Behind USS Liberty Cover-up: Israeli Threats Against LBJ

MKitch3|Sept. 25,2025

MK3 Blog is reposting an article and documentary  that contain explosive, largely unknown information about Israel’s 1967 attack on a U.S. Navy ship that was intended to sink the ship with all men aboard. 

The information details how Israel was able to induce the U.S. government to cover up the attack.

President Lyndon Johnson had told the media, off the record, that Israel had intentionally attacked the ship.

When Israel and its friends in major Jewish organizations learned that Johnson had done this, declassified Israeli documents now show that they threatened Johnson with ‘blood libel’ and gross anti-Semitism, which would end his political career.

Many of Johnson’s closest advisors were Israel partisans who secretly reported back to Tel Aviv on his every move.

To protect their contacts’ identities, the Israelis used codenames in their communications with them: 

“Hamlet” was Abe Feinberg, one of the most influential fundraisers ever in Democratic Party politics, whose phone calls Johnson couldn’t afford to ignore; “Menashe” was Arthur Goldberg, the U.S ambassador to the United Nations; “Harari” was David Ginsberg, a prominent Washington lawyer who represented the Israeli embassy; and “Ilan” was Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, a longtime Johnson confidant who had dined with the President on the eve of the Six-Day War. (LBJ owed his political career to “Ilan”/Fortas)

The Israeli government hired teams of lawyers, including close friends of Johnson, and began an “all-out offensive” to influence media coverage of the attack, leaning on them to kill critical stories and slant others in Israel’s favor…

By Maidhc Ó Cathail, Reposted from Consortium News, November 12, 2014

The Day Israel Attacked America,” an investigation into Israel’s deadly June 8, 1967, attack on the USS Liberty at the height of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, was aired on Al Jazeera America [after U.S. broadcasters had refused to work on the project – see the director’s statement below].

Directed by British filmmaker Richard Belfield, the documentary confirms not only that the attack on the U.S. Navy spy ship was deliberate, an undisputed fact long accepted by all but the most shameless Israeli apologists, but reveals, perhaps for the first time, how Tel Aviv was able to induce the U.S. government to cover up an attack that killed 34 and injured 171 of its own seamen by a supposed “ally.” 

USS Liberty (AGTR-5) receives assistance from units of the Sixth Fleet after she was attacked and seriously damaged by Israeli forces off the Sinai Peninsula on June 8, 1967. (US Navy photo) 

“It was especially tough for Lyndon Johnson, to date the most pro-Israeli American president in history,” the film’s narrator observed. According to Tom Hughes, the State Department’s director of intelligence and research at the time of the Liberty attack, “Johnson was in a very tough mood.”

As an indication of Johnson’s initial firm stance, Hughes recalled that Johnson briefed Newsweek magazine off the record that the Israelis had attacked the Liberty, suggesting that they may have done so because they believed that the naval intelligence-gathering ship had been intercepting Israeli as well as Egyptian communications.

A post-interview leak revealing that it was the President himself who had briefed the media about the attack on the Liberty alarmed the Israeli embassy in Washington and its friends in the major Jewish organizations, who intimated that Johnson’s Newsweek briefing “practically amounted to blood libel.”

The documentary’s narrator said declassified Israeli documents now show that “they were going to threaten President Johnson with ‘blood libel’, gross anti-Semitism, and that would end his political career.”

“Blackmail!” retired U.S. Navy admiral Bobby Ray Inman frankly summed up Israel’s strategy to deal with Johnson. “[T]hey know if he is thinking about running again, he’s going to need money for his campaign,” said Inman, who from 1977 to 1981 directed the National Security Agency, the U.S. intelligence agency under whose aegis the USS Liberty had been dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean. “So alleging that he’s blood-libeling is going to arouse the Jewish donors.”

The Israeli government hired teams of lawyers, including close friends of Johnson, the narrator added, and began an “all-out offensive” to influence media coverage of the attack, leaning on them to kill critical stories and slant others in Israel’s favor.

“There was a campaign mounted to see what could be done about returning Johnson to his normal, predictable pro-Israeli position,” Hughes said. “Efforts were to be made to remind the President of the delicacy of his own position, that he personally might lose support for his run for reelection in 1968.”

Israelis Bearing Gifts

Noting the cleverness of Israel’s tactics, the documentary revealed that after having identified the Vietnam War as Johnson’s “soft spot,” it quietly provided him with “two extraordinary gifts.”

The first addressed the President’s bitterness toward many American Jewish organizations and community leaders over their opposition to his Vietnam policy. But as the Liberty crisis unfolded, Hughes said, “they were suddenly becoming more silent on Vietnam.” Johnson was made to understand that taking a more “moderate” position toward Israel over the attack would benefit him politically.

The second gift was a vital military one. The U.S. military in Tel Aviv received a surprise visit. “I think I have something you might be interested in,” a senior Israeli intelligence officer told him. The Israelis had just crossed the Red Sea to capture the Egyptian military’s Soviet-supplied surface-to-air missiles, the same ones the North Vietnamese were using to bring down American aircraft on a daily basis.

As a show of gratitude, the U.S. government gave the Israelis two gifts in return. The Johnson administration resupplied them with the weapons they had used in their six-day land grab of territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The White House also decided to water down the Defense Department’s inquiry into the attack on the Liberty.

As Hughes explained, “Soon Johnson did respond, and took a much more lenient line and wished that the whole incident could be put behind us as soon as possible.”

Johnson’s “softer approach” to Israel was reflected in the U.S. Navy inquiry then underway on board the Liberty. As one of the survivors recalled, the Liberty’s crew began to realize that “a cover-up was descending” upon them. Among key testimony ignored was the strafing of the Liberty’s deck with napalm and the machine-gunning of the sinking ship’s lifeboats.

Without interviewing any Israelis involved in the attack, the U.S. court of inquiry rushed out a report, hurriedly completed in a mere 20 days, exonerating Israel from blame. Tel Aviv quickly followed up with its own report that concluded that the whole incident was “a series of mistakes, and that no one was to blame.”

Ignoring a secret telegram from its ambassador in Washington advising that Tel Aviv admit its guilt in light of America’s possession of an incriminating audio tape of the attack, Israel instead shifted its focus to repairing the damage to its relationship with the U.S.

“The Israelis have always been very skillful at tracking what the U.S. government is doing, saying, thinking, and efforts to influence it,” Inman pointed out. “And the great advantage they have as compared to other countries is their influence on the Congress.”

A timely Washington Post report noted that “the Jewish lobby could help determine the outcome of 169 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.”

As Johnson considered his re-election prospects, Hughes said the “emotive” language used in earlier Pentagon press releases disappeared and was replaced by “a much more bland and neutral-sounding discourse.”

“But whatever was said to journalists,” the narrator added, “every U.S. intelligence head believed that the attack was intentional.” As one of them colorfully wrote at the time, “a nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept xxxxxxxx.” Though shown but not mentioned in the film, the next sentence of the intelligence chief’s letter stated the obvious: “If the attackers had not been Hebrew, there would have been quite a commotion.”

“The Jewish community has always been more generous than many of their other counterparts in supporting financially elections, political causes,” Inman observed. “In the process, that does translate into influence.”

Israel’s White House Friends

Israel’s influence inside the White House was even more significant. “Many of Johnson’s closest friends and advisors were pro-Israeli, and they reported back to Tel Aviv on his every move,” the film asserted.

If anything, this understated Israeli influence. As Grace Halsell, a staff writer for Johnson, later wrote, “Everyone around me, without exception, was pro-Israel.”

Thanks to its supporters surrounding Johnson, the narrator claimed that the Israeli government was able to constantly shift its story “to counter whatever new intelligence the White House received.”

To protect their contacts’ identities, the Israelis used codenames in their communications with them. “The Day Israel Attacked America,” however, revealed for the first time the identities of four of these pro-Israeli eyes and ears inside the Johnson administration.

“Hamlet” was Abe Feinberg, one of the most influential fundraisers ever in Democratic Party politics, whose phone calls Johnson couldn’t afford to ignore*; “Menashe” was Arthur Goldberg, the U.S ambassador to the United Nations; “Harari” was David Ginsberg, a prominent Washington lawyer who represented the Israeli embassy**; and “Ilan” was Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, a longtime Johnson confidant who had dined with the President on the eve of the Six-Day War.

It would hardly be an overstatement to say that the President owed his political career to “Ilan”/Fortas. As biographer Robert A. Caro has written, Johnson “largely through the legal genius of his ally Abe Fortas, managed, by a hairbreadth, to halt a federal court’s investigation into the stealing of the 1948 election,” in a reference to LBJ’s first Senate race.

[Editor’s note: Author James scott reports that Israeli documents also revealed that Eugene Rostow, third in command in the U.S. State Department, repeatedly shared privileged information about U.S. strategy with Israeli diplomats.” (His brother, Walt Rostow, was national security advisor to Johnson at the time.)] 

[Editor’s note: For more on Fortas see “Fortas, Breyer, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Ginsburg: Israel partisans”.]

According to the documentary, it was “Menashe”/Goldberg who supplied Israel with the key intelligence. Goldberg warned the Israelis that the U.S. had an audio tape that confirmed the Israeli pilots knew the Liberty was an American ship before they attacked.

“The strategy worked,” concluded Belfield’s documentary. “The U.S.-Israeli relationship proved to be stronger than the killing and injuring of more than 200 Americans.”

But it wasn’t always a foregone conclusion. As Hughes put it, “The American-Israeli relationship was very much at stake, and it was brought back from the precipice.”

“The Day Israel Attacked America” ends with a scene of surviving veterans of the USS Liberty laying a wreath on their murdered comrades’ memorial headstone and a prescient observation by the U.S. undersecretary of state at the time of the attack.

“It seemed clear to the Israelis that as American leaders did not have the courage to punish them for the blatant murder of American citizens,” George Ball noted, “they would let them get away with anything.” 

Maidhc Ó Cathail was a widely published writer and political analyst. He was also the creator and editor of The Passionate Attachment blog, which focused primarily on the U.S.-Israeli relationship.


FILMMAKER’S VIEW

By director Richard Belfield

I was first told about the attack on the USS Liberty in 1980 over dinner with a former analyst from the National Security Agency (NSA) in Washington DC.

Back in 1980, I promised my friend that if I ever got the chance I would make a film about it. Over the years, I pitched the idea to numerous broadcasters and always got the same response: eyes rolled upwards, usually followed by the statement, “Are you completely mad?”

Fast forward to 2009 and I was a guest speaker at the NSA’s biennial conference on historical cryptography, talking about an unsolved code on an 18th century monument in an English stately home.

While there, I went to two other sessions – both about attacks on American signal intelligence naval vessels.

The first was the capture of the US spy ship, the Pueblo (boarded by North Korean forces in 1968 – and never returned). The survivors of that incident were treated like heroes and feted on stage.

The next day there was a session about the USS Liberty. James Scott, who has written easily the best book on the Liberty attack [The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship], was on stage and limited to his allotted 20 minutes. Ranged against him were three Israeli apologists, all of whom were allowed to overrun their time. Survivors from the Liberty affair were allowed to sit in the audience, but they were denied any say in proceedings.

As an Englishman, I was brought up with a strong sense of fair play and I thought this was a disgrace. It was gruesome to watch. First, the crew had been attacked in broad daylight by a close ally, then they were betrayed by their government and now they were being humiliated by the same agency many had worked for back in 1967.

Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Isreali Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film.

On location, it all started with James Scott (who gets a co-producer credit on this project). When writing his book, he had already interviewed the survivors as well as many of the key people in the Washington political and intelligence machine from that time. The introductions he made would prove invaluable as we began filming interviews.

The veterans were extraordinary. One after another, they were generous with their time, uniformly eloquent and passionate and above all, honest in their recollections.

They all felt betrayed by the American government but were keen to exonerate ordinary Jewish people both in Israel and without, for any responsibility for the incident. Their beef was simply with the senior Israeli officers in the control room and their superiors higher up the command chain who had ordered the attack.

After a few days filming, I rang Elaine Morris, my producer back in London. She asked how things were going. All I could say was that the quality of the interviews was the best I had ever experienced in many decades in this business.

In Texas we interviewed Bobby Ray Inman, an intelligence officer with a glittering track record at the CIA, Naval Intelligence and as a former director of the NSA. My contacts in the UK intelligence world had always told me “he is one of the good guys” and I quickly discovered why. He was frank and clear. The top Israeli commanders, he explained, had known exactly what they were doing when they attacked the Liberty and when it came to holding them to account, the US government rolled over for them.

We filmed an annual memorial ceremony in Washington, D.C. It was emotional, visceral and tense, with survivors, family and friends gathered in the morning sun. Listening to a sole bugler playing the US Navy’s lament, ‘Taps’ is a memory that will never fade.

Years earlier, I had visited the US military graves in Arlington Cemetery but now, following the ceremony, I got to go there again with Dave Lucas, one of the survivors of the attack and a truly wonderful man.

We filmed as he walked up the hill carrying a wreath from the ceremony. Alongside him was a crew member, a Portuguese language specialist, who had left the Liberty in Spain just a few days before it sailed off up the Mediterranean to take up position off the Egyptian coast. He had been temporarily replaced for the mission by an Arab linguist. He wept openly for the comrades he had said goodbye to, never to see again. As we filmed the pair laying the flowers, an interview with one of the other survivors, Jim Kavanagh came suddenly to mind. “I went through hell,” he had said about his shipmates. “But they left this earth.”

Finally, we filmed on a sister ship to the Liberty, now moored in San Francisco. The crew hauled an outsized US flag up a mast for us. The flag – known as the “holiday colours” – was identical to that which was flown from the Liberty on June 8, 1967. It was huge, clearly visible for miles, and I knew immediately that no one could ever have been in any doubt about the nationality of the ship beneath it.

Watching the Stars and Stripes unfurl into the wind, I realised that I had got to keep the promise I first made to my friend in a Washington restaurant 34 years ago. 


*Abe Feinberg: 

Excerpt: “One person key in such Zionist financial connections to Truman was Abraham Feinberg, a wealthy businessman who was later to play a similar role with President Johnson. 
“While many Americans have been aware of Truman‘s come-from-behind win over Dewey, few people know about the critical role of Feinberg and the Zionist lobby in financing Truman‘s victory. After Feinberg financed Truman‘s famous whistle-stop campaign tour, Truman credited him with his presidential win. (When the CIA later discovered that Feinberg also helped to finance illegal gun-running to Zionist groups, the Truman administration looked the other way.)”

**David Ginsberg: 

Ginsberg was an American political advisor, lawyer, and consummate Washington insider. He was a founder of Americans for Democratic Action, executive director of the Kerner Commission, held a position at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with the assistance of Felix Frankfurter (Israel partisan), successfully represented Henry Kissinger in his battle to keep private the transcripts of his telephone conversations while serving as secretary of state and national security adviser under President Richard Nixon, and as counsel to the Jewish Agency’s office in Washington, was part of an inner circle of advisers to the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann and helped smooth the way to the Truman administration’s recognition of the new state of Israel, with Mr. Weizmann as its first president, in 1948. 


David Irving: Introduction to The Leuchter Report+ The Leuchter Report

UNLIKE THE WRITING OF HISTORY chemistry is an exact science. Old fashioned historians have always conducted endless learned debates about meanings and interpretations, and the more indolent among them have developed a subsidiary Black Art of dreading between the lines", as a substitute for wading into the archives of World War II documents which are now available in embarrassing abundance.

Recently, however, the more daring modern historians have begun using the tools of forensic science -- carbon-dating, gas chromatography, and simple ink-aging tests -- to examine, and not infrequently dispel, some of the more tenaciously held myths of the twentieth century.

Sometimes the public is receptive to the results, sometimes not. The negative result of the laboratory analysis of the ancient Shroud of Turin is one example: it is not a deliberate fake, perhaps, but nor was it nearly as old as the priests would have had centuries of gullible tourists believe.

It is unlikely that the world's public will be as receptive, yet, to the results of the professional and dispassionate chemical examination of the remains of the wartime Auschwitz concentration camp which is at the centre of this report.

Nobody likes to be swindled, still less where considerable sums of money are involved. (Since 1949 the State of Israel has received over 90 billion Deutschmarks in voluntary reparations from West Germany, essentially in atonement for the "gas chambers of Auschwitz".) And this myth will not die easily: Too many hundreds of millions of honest, intelligent people have been duped by the well-financed and brilliantly successful postwar publicity campaign which followed on from the original ingenious plan of the British Psychological Warfare Executive (PWE,) in 1942 to spread to the world the propaganda story that the Germans were using "gas chambers" to kill millions of Jews and other "undesirables".

As late as August 1943 the head of the PWE minuted the Cabinet secretly that despite the stories they were putting out, there was not the slightest evidence that such contraptions existed, and he continued with a warning that stories from Jewish sources in this connection were particularly suspect.

As a historian I have, on occasion, had recourse to fraud laboratories to test controversial documents for their authenticity. In the late 1960s I discarded certain diaries of Vice Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, offered to myself and the publishers William Collins Ltd., since Messrs. Hehner & Cox Ltd. of the City of London advised me that the ink used for one signature did not exist during the war years. It was I who exposed the "Hitler Diaries" as fakes, at Der Stern's famous international press conference in Hamburg in April 1983.

And yet I have to admit that it would never have occurred to me to subject the actual fabric of the Auschwitz concentration camp and its "gas chambers"--the holiest shrines of this new Twentieth Century religion--to chemical tests to see if there was any trace of cyanide compounds in the walls.

The truly astounding results are as set out in this report: while significant quantities of cyanide compounds were found in the small de-lousing facilities of the camp where the proprietary (and lethal) Zyklon B compound was used, as all are agreed, to disinfect the plague-ridden clothing of all persons entering these brutal slave-labour camps, no significant trace whatsoever was found in the buildings which international opinion -- for it is not more than that--has always labelled as the camp's infamous gas chambers. Nor, as the report's gruesomely expert author makes plain, could the design and construction of those buildings have made their use as mass gas- chambers feasible under any circumstances.

For myself shown this evidence for the first time when called as an expert witness at the Zündel trial in Toronto in April 1988, the laboratory reports were shattering. There could be no doubt as to their integrity. I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see more rigorous methods used in identifying and certifying the samples taken for analysis, but I accept without reservation the difficulties that the examining team faced on location in what is now Poland: chiselling out the samples from the hallowed site under the very noses of the new camp guards. The video tapes made simultaneously by the team--which I have studied--provide compelling visual evidence of the scrupulous methods that they used.

Until the end of this tragic century there will always be incorrigible historians, statesmen, and publicists who are content to believe, or have no economically viable alternative but to believe, that the Nazis used "gas chambers" at Auschwitz to kill human beings. But it is now up to them to explain to me as an intelligent and critical student of modern history why there is no significant trace of any cyanide compound in the building which they have always identified as the former gas chambers.

Forensic chemistry is, I repeat, an exact science.

The ball is in their court.

David Irving London, W. 1 May 1989

The Leuchter Report via video.

The Leuchter Report via pdf

The Second Leuchter Report via pdf

David Irving comments



Narrative Weapons: DARPA’s Map of the Mind. When stories become warfare: reading the ‘Narrative Disruptors’ proposal.

MKitch3|Sept. 25,2025


This is a DARPA project that took place 2012-2013. Part of the project's description:


Toward Narrative Disruptors and Inductors: Mapping the Narrative Comprehension Network and its Persuasive Effects Mapping the Narrative Comprehension Network: Towards Narrative Disruptors and Inductors This project investigates cognitive activity and narrative in the context of persuasive rhetoric in a multidisciplinary manner that significantly advances the knowledge base of neuroscience, narrative studies, and social and cognitive psychology. A critical goal of the project is to come to a greater understanding of the role narrative plays in encouraging individuals to support or participate in political violence and be subject to extremist recruitment. One key advantage of this proposal is the testing of the vertical integration paradigm that can be used to investigate neural networks. This addresses TA 1 Sub-goal One, to develop new and extend existing narrative theories. It also addresses TA 2 Sub-goal Two, Three, and Five, understanding narrative impact on neurobiology of learning, memory, and identity; narrative impact on neurobiology of emotion; and narrative impacts on neurobiological bases of theory of mind. Generally, participants will view a series of video vignettes that either map or do not map local narratives onto a master narrative framework drawn from their religious affiliation (Christian or Muslim). Link to the AZ grant website. This is the link to the 128 page document

We like to think narratives—the stories we tell, the frameworks we believe—are soft things: culture, art, persuasion. DARPA sees them differently: as systems, networks, nodes that can be disrupted or induced. In their 2011 proposal.

In other words: “belief engineering.” The kind of stuff sci-fi warns you about.

I read it, cringed, and found three major takeaways—and two big questions we must ask ourselves.

Note: This is a long read. I did not hold back.
If you skip to the bottom, there’s a TL;DR + questions I want to see you wrestle with.

What the document is (and what it claims to do)

DARPA’s project frames “narrative comprehension” as a network—a complex system in your brain (or culture) that digests facts, stories, metaphors, frames. The proposal’s ambition: identify disruptors (things that break or shift narratives) and inductors (things that build or reinforce narratives).

Key claims:

  • Narratives can be decomposed into components, nodes, relations, etc.

  • It’s possible to detect the “fault lines” where narratives are vulnerable (to disruption) or fortifiable (to induction).

  • Through computational, neuroscientific, semantic, and social network techniques, one could intervene—i.e. tweak public belief, steer discourse, “nudge” large populations’ worldview.

  • The project spans multiple levels: individual cognition (EEG, semantics) up through collective social and media systems.

In sum: DARPA is proposing not just persuasion, but structural narrative warfare.


Three things that jumped out (because they’re scary or illuminating)

1. The mechanistic worldview

DARPA treats belief, meaning, narrative like hardware and software. Words, metaphors, frames = modules you can insert, delete, corrupt. That’s chilling. People are messy. Emotions, contradictions, identity—all resist clean modularization. Yet this proposal acts as if stories are legos, waiting to be snapped together or ripped apart.

I don’t think humans can be fully reduced that way. But if you buy the premise even 30%, the possibility of mass influence is terrifying.

2. Scaling from micro to macro

The proposal doesn’t just want to tinker with an individual’s understanding. It wants to scale — push on culture, media, networks, influencers. You aren’t just persuading one person; you’re bending entire discourse ecosystems.

This reminds me of how social media algorithms amplify. DARPA wants to feed in nodes, see ripples, adjust. In effect: “narrative feedback loops” as weapons.

3. The ethically undeclared war

DARPA documents often hide the moral framing in euphemism. This proposal claims benign goals: resilience, narrative countermeasures, protecting societies. But what constitutes “undesirable narrative”? Who decides?

This is weaponization of belief, under the guise of defense. That’s a slippery slope into Orwellian territory.

Structure + logic (how the proposal is laid out)

  1. Narrative decomposition: break stories into semantic primitives, causal chains, rhetorical devices.

  2. Vulnerability mapping: find weak spots where narratives fracture or shift easily.

  3. Induction strategies: methods to amplify or embed narratives—via agents, media, social networks.

  4. Intervention experiments: test on small populations, see how narrative spreads, measure via EEG, sentiment, discourse changes.

  5. Feedback loops: real-time monitoring, adjusting interventions dynamically.

You see how this is more than theory. It’s a control system + experiment + continuous optimization.


Risks, gaps, and red flags

  • Overconfidence in model accuracy
    When you assert you fully map narrative networks, any error or bias—and there will be many—could lead to dramatic misfires. Wrong narrative pushes, backlashes, or worse.

  • Ethics and oversight vacuum
    DARPA is under the defense umbrella. The proposal’s checks and balances (if any) are internal and arcane. Civil society may never see when or how this is used.

  • Resilience of alternative narratives
    People don’t always behave rationally. Counter-narratives, irrational loyalty, identity, trauma—all resist algorithmic manipulation.

  • Scale mismatch
    Testing on a small population is not the same as rolling out at scale. Effects might deviate wildly when spread across cultures, languages, identities.

  • Autonomy inversion
    If your beliefs are being nudged by hidden forces, is your autonomy intact? This is a fundamental philosophical risk.


Why this matters now

Narrative warfare isn’t hypothetical. Look around: disinformation, gaslighting, polarization, algorithmic echo chambers — they’re structural, not random. Projects like this accelerate the ability of states (or private actors) to embed narratives that silence, distract, or reshape collective will.

If we don’t understand how stories are being engineered, we’ll never know when we’re being manipulated.


What we should demand

  • Transparency about whether any of this is in operation now (spoiler: almost certainly).

  • Independent oversight — ethical boards that include philosophers, sociologists, ethicists, not just tech.

  • Public literacy in narrative mechanics — so people can spot manipulation.

  • Robust freedom of narratives — legal, cultural, technological spaces where counter-stories can persist.

  • Limits on deployment in domestic contexts (propaganda, political persuasion).


Final thoughts & provocations

DARPA’s narrative proposal is a blueprint. It’s a bet: that stories can be engineered. Whether or not it succeeds, it reveals how powerful belief infrastructures are seen by the military-industrial complex.

TL;DR
DARPA’s Toward Narrative Disruptors and Inductors treats narratives as networks to manipulate. It’s a mix of neuroscience, semantic modeling, social engineering. The ambition is huge — and so are the dangers. The proposal errs on mechanistic reductionism, lacks transparent ethics, and presumes controllability.

Questions I leave you with:

  1. If you could reverse-engineer a dominant narrative (say on politics or climate), what nodes would you identify as vulnerable?

  2. How do you defend your own narrative space — i.e. the stories you believe and the frameworks you use?

  3. Can human unpredictability be a defense mechanism against narrative engineering?

  4. At what point do “public goods” narratives (e.g. health, security) become Trojan horses for persuasion?






The State of Siege: How America’s Language of War Becomes Domestic Policy

MKitch3|Sept. 26,2025.

War doesn’t start with tanks. It starts with words. Strip a people of their humanity, brand them “radical” or “enemy,” and you’ve done the hard work before the first shot is fired. That trick isn’t new—it’s the oldest weapon in the American arsenal.

This country was baptized in violence. The Revolution? War. Expansion? Endless campaigns against Indigenous nations, often justified by calling them “savages.” Slavery? A war against human dignity itself, maintained by lash, gun, and statute. When peace broke out, it was never more than an intermission before the next excuse to flex military muscle—whether across the seas in the Philippines or in our own streets during Reconstruction.

The formula is simple: dehumanize, delegitimize, destroy. The rhetoric hasn’t aged a day. The language once aimed at tribes, abolitionists, and strikers has been recycled, polished, and pointed at “terrorists” and “extremists” today. Different century, same script.

And here’s where it turns inward. Citizens—the people allegedly protected by the Constitution—now find themselves described in government briefings the same way Indigenous nations once were. “They” are dangerous. “They” must be monitored. “They” are expendable. Replace “they” with “you,” and the mask slips.

I’m not making this personal for drama; I’m making it personal because it is. I’ve seen how quick the state is to label, how easily neighbors begin to parrot the same script, how fast ordinary dissent gets filed under “threat.” This is how democracy curdles into paranoia.

Here’s the bitter truth: the state loves war because war makes power efficient. When a people are dehumanized, you don’t have to debate them, you don’t have to answer their grievances, you don’t have to see them. You just act. You surveil, you isolate, you crush. It is cheaper than governing honestly, and America has chosen cheap violence over costly honesty more times than I can count.

And you, reader—don’t pretend you’re outside this cycle. Every time you nod along to headlines that reduce people to caricatures, you grease the gears. Every time you swallow “security” as a blank check, you help set the stage for the next round of domestic enemies. That stage is already lit.

The question isn’t whether America wages war against its own. The question is how much longer you’ll tolerate the farce that this isn’t war at all. Call it what it is. Recognize the pattern. Because if you don’t, don’t act surprised when you wake up and find out the “enemy” is you.


An American Holocaust

An American Holocaust

by Christopher Bollyn 

25-Sep-2007

The thousands of lives lost in the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center were innocent victims of a holocaust. The word "Holocaust" derives from the Greek words "holos" (completely) and "kaustos" (burned sacrificial offering) meaning complete destruction by fire. The correct usage and meaning of this word, however, have been distorted by Zionist propagandists, who have sought to trademark the word as a proper noun to signify the loss of Jewish lives in World War II.

"Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God," The American Heritage Dictionary says about the word's history.

Holocaust means complete destruction by fire with extensive loss of life as it comes from the Greek holokauston, which means "that which is completely burnt."

"Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans," according to the American Heritage Dictionary's note on usage.

ACTUAL HOLOCAUSTS

I personally know of several actual holocausts in modern times in which there were "massive destruction of humans" by fire caused by other humans: the fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities, most notably Dresden on February 13-14, 1945; the massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas on April 19, 1993; and the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

The entire center of Dresden, the beautiful Saxon capital, was completely consumed by fire on Ash Wednesday 1945 after the Anglo-American fire bombing raids of February 13 and 14, 1945. According to August Kuklane, an eyewitness, some 600,000 people, including many thousands of refugees, had been living in the city center that was incinerated as they slept.

The U.S. mass media does not use the term "holocaust" to refer to the destruction of thousands of lives by fire in the World Trade Center because the word has been usurped by Zionist propagandists. The controlled media in the United States also completely avoids discussing the evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of the 9-11 holocaust.

Although it is extremely unpleasant to contemplate, it must be remembered that hundreds of innocent Americans and other people were literally roasted alive in the upper floors of the twin towers before they collapsed. Besides the fires that were caused by the airplane fuel, there is evidence that there were large amounts of Thermite involved in the destruction of the three collapsed towers. Many people chose to jump from the 110-story towers rather than die from the extreme heat they were subjected to.

The Sunday Herald of Glasgow, Scotland, and Neil Mackay, Scotland's News Journalist of the Year for 2002, could teach American newspapermen something about journalism and what a "free press" really looks like. Mackay wrote an excellent article about the abundance of evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of 9-11. Mackay's piece was published in the Sunday Herald on November 2, 2003:

There was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

After being detained for two months, the five Israeli intelligence agents were returned to Israel on "visa violations." In Israel, three of the men discussed what they had been through on an Israeli television talk show, where Oded Ellner (center in photo below) made this revealing comment:  "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.”

Mackay asks the question U.S. journalists are afraid to even think: But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?  "Put together," Mackay concluded, "the facts do appear to indicate that Israel knew that 9-11, or at least a large-scale terror attack, was about to take place on American soil, but did nothing to warn the USA."

The controlled media in the United States avoids the facts of Israeli prior knowledge because it is evidence of Israeli involvement in the terror attacks of 9-11. This is obviously a taboo subject in the Zionist-controlled media. The facts, however, indicate that many Israelis knew that 9-11 would take place. Warnings conveyed on the Israeli-owned Odigo instant messaging system two hours before the attacks were precise to the minute.

Odigo, a company partly-owned and financed by the Israeli criminal Kobi Alexander, had its U.S. headquarters only two blocks from the World Trade Center, yet Odigo failed to pass the warning it had received on to the authorities in New York, a move that would have saved thousands of lives. Two weeks after 9-11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, said, "The messages said something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time, and it did – almost to the minute."

The Washington Post briefly reported about the evidence of Israeli prior knowledge on October 4, 2001 on page A-24:

Another possible hint of the plot came two hours before planes crashed into the World Trade Center, when two employees of Odigo Inc. in Herzliya, Israel, received electronic instant messages declaring that some sort of attack was about to take place. The notes ended with an anti-Semitic slur.

"The messages said something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time, and it did -- almost to the minute," said Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales for the high-tech company, which also has offices in Lower Manhattan. He said the employees did not know the person who sent the message, but they traced it to a computer address and have given that information to the FBI.

What is most striking about the media censorship of the Odigo (Comverse) story of prior knowledge of 9-11 is that it was never reported in any of the New York newspapers. The New York Times only published two articles in which it discussed the five dancing Israelis.

The first, "5 Young Israelis, Caught in Net of Suspicion" was published on October 8, 2001 on page F-3. The article suggests that the five Israeli agents were completely innocent:

By some accounts, they seemed to be making light of the tragic situation.

Besides the cash [$4,700 in the socks] and the [multiple] passports, one man had fresh pictures of the smoldering wreckage of the trade center in his camera, images he had captured by standing rather conspicuously on the room of the van.

The Times article names the five Israelis: Oded Ellner, Omer Gavriel Marmari, Yaron Shmuel, and the brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg. The article contains an interesting choice of words used by Yigal Tzarfati, an Israeli consul in New York, who referred to the World Trade Center attacks as "bombings": "This is a huge misunderstanding," Tzarfati told the Times. The five Israeli agents "have nothing to do with the bombings."

On November 21, 2001, the New York Times published its second article about the five Israelis in a piece titled "Dozens of Israeli Jews Are Being Kept in Federal Detention." The article by Tamar Lewin and Alison Cowan was published on the day the last two Israeli Mossad agents were returned to Israel and appeared on page B-7:

In New York, immigration officials began deporting five young Israeli moving men who have been in federal custody since Sept. 11. Two of the deportees, Oded Ellner and Omer Gavriel Marmari, landed in Tel Aviv yesterday. The others, Paul Kurzberg and his brother Sivan, and Yaron Shmuel, were expected to fly to Israel today.

The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins and making light of the situation. One photograph developed by the F.B.I. showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background, said Steven Noah Gordon, a lawyer for the five.

As objectionable as their behavior may be, Mr. Gordon said of their long incarceration, ''It's not a crime and they were being treated as if it was.''

The five were asked to take polygraph tests before being allowed to leave. But Paul Kurzberg refused on principle to divulge much about his role in the Israeli army or subsequently working for people who may have had ties to Israeli intelligence, Mr. Gordon said. His client had trouble with one seven-hour polygraph test administered last week, but did better on a second try.

The Forward, New York City's leading Jewish newsapaper, reported on March 15, 2002 that the five Israelis had been on "a Mossad surveillance mission" and their fake moving company was just a "front":

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.

After their arrest, the men were held in detention for two-and-a-half months and were deported at the end of November, officially for visa violations.

However, a counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.

"The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it," he said. "The conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs but that they could leave because they did not know anything about 9-11."

However, he added, the bureau was "very irritated because it was a case of so-called unilateral espionage, meaning they didn't know about it."

Spokesmen for the FBI, the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service refused to discuss the case. Israeli officials flatly dismissed the allegations as untrue.

However, the former American official said that after American authorities confronted Jerusalem on the issue at the end of last year, the Israeli government acknowledged the operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington.

In the days after the attack, an employee who worked at the Mossad-front company, Urban Moving Systems, told the Record (Bergen, New Jersey) that the Israelis "were joking" about the holocaust that had just occurred within eyesight of their office across the river from the World Trade Center:

An employee of Urban Moving Systems, who would not give his name, said the majority of his co-workers are Israelis and were joking on the day of the attacks.

"I was in tears," the man said. "These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, 'Now America knows what we go through.'"