gobbledygook. This form of doublespeak involves overwhelming the audience with a barrage of words. The bigger the words and the longer the sentences, the better. The intent behind gobbledygook is to confuse and bewilder, making the speaker appear knowledgeable and authoritative while obscuring the actual message. By piling on jargon, technical terms, and unnecessarily complex language, the speaker can create an illusion of depth and expertise. This can effectively stifle critical thinking and prevent the listener from questioning or understanding the true meaning behind the words.

An example of gobbledygook can be seen in certain corporate communications or bureaucratic reports. Consider a memo from a company explaining a simple concept like cutting costs: "In alignment with our strategic operational objectives, we are initiating a paradigm shift in our financial allocation protocols to optimize resource utilization and enhance fiscal prudence across all verticals." While this sentence might sound impressive, upon closer examination, it essentially means "we are cutting costs." The use of inflated language and convoluted structure serves to obscure the simplicity of the message, making it harder for the audience to challenge or understand the underlying intent. This tactic can create a facade of sophistication, but it ultimately erodes clarity and transparency.

Funny how, during the fragment mentioning gobbledygook, Jordan Peterson is presented. This doublespeak gobbledygook is exactly what Jimmy pointed out: "But he does it in a very... a lot of words, uses a lot of words."

So this is for all the right-wing fanboys who see Jordan Peterson as their hero and so-called intellectual, while in reality, he simply uses doublespeak in the form of gobbledygook.)

Back to Israel

People in the American deep state, such as Allen Dulles, Meyer Lansky, and James Jesus Angleton, had a problem. While the OSS later became the CIA, meaning the American deep state was mostly outside the formal American state, it was not fully independent. The official American state still had some influence over the American deep state, and this was something these figures didn’t like. This is where Israel played another role. Israel was primarily created as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East, serving the West’s need to destabilize and control the region. But there was another function, as described in the title of this post: “the deep state within, deep state outside of state.” The American state had some control over the CIA and the American deep state, which is why the CIA (and the deep state) used Israel as a “the deep state within, deep state outside of state.” Israel doesn't have a constitution, and the American state has no control over Israel or Mossad. This served as a backup plan for the American deep state in case the American state attempted to challenge it.

Figures like Allen Dulles, Meyer Lansky, and James Jesus Angleton didn’t want their deep state to be controlled by the American state, so they used Israel and Mossad as a "the deep state within, deep state outside of state." This function became evident during the presidencies of JFK and Nixon. JFK wanted to dismantle the American deep state and fired Allen Dulles from his leadership role in the CIA. This is when Israel’s role as a "the deep state within, deep state outside of state." came into play. This is even somewhat proven by the declassification of recent JFK files, which show greater involvement of James Jesus Angleton. Aaron Good has also spoken about how Angleton used Mossad without informing the CIA, likely to help his real boss, Allen Dulles. After JFK’s assassination, Allen Dulles was put back into a leading position in the CIA, and not only that — he was also placed in charge of the JFK investigation, despite being one of the key figures behind the assassination.

This was the secret second role of Israel: beyond being an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East, providing justification for destabilizing and controlling the region, Israel also acted as “the deep state within deep state outside.” As I mentioned earlier, while the American deep state was mostly outside the control of the American state, there was still some influence, as seen when JFK fired Allen Dulles. This triggered the use of Israel as “the deep state within deep state outside of state,” allowing the CIA and crime syndicates to orchestrate the assassination of JFK on behalf of Allen Dulles. Israel was essentially a CIA project, an “the deep state within deep state outside of state,” designed to operate outside the formal control of the American government.

The real rulers of the Western empire were not the American presidents, any politicians, or Jews, but people like Allen Dulles, Meyer Lansky, and James Jesus Angleton. Nixon, unlike JFK, didn’t want to dismantle the deep state; he simply wanted to take control of it. Nixon wanted to be in charge of the deep state, the true power behind the throne, but that’s not how it worked. He was meant to be the public figurehead, the brand of the empire. That’s why people like Allen Dulles, Meyer Lansky, and James Jesus Angleton used organized crime and Israel to create the Watergate scandal and put Nixon in his place.

A similar thing happened with George H.W. Bush, who, after leading the CIA and becoming president, became too arrogant and wanted to control the deep state. When he transitioned from CIA leader to president, he forgot his real role — to be the public face of the empire, not the controller of the deep state. The CIA and the deep state put Bush in his place, making sure he would not win a second term, despite winning the Gulf War. He got too cocky and thought he could control the deep state, but they ensured his political downfall.

Conclusions

The capitalist West is an evil, criminal empire run by oligarchs, crime syndicates, drug dealers, and murderers, and Israel serves this empire as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East, with the purpose of destabilizing and controlling the region, as well as being "the deep state within deep state outside." It’s not that Jews control the world, but oligarchs do — people like Allen Dulles, who was not Jewish. Not all oligarchs are Jewish, and Israel is not protected because it is Jewish. It is protected because the Western capitalist oligarchy — which is not exclusively Jewish — needs Israel for its function as an aircraft carrier in the Middle East, with the purpose of destabilizing and controlling the region, and as “the deep state within deep state outside.”

Saying that Jews control the West or America is not correct. It may seem that way because the West and America defend Israel, but not because the oligarchs are Jewish. It’s because Israel serves the interests and functions of this Western capitalist oligarchy. This Western capitalist oligarchy doesn’t care about ethnicity or religion; they care only about power and money. They don’t have morals — power and money are their gods. They will work with anyone — Caucasians, Arabs, Asians, or anyone — to gain power and money. They don’t care about ethnicity or religion. As I wrote before, they would burn the Torah and piss on the Star of David if it meant gaining more power and money. So in what way are they Jewish? They are not Jewish. They are simply a capitalist oligarchy that cares only about power and money.

In the end, I would like to quote Christian Parenti:

You know, the American Empire is this very important thing for reproducing this system, which is screwing people all over the world economically. This is how the system of inequality that you all experience is reproduced, and we have to maintain it in the interests of Corporate America and capitalist ruling classes globally. You can’t say that publicly to voters. So, they come up with a digestible narrative for the audience, for the citizens who they treat like children.

We are their proles, treated like children. Israel serves as justification for our Western oppression of the Middle East, but they can’t say that to voters - to us, their proles, whom they treat like children. So, they need to come up with a digestible narrative for the audience, portraying the Middle East as full of evil, antisemitic Arabs/Muslims, and claiming that we need to protect the poor, innocent Jewish victims in Israel. That’s why we need to send armies to the Middle East.

If Israel and the myth of the “Clash of Civilizations” propagating Islamophobia did not exist, how would they explain sending our Western militaries to the Middle East? They can’t tell us - the proles they treat like children - the truth, that we send our Western armies to the Middle East to oppress and subjugate Arabs/Muslims. The truth cannot be spoken because, in the West, we are supposedly a force for good in this world, and we can’t admit that, in reality, we are an evil, criminal capitalist empire oppressing the whole world. After all, we have USAID, which we use to "help" those poor, stupid people in the third world, right?

I’ve written before that people in the third world are seen as Untermensch, just like Slavs and Jews were regarded as Untermensch in Nazi Germany. Just like the Germans in Nazi Germany thought it wasn’t their fault that the Untermensch - the Slavs and Jews - suffered, because they were simply inferior. In the same way, we in the Western world view the undeveloped third world. The third world suffers not because we in the West oppress them, but because they are simply worse than us, and we try to help them with things like USAID. Am I right?

P.S. There is a significant involvement of the Vatican and the Christian Church in all of this, which I didn’t mention. They also serve this criminal capitalist Western empire, and perhaps one day I will write about that too.

Anyway thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

“Official Washington cannot tell the American people that the real purpose of its gargantuan military expenditures and belligerent interventions is to make the world safe for General Motors, General Electric, General Dynamics, and all the other generals.”

― Michael Parenti

“What effect does having a whole society so ideologically motivated have, in your opinion?

Well, that’s the end result of decades of military propaganda in the United States, and it goes back to the Iliad. The rulers of society, who own the property and control the means of production, hire people like Homer to tell their story. Their story only focuses on the heroic soldier who goes off to fight in foreign wars and becomes a hero. It’s the hero myth. The myth tells us that the only way to become a true hero is to fight and die for your country overseas - supposedly in service of the nation, but really in service of corporations like General Electric, Morgan Stanley, and pharmaceutical companies.

This has nothing to do with the 90% of the population who don’t want to get involved in wars or see their sons and daughters sent off to die. But enough people buy into this hero myth. It’s everywhere in the media, which is why Ken Burns can get away with calling the Vietnam War a ‘noble cause.’ Otherwise, he’d be saying that the soldiers who fought and died there did so for nothing. You can’t have that in America. America can’t be a near-imperial power without a steady conveyor belt of cannon fodder.

That’s the purpose of military propaganda, based on this idea of the hero myth ingrained in Western literature. After the Vietnam War, there were one or two anti-war films, but then movies like Rambo and The Deer Hunter came along - which could just as easily have been called ‘Hate Hunter.’ The Vietnamese were portrayed as evil, while the only victims shown were American soldiers.

The narrative since then has portrayed American soldiers as the sole victims of the Vietnam War. You never hear about the landmines still scattered across Vietnam, the people dying from Agent Orange, or the sanctions that crippled the country until 1991. You never hear about the enemy’s suffering, only about American soldiers, because they’re the heroes.

That’s the nature of military propaganda: it’s become more ideological, more fascist, and more ingrained. Many people really believe this myth. The whole purpose of their life is to join the military and fight in foreign wars. If they can’t, they become mercenaries. Our society glorifies violence in defense of the country.

Pacifists, like those in Ukraine, are vilified. You can’t be a pacifist in Ukraine today. Zelensky has essentially outlawed pacifism. This situation has been evolving for decades and is now playing out on the Ukraine-Russia border. A lot of it has to do with the mythology of the war hero and the fascist military-industrial state. Communism was supposed to counteract this, but it got off track a long time ago. Fighting it is hard, and the fascists have gone all in. The world is getting smaller, and only the strong survive. Fascists have always glorified strength, commitment to ideology, and violence—just like the Nazis. No mercy for the enemy. That’s what’s happening now, and that’s why Americans support it. They’ve been trained to believe that’s how the world works, and how it must work.”

― Douglas Valentine

“The expansionary dynamic of Western culture has been the root, the denominating constant, of modern history. The grandeur of Western liberalism, its material abundance, the flourishing of its arts and sciences, its painful construction of constitutional democracy -- these interconnected achievements have been financed by the sustained theft called imperialism.”

― Carl Oglesby

"And I stand to fight, as before, against the primary evil of the state (world): the rule of unruly parties and factions over Poland (world), the forgetting of intangible values, and the remembering of nothing but money and personal gain."

― Józef Piłsudski