The Cold War Hoax

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Unread postby ICfreely on Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:46 am

I’m probably getting a bit off topic here but I think Cold War vaccine diplomacy ranks right up there with the space race and nuclear disarmament.

“Vaccine Diplomacy”: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions
Peter J. Hotez
Published online 2014 Jun 26.

Vaccine science diplomacy entered its golden age during the Cold War between the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Between 1956 and 1959, Dr. Albert Sabin from the US traveled to the USSR and collaborated with his Soviet virology counterparts, including Dr. Mikhail Chumakov, to develop a prototype oral polio vaccine and test it on 10 million Soviet children and ultimately 100 million people under the age of 20 [36]. The success of the collaboration depended on each scientist going to great lengths to convince their diplomatic liaisons to put aside ideologies for purposes of joint scientific cooperation [19]–[23], [36].

‘Vaccine diplomacy’: A Prescription for North and South Korea
Asmae Toumi March 12, 2013 ASIA PACIFIC

Nearly sixty years ago, an unlikely collaboration between the United States and the Soviet Union yielded one of the world’s greatest medical breakthroughs: the first oral polio vaccine. Tensions were at an all-time high following the Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik satellite and the successful detonation of the Soviet hydrogen bomb; yet, American Dr. Albert Sabin and a group of Russian virologists secured permissions from their respective governments to collaborate on developing, perfecting and testing the Oral Poliovirus Vaccine (OPV) that has led us today to the near eradication of polio worldwide.

Could this same “vaccine diplomacy” act as a catalyst for improving relations between North Korea and South Korea?

Dr. Peter Hotez, founding dean and professor of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, answers this question with a resounding yes…

Reinventing Gitmo: Vaccine Diplomacy and the War on Terror
Brandon Keim 02.27.08

Scrap the spotlights and chain-link pens, install some DNA sequencers and decent coffee machines, and swap prisoners in orange jumpsuits with postdocs in lab coats.

That's the prescription of Peter Hotez, editor of Public Library of Science Neglected Tropical Diseases, for the detainee facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

No, Hotez doesn't want military doctors conducting tests on the suspected terrorists now held there – but if the Bush Administration is really serious about shutting Gitmo down, then the facilities might as well be put to good use.

Turning Gitmo into a medical research center, wrote Hotez in an editorial published yesterday in his journal, would continue a tradition of "vaccine diplomacy" that started during the Cold War when researchers in the United States and Soviet Union together developed a polio vaccine. That history-changing accomplishment saved millions from paralysis and thawed relations between the superpowers.

By using Gitmo for research on diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and chagas – diseases that each year kill millions of people in the developing world, though the governmental equivalent of pocket change would likely suffice to eliminate them – the United States can improve relations with South and Central American countries alienated by our economic callousness and historically misguided foreign policy.

"It is a moral outrage that a wealthy country like the United States allows its closest neighbors to suffer from some of the world's worst levels of disease, poverty, and malnutrition," wrote Hotez.

"Reinventing Gitmo to address our hemisphere's most pressing neglected health problems could help change America's reputation and legacy in the region."

Sounds like a great idea to me. It'd certainly be a nice way to apologize for, say, supporting Augusto Pinochet and Efraín Ríos Montt.

But why stop there? In keeping with the legacy of vaccine diplomacy, maybe U.S. scientists could partner with Islamic scientists to develop new treatments for the physical and mental injuries of the War on Terror – the limbs lost and brain damage suffered in bomb blasts, the psychological aftermath of fear, loss and injury.

Vaccine diplomacy helped end the Cold War. Maybe it could help end the War on Terror, too.

Engaging Iran Through Vaccine Diplomacy

An American researcher argues that science diplomacy regarding neglected tropical diseases could cool tensions between Iran and the U.S.

Peter Hotez
Nov 30, 2011

To counter Iran’s emerging nuclear threat, we might look back to a little-known but highly effective Cold War collaboration between the U.S. and Soviet Union that defused international tensions and led to one of the world’s greatest humanitarian discoveries.

Today, we are on the verge of achieving the global eradication of polio. Most of this success can be attributed to the development of a safe and effective live oral polio vaccine, a discovery that first began during the 1950s in the Cincinnati laboratory of Dr. Albert Sabin. Few are aware, however, that Sabin’s initial discovery led to the full development of an actual polio vaccine only through a joint collaboration with Soviet virologists from 1956-1960.

In the years immediately following the Sputnik launch and the first successful detonation of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, arguably at the height of the Cold War, Sabin and a small group of Soviet virologists received back-channel diplomatic permission from their respective governments to collaborate on the successful development, manufacture, and large-scale clinical testing of the oral polio vaccine. Ultimately millions of Soviet children became the first vaccine recipients. The vaccine was deemed safe and effective so that these landmark studies first conducted in the U.S.S.R. led to the licensure, widespread acceptance, and ultimately the global use of the vaccine that has led us to the eradication of polio.

The example of two nations putting aside their ideologies for the monumental purpose of producing a lifesaving vaccine has potential relevance to the current situation in Iran. Today, the poorest people in Iran…

A Pox on Your Narrative: Writing Disease Control into Cold War History

Erez Manela
Published: 05 March 2010

When Dr. Viktor M. Zhdanov, Deputy Minister of Health of the Soviet Union, arrived in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in May 1958 to attend the annual meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the governing body of the World Health Organization (WHO), the visit was not routine.1 Reflecting Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev's new policy of “peaceful coexistence” with the West, it marked the first time that a Soviet delegation had been sent to that forum since the establishment of the WHO ten years earlier.2 And Zhdanov made his mark, calling on the organization to launch a global campaign to eradicate smallpox, one of humankind's oldest and deadliest diseases. Mindful of the meeting's venue, he began his call with a quote from a letter that U.S. president Thomas Jefferson had written to Edward Jenner, discoverer of the smallpox vaccine, more than...

May God have mercy on your soul, Dr. Peter Jay Hotez.
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Unread postby Mansur on Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:05 am

---- Whistleblower at work.
Confessions of a former KGB agent. 1984. ----

At 82 minutes in the video. It seems we always need thirty or forty years elapsed before we can see what whistleblowers really reveal.

full link:
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Unread postby Mansur on Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:29 am

I see my words here have been changed. “At 82 minutes in the video” there is nothing, being itself only 81 minutes and a half; -- and the small remark following it is an address to those who will take the trouble (and maybe their popcorn) and watch the video.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:02 am

Mansur » March 7th, 2019, 8:29 am wrote:I see my words here have been changed. “At 82 minutes in the video” there is nothing, being itself only 81 minutes and a half; -- and the small remark following it is an address to those who will take the trouble (and maybe their popcorn) and watch the video.

Admin notice(simon): Dear Mansur, if I recall correctly I only corrected the "At" (from "Ad", I think), since I thought it was a typo?... In any case, I certainly didn't modify the "82 minutes" text.
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Unread postby Mansur on Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:27 am

No problem and thank you, Simon, -- but it seemed like I was quoting from the video. Thanks again.

[ Edit : and let me add here that : what this guy, implicitly, really reveals, to our 2019 eyes at least, I think, is just the Cold War Hoax, as he quite explicitly describes how the intelligence "communities” worked closely together, with full knowledge of each other's activities. ]
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Unread postby ICfreely on Sat May 18, 2019 3:37 pm

I think the following article adds to this topic and is worth a read.

Jews and the Left by Philip Mendes: A Review
Brenton Sanderson • May 9, 2019


In 2018 I reviewed Alain Brossat and Sylvie Klingberg’s Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism, a shameless apologia for (and indeed glorification of) Jewish involvement in radical political movements in the early- to mid-twentieth century. Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance by the Jewish Australian academic Philip Mendes covers much of the same ground, rehashing many of the same apologetic tropes.

Mendes, an Associate Professor at Monash University in Melbourne, describes his book, published in 2014, as “the first publication to provide a systematic historical and political overview of the relationship between Jews and the left.”[1]Largely ignoring scholarly literature on the subject emanating from non-Jewish and non-philo-Semitic sources, Mendes insists that “With the exception of Arthur Liebman’s outstanding 1979 text, Jews and the Left, there has been little systematic analysis of the Jewish—Left relationship.”[2]

Such an ideologically-selective survey of the literature leads him to conclude that “the phenomenon of Jewish radicalism seems to have been seriously under-researched by both general students of sociology and history, and Jewish studies specialists.”[3]

Unlike some of the more egregious Jewish propagandists and apologists who have contributed to the topic, Mendes makes no attempt to deny disproportionate Jewish involvement in political radicalism, stating:

The disproportionate historical contribution of Jews to the political Left has been well documented. Both as individual theorists and activists of the stature of Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Léon Blum and Emma Goldman, and as organized mass labor movements in, for example, revolutionary Russia and early—mid 20th century Warsaw, Amsterdam, Paris, Toronto, Buenos Aires, New York and London, Jews have been conspicuous for their socialist and communist affiliations.[4]

Indeed, Mendes points out that from around 1830 until 1970, an “informal political alliance existed between Jews and the political Left.”[5]

Many Jewish historians and intellectuals are, however, reluctant to offer any discussion, let alone objective assessment, of the dynamics of the Jewish-Left alliance, its scale, causes, and the extent to which radical Jews were motivated by explicitly Jewish concerns. Discussion of these issues being inhibited, he contends, “by concerns regarding the use of the alleged Jewish—Bolshevik conspiracy by the Nazis and other anti-Semitic groups,” which is reflected in “the associated concern by many Jewish writers to minimize the role of Jews in radical movements.”[6]

Another factor contributing to the Jewish reluctance to discuss the relationship between Jews and the Left is the determination to absolve Jews of any responsibility for the horrific crimes of communist regimes. In their book Revolutionary Yiddishland, Brossat and Klingberg assure us, for example, that the militancy of Jewish communists “was always messianic, optimistic, oriented to the Good — a fundamental and irreducible difference from that of the fascists with which some people have been tempted to compare it, on the pretext that one ‘militant ideal’ is equivalent to any other.”[7] So while tens of millions may have died because of the actions of Jewish communist militants, at least they, unlike the fascists, meant well. Kevin MacDonald notes that Jewish involvement with Bolshevism “is perhaps the most egregious example of Jewish moral particularism in all of history. The horrific consequences of Bolshevism for millions of non-Jewish Soviet citizens do not seem to have been an issue for Jewish leftists — a pattern that continues into the present.”[8]

Maintaining a narrative of universal, trans-historical, and unparalleled Jewish victimhood is, of course, supremely important for the cadres of Jewish “diversity” activists and propagandists throughout the West, given the status of “the Holocaust” as the moral foundation of today’s White displacement agenda. Free discussion of the Jewish role in communist crimes undermines Jewish pretentions to moral authority grounded in their self-designated status as history’s preeminent victims. In contemporary academia there are, in addition, strong personal and professional disincentives for highlighting the Jewish role in communist crimes, and it is therefore not surprising that non-Jewish historians and intellectuals are equally reluctant to recognize the Jewish backgrounds of many revolutionaries and to explore how their Jewish identity influenced their beliefs and actions. Ron Unz recently observed how successfully the Jewish-controlled media organs in the U.S. have “conditioned most Americans to suffer a sort of mental allergic reaction to topics sensitive to Jews.” The Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the governance and administration of the Soviet Union and its satellite states is one such topic.

The following excerpts from Tablet Mag & Wikipedia further add to this topic.

Jewish Participation in Iranian Political Life
Recent protests in Iran join a long history of what today would be known as activism
By Miriam Levy-Haim January 16, 2018


Reza Shah Pahlavi’s forced abdication by the Allies in 1941 spurred greater Jewish political involvement, for the most part, gravitating toward leftist movements. If Jewish Iranian intellectuals were repulsed by the ultra-nationalist parties because of the obvious Nazi and fascist ideological influences, they were drawn to the leftist camp primarily for class reasons. The Tudeh party was a class movement, forming immediately after Reza Shah’s abdication, rooted in the intelligentsia and the industrial working class, which included Jewish and other ethnic workers. Young Jewish men and women were active in the Tudeh party and participated in underground meetings and demonstrations. Some of them were arrested and imprisoned for their activities and tortured by the authorities. Jewish-Iranian intellectuals engaged in both nationalist and Zionist activities, supporting Prime Minister Mosaddeq and the effort to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. and organizing specifically Jewish and Zionist meetings and resisting anti-Semitism.

Yet while Jews did join the Tudeh party, the movement failed to gain mainstream Jewish support, in part because many Jews were drawn to Zionism. A third of the Iranian Jewish community moved to Israel between 1948 and 1953 for Zionist as well as economic reasons. Most of these emigrants came from the provinces and working class, precisely the natural base for Tudeh members and activists. This massive wave of emigration also helps explain why the Jewish community was so prosperous under the rule of Mohammad Reza Shah—the poorer strata of the community had left to Israel.

Most of the Jewish community, mindful of the Islamic tone and recalling their history of Islamic-influenced oppression, was wary of the coming revolution, and the revolution was followed by an enormous exodus. Within one year of the revolution, the Jewish population declined drastically from 80,000 Jews in the 1970s to 50–60,000 Jews. As the chief rabbis, industrialists, and businessmen left Iran, a group of young leftist activists began to challenge the traditional leadership. Most were affiliated with the Association of Jewish Iranian Intellectuals (Jame’eh-ye rowshanfekran-e kalimi-ye Iran—AJII), which formed in 1979 and was one of the first groups to support the Revolution.

The AJII was founded in the late 1970s by two Jewish former Tudeh activists, Harun Parviz Yesha’ya and Aziz Daneshrad (who later served in the Council of Experts), who had spent time in prison for their antimonarchical activities. A fusion of leftist politics and Jewish values, the AJII was vocal about its support for the revolution and even managed to gain brief control of the traditional Jewish community organization, the Anjoman, in March 1978 though they failed to be reelected just a few months later…

History of the Jews in Iran

In order to fight the growing racial antisemitism among the Iranian population, many Jews joined the Tudeh party and advocated for communism. Even though Jews comprised less than 2 percent of Iranian population, almost fifty percent of the members of the Tudeh party were Jewish. Tudeh party was the only party among the Iranian political parties that accepted Jews with open arms. Most writers for publications of the Tudeh party were Jewish. Furthermore, many Iranian Jews viewed communism as a Jewish movement since many leading members of the communist revolution in Russia were Jewish and were looked upon favorably by Persian Jews.[65]

With the growing influence of United States in international affairs many American Jewish organizations such as American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee actively intervened on behalf of Persian Jews. During the great famine of Persia in 1917-1919 Albert Lucas the representative of JDC successfully convinced US government to donate 15000 dollars (200000 in 2015 USD) to Persian Jewry. In September 1918 10000 dollars more was donated by the JDC of Philadelphia. Thus the casualty of famine amongst the Persian Jews was minimal in comparison to Persian gentiles.[66] Furthermore, when the Jewish neighborhood of Broujerd was attacked by Loures JDC sent large number of donations. US ambassador Caldwell was also instrumental in helping the Jews of Broujerd.[67]

In 1921, United States appointed Joseph Saul Kornfeld, a Jewish Rabbi, as its ambassador to Persia. This was the first time in the history of United States in which a Rabbi was appointed as an Ambassador. Kornfeld actively intervened on the behalf of Persian Jewry on many occasions. In one such event, when Reza Shah ordered water to be cut off from Jewish Ghetto of Tehran and Kornfeld successfully convinced Shah to resolve the matter.[68]

Mohammad Ali Foroughi, who was a powerful figure during the reign of Reza Shah, was of Baghdadi Jewish origin and was looked upon with suspicion among the Iranian elite circles. Mohammad-Taqi Bahar wrote the following to warn Mohammad Reza Pahlavi about him:

O King, let me tell you about the wickedness of Foroughi. That vile Jew will make you suffer greatly—he will write your coronation and dismissal speech, just as he wrote them for your father (Reza Shah).[69]

But of course coincidence theorists, Daniel Freeman and Richard P. Bentall, have already debunked this age old anti-Semitic trope.

The concomitants of conspiracy concerns
Daniel Freeman and Richard P. Bentall

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017; 52(5): 595–604.
Published online 2017 Mar 29. doi: 10.1007/s00127-017-1354-4


It is difficult to overestimate the role of belief systems in human affairs. For example, political ideologies, which serve a variety of psychological functions [1], have provoked the most profound historical events, as have religious belief systems, which continue to impact on political life globally [2]. Conspiracy theories are an important type of belief system, which have often had negative historical effects, for example when they have fuelled violent ideologies (as when the stab-in-the-back myth was used to attribute German defeat in the First World War to a conspiracy of Jews and communists, these types of beliefs have been subjected to only limited empirical study. ) or have been damaging to human well-being in other ways (for example, when the belief that the AIDS virus had been manufactured in American laboratories impeded the implementation of effective treatments in South Africa).
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Unread postby ICfreely on Thu May 30, 2019 5:47 am

Unintended Consequences
In an excerpt from a new history of 20th-century Iran, the neglected story of the Jewish revolutionaries who participated in—or adapted to—the sweeping changes of 1979
By Lior B. Sternfeld

Jews were active in all-Iranian organizations—such as the Tudeh—and, of course, in sectarian, explicitly Jewish groups, such as the AJII. However, Jews participated even in almost exclusively Muslim organizations, such as the Mujahidin-i Khalq (the People’s Mujahidin of Iran)[MEK]. The Mujahidin-i Khalq was established by members of the intelligentsia—engineers, doctors, university students, and the intellectual elites of the nationalist opposition factions. This organization employed a fascinating combination of Marxist and Islamist discourse in its articulation of a revolutionary ideology. The Mujahidin-i Khalq was one of the key opposition organizations in the 1970s until the revolution.

The Fall of the Shah and the Rise of Islamism
By Kyle Orton (@KyleWOrton) on 17 January 2019


Two main terrorist groups emerged, first and most importantly the “Islamist-Marxists” of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (the People’s Holy Warriors, MEK) in 1965, and then the Communists of Sazman Cherikhaye Fedayeen-e-Khalq (The Organisation of Iranian People’s Self-Sacrificing Guerrillas) six years later.[1]

A series of violent incidents led to a crackdown in 1971 that killed or arrested many terrorist leaders, significantly weakening both MEK and the Fedayeen. Of the 370 Leftists executed between 1971 and 1978, about 220 of them (60%) were members of the Fedayeen.

In 1972, Cooper explains, Khomeini made a tactical alliance with MEK. By the late 1970s, MEK cadres were being trained at the terrorist camps run by Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Lebanon, in areas of Syria (which under Hafiz al-Asad routinely acted as a cut-out for the Soviet Union in dealing with terrorist groups), and in Qaddafi’s Libya at the PFLP camps. Qaddafi’s funds were well-used by Khomeini, to buy-off clerics inside Iran who might otherwise oppose him and to direct the MEK terrorism.

The Baffling Relationship between American Politicians and the MEK
By Ashton Hashemipour / July 10, 2018

American calls for regime change have certainly focused on this idea of a democratic, liberal Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Senator Ted Cruz, and National Security Advisor John Bolton (among many others) have openly advocated for such change. But it’s not just Republicans: both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have also called for Iranians to be freed from the chains of the Islamic Republic. These politicians have decried the lack of human rights in Iran, the lack of democracy, and the suffering of the Iranian people.

Given this context, the relationship between some American politicians and the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, is baffling. The MEK, guided by an undemocratic fusion of Marxism and Islamism, has conducted terrorist attacks against Americans and Iranians alike yet has support from a plethora of U.S. conservative and liberal politicians (including many who advocate for the democratization of Iran), such as Rudy Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo, Pelosi, and Edward Rendell. Given the MEK’s inability to meaningfully change Iran, the support of U.S. politicians for the Mujahedin will only have negative effects for the United States, namely that it will alienate the Iranian people and give hardliners in the Islamic Republic a chance to capitalize on this support.
What is the MEK?

The MEK was established in 1965 as a leftist organization staunchly opposed to the American-backed Shah of Iran. Until the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the MEK, originally founded upon the ideals of Marxism and Islamism, engaged in a plethora of terrorist attacks, targeting Americans civilians and government workers. Many of its members were either imprisoned or executed while the Shah was in power.

During the Revolution, the MEK helped supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini overthrow the Shah. Yet after a few years of rule by the Islamic Republic, Khomeini saw that the MEK’s ideology was at odds with his vision for the country, and he ordered his forces to arrest and execute Mujahedin members. The Mujahedin responded by assassinating members of the Islamic government, including the Prime Minister in a 1981 bombing.

In 1980, Saddam Hussein, sensing instability in Iran, decided to invade. The MEK, seeing an opportunity to destabilize the Islamic government joined him in fighting their own countrymen. Saddam’s use of chemical weapons, and his bombing of Iranian cities, did not deter the MEK in their support of him, which continued throughout the war. Saddam even helped arm the MEK, allowing them to conduct suicide attacks in Iran

American Support

In spite of the MEK’s recent history of terrorism, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 removed the organization from of the FTO list, unfreezing its assets and allowing it to engage in financial interactions with those in the United States. The organization, however, in spite of its claim to want democracy in Iran, remains internally undemocratic and is monumentally unpopular among those living in Iran

Implications of American Support

Despite its talk of freeing Iran and the friends that it has made in the West, the Mujahedin is hated among the Iranian people. For many Iranians, the MEK’s decision to fight alongside Saddam, and its indiscriminate attacks on Iranian civilians, destroyed any possible sympathetic feelings. Further, according to a poll taken by George Mason University, less than one percent of Iranian-Americans—the largest group in the Iranian diaspora—support the MEK.

Perhaps more importantly, however, U.S. support of the MEK will only alienate the people of Iran, the very people to whom Western politicians, from Trump to Pelosi to the conference’s speakers, have tried to appeal. Any American call for freedom in Iran—any message in support of the Iranian people—will be marred by this widespread support of a terrorist organization. The only people who will be strengthened by this support are Iranian hardliners, whose ultimate message is that the United States despises Iran, wants the country to fail, and is not a reliable partner. Supporting the MEK will only strengthen that narrative.

Although supporting the MEK provides a way for American politicians to ostensibly advocate for a democratic revolution in Iran, the costs of supporting a terrorist group far outweigh any benefits. To weaken the Iranian government and gain the support of the Iranian people, the United States should attempt to act as a friend to the Iranian people, instead of supporting a terrorist organization, banning Iranians from entering the country, and putting crippling sanctions on Iran, which hurt civilians more than the government. But given the immense amount of lobbying from anti-Iran groups—from America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)—it is highly unlikely that such a change in the mindset of American politicians will occur.

Ask yourself, cui bono?
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm


Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest