[Bret L]

The Writings of Revilo P Oliver 1908-1994

A BIT OF GOOD NEWS

by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (Liberty Bell, January 1992)



"On 6 November 1991 the New York Post published an important article by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. The enterprising and, as the event proved, courageous journalists had interviewed Dwight Porter, who had been the American Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967. After twenty-four years, Mr. Porter disclosed the fact that his cryptographic staff in the Embassy at Beirut had intercepted and decoded communications between the commander of the Israeli air squadron and the Israeli High Command, which proved that the latter knew that the Liberty was an unarmed American naval vessel, and, over the aviator's misgivings, ordered that the American ship be attacked and sunk.

Americans were, of course, pleased to have an authoritative
confirmation--if confirmation were still needed--of a well-established
historical fact, but I wonder how many were gratified by a fact that
was incidentally disclosed: Americans had broken a Jewish 'code' (1)
and were able to read currently (2) messages in it. Since the Jews
have a racial talent for cryptography, as for mathematics, that was no
mean achievement, and one of which we may legitimately be proud. It
was also a reassuring proof that as late as 1967 the United States had
competent cryptanalysts.



(1. See Appendix I, Cryptographic terminology.)



(2. This is a very important consideration. Assuming that a message is
intercepted in a 'code' that has already been broken, there is a great
difference between reading it immediately and reading it only after
the hours of cryptanalytic work needed to recover the key.)



It is true that the Jewish messages read in Beirut must have been of
the kind that is most vulnerable to analysis. It will be obvious that
in field communications, i.e., between an army detachment or a
squadron and its headquarters, the better systems described in
Appendix I are inapplicable because they require specialist code-
clerks, are relatively slow, and are too elaborate (the more
complicated a system, the greater the chance of errors). There is no
time for such luxuries in messages to and from the field, i.e., the
battle-front, which must be sent and read when minutes may be crucial.

Field communications must therefore be in cipher, except that there
may be a bit of code in a few easily memorized terms, no more than ten
(e.g., 'American' = "tea," 'ship' = "pot," etc.) Enciphering and
deciphering must be as nearly instantaneous as possible. The commonly
used Swedish 'Haglin' machine is as good as any. (The German 'Enigma'
is much too elaborate.) It will delay analytic decipherment for a
considerable time (usually enough to make tactical information
obsolete) unless the keys used with it have already been recovered.
(3)



(3. For communications by telephone, machines which 'scramble' the
voice when transmitted and 'unscramble' it when received are often
used, but the principles of cryptanalysis remain the same, i.e., what
must be recovered is the pattern of 'scrambling' that is in use at any
given time and location.)



Although field communications are, as I have said, more vulnerable to
analysis than more intricate systems that can be used in the
comparative leisure of an embassy's code-room or similar post,
analysis of them requires a very considerable degree of cryptanalytic
skill; the American achievement in Beirut was highly creditable and we
should congratulate ourselves that we had in 1967, and may still have
today, men who could 'break' the system of secret communication used
by the Jewish airforce.



The U.S.S. Liberty

Messrs. Evans and Novak were not content with their interview with
Ambassador Porter. They sought further confirmation and found it in a
small town in Maine and in the person of Seth Mintz, a Jew who enjoys
dual citizenship, a privilege reserved for God's People. Mintz, born
in the United States, went to the Holy Land and fought for his nation.
He became a Major in the Holy Army. He happened to be present (perhaps
as a consultant on American affairs) in the headquarters of the
Israeli High Command in Tel Aviv on 8 June 1987, when the question of
the presence of the Liberty off the Egyptian coast was being
discussed, hours before the crucial messages intercepted by Ambassador
Porter's staff in Beirut were sent.

The ship was identified as the American Liberty from its silhouette
and photographs in the current edition of Jane's Fighting Ships. (4)
That identification was confirmed when planes sent to watch the ship
reported its characteristics and the fact that it was flying the
American flag, and took photographs which were immediately flown to
Tel Aviv, where they verified the identification already made from the
pages of Jane's.



(4. See Appendix II.)



The Jewish High Command prepared a kind of alibi by asking the
American Ambassador to Israel, a man named Walworth Barbour, whether
he recognized the ship off the Egyptian coast as an American naval
vessel. He replied that he did not, as was to be expected, since he
probably knew nothing of the Liberty, a comparatively small and
unarmed ship equipped for electronic espionage, and had not been told
of its function or its mission. The Navy does not customarily inform
ambassadors of the detailed movements of its ship on routine missions,
still less of somewhat clandestine operations. The existence of the
Liberty could not be kept secret, but the Navy naturally wanted the
ship to attract as little attention as possible. There was no reason
why the Ambassador in Tel Aviv should be told of its mission, and many
valid reasons why he should not be told. At all events, as everyone
concerned well knew, if Barbour had been told about the Liberty and
its mission, he would have denied knowledge of it. Ambassadors ex
officio deny all knowledge of their nation's espionage, even if part
of it is being carried on in their own embassies by the Military Attach
€š. That is simply diplomatic etiquette. If Barbour had perchance known
of the Liberty, he would no more have admitted it than he would have
told his host at a dinner party that he thought the hostess a clumsy
cow or silly bitch. In other words, Barbour's reply could be predicted
with complete confidence.

The High Command seemed at first uncertain whether it would be prudent
to destroy the American naval vessel, even though it had no armament
with which it could effectively defend itself, but it was finally
decided to destroy it, and bombing and torpedo planes were sent to do
so.

The High Command in Tel Aviv wanted the Liberty destroyed to prevent
their American serfs from learning what God's People were doing and
would do to the ill-equipped and betrayed Semites in Syria, whom they
were attacking. They had no scruples, because it is obviously the
function of Americans to finance Jewish conquests, not to spy on their
masters. They had no qualms because they had in the White House a
stooge who, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States, would intervene to forbid the American fleet in the
Mediterranean to send assistance to its ship when attacked,--an
infamous stooge who was so completely in their service that he could
be counted on to do all in his power to help them sink the Liberty and
kill all aboard it (any survivors from the sinking ship could be
machine-gunned in the water), so that the attack could be blamed on
the Egyptians and provide a pretext for attacking that nation.

When the Israeli bombers and torpedo-planes were sent to attack and
destroy the ship, the Jewish commander, seeing that it was an American
vessel, had misgivings and reported to the High Command, which simply
repeated the orders to attack and sink the Liberty. Those were the
messages intercepted by Mr. Porter's staff in Beirut.

While the attack was in progress, Lyndon Johnson, a sleazy crook from
Texas directed by his wedded Jewess, after ordering the American fleet
to abandon the Liberty to her fate, even told one of his aides how
much he hoped the Jews would destroy the ship and all those Americans
on board it, leaving no survivors. And when he learned that his
masters had failed to do that, he was enraged and, cursing, ordered
the Navy to cover up the attack and intimidate the survivors. Lyndon
Johnson, although controlled by a Jewess, was, so far as is known, a
degenerate Aryan. He was, therefore, a traitor to his nation and his
race. He was indubitably guilty of high treason, for which he would
have been impeached, tried, convicted, and hanged, if the Americans
had not given their country to their enemies.

When the Jews' gunfire, bombs, and torpedoes failed to obliterate the
Liberty, they said they had mistaken her for the Egyptian El Quesir, a
ship of less than half the size of the Liberty, with hull and
superstructure of entirely different shape (as was obvious from
Jane's), which did not fly the American flag, and which, as they well
knew, was anchored in the harbor of Alexandria, which it never left
during the hostilities. It is to be doubted whether God's Chosen
expected any informed person to believe that absurd pretence; it was
probably just their way of thumbing their nose at their American
dolts.

Major Mintz had no hesitation in telling the American journalists what
had happened in the headquarters at Tel Aviv,--he may have seen
nothing discreditable to his nation in the facts he disclosed,--but by
7 November he was amazed by his tribe's reaction to his disclosures,
and when he was interviewed by a reporter for the Jewish newspaper
Ha'aretz, he confessed that he was afraid, saying "I don't need the
Mossad and Shin Bet (5) knocking on my door." Whether he was
frightened into repudiating his statement is not clear, but a fellow
tribesman, Rosenthal, reported in the leading jewspaper, the New York
Times, on 8 November that Mintz claimed he had been "misquoted."
Whether Mintz did in fact withdraw his statement, perhaps while
looking into the muzzle of a Sten gun, is not certain. See the
journalists' column in the New York Post, 11 November, where they
reaffirm their account of what Mintz told them before he realized what
his compatriots might do to him for his indiscretion. Whether Mintz is
still alive, I do not know.



(5. Shin Bet is the military arm of Mossad, the Jews' famous and
utterly ruthless espionage and murder agency, with which the
"American" Criminal Intelligence Agency normally co"perates, if it is,
indeed, more than a subsidiary.)



Evans and Novak naturally set off screaming by our God-given
parasites. Some of their irate letters were printed by the Post on 11
November. One writer, who had taken an Irish name, called the article
by Evans and Novak "Israel-bashing," correctly enough, since any
truthful revelation of Jewish intrigues, deceit, and hatred is a
"bashing" of the great race to whom old Yahweh deeded this planet. A
correspondent with an English name denounced the article as a "total
fabrication" by "two scoundrels." And, naturally, there were the usual
hint of a boycott and other reprisals against the vile newspaper that
had dared to publish an article that was not laudatory of the Master
Race.

The underlying thought was clear. Why so much foolish talk about a
trivial incident? The Jews merely killed thirty-four of their American
pigs and wounded 171, maiming some. What was wrong about that? Doesn't
everyone know that, as the Christians' "Old Testament" implies (6) and
the Holy Talmud explicitly states, only Jews are human beings? That
the lower animals can have no rights?

So far as I know, Messrs. Evans and Novak are still alive and
unharmed, and so is Mr. Porter, but I am taking no bets on what will
happen to them.



(6. As every reader of the Bible knows, in the largely mythical
account of the conquest of Palestine it is simply taken for granted
that the Semitic Canaanites and the Aryan Philistines have no right to
their own property and their own lives, so old Yahweh helps his
ferocious pets to steal and slaughter, even ordering the sun-chariot
to put on the brakes and stop for their convenience. He also promises
likewise to destroy every nation they invade. When the tales were
elaborated, the Jews, of course, thought of Yahweh as their tribal
god, the enemy of the gods of civilized nations, but when they decided
to imitate the Stoics and profess a monotheism, there was the
unescapable corollary that in the eyes of the only god all races
except the Jews were grossly inferior and subhuman creatures, who,
like sheep, pigs, and all other animals, were at the disposal of God's
race.)




APPENDICES



I. Cryptographic terminology. The word 'code' is in general use to
designate all secret communications by means of arbitrary symbols.
(Other forms of secret communication, as, for example, by the use of
invisible inks, are classified as steganography.) Strictly speaking,
however, a code uses symbols for words and common phrases and so
requires two 'dictionaries,' one with the words and phrases in
alphabetical order for encoding, and one with the symbols in
alphabetical or numerical order for decoding. In a 'short' code, for
example, 'American' may = PLKR, 'president' = FHLY, 'assassinated' =
QMAK, etc. In a 'long' code, 'American president assassinated' = LXCV,
'American president en route to' = ERPK, 'American president in
hospital' = BNOP, etc. The codes are further classified by the symbols
used, four-letter code, five-letter code, four-digit code, five-digit
code, etc. Only a child today would be so na€¹ve as to send messages in
the code used. To attain any degree of security from cryptanalysts,
the symbols of the code must be enciphered before the message is sent
by telegraph or radio.

A cipher is a system whereby letters or groups of letters are
represented by symbols, for example, A = X, B = L, C = W, etc, or AB =
KO, AC = SI, AD = PO, etc. Such a simple cipher can be read so easily
that no one would think of transmitting a message in it. Some
protection is offered by what is called a 'Playfair square,' in which
the letters of the alphabet, reduced to twenty-five, are put on a
square in the order of some keyword or phrase, such as HOMER or
MERCHANTS QUIZ, with the remaining letters in alphabetical order;
pairs of letters on the square are then represented by the
corresponding letters on the opposite side of the square. Another way
of protecting a cipher is by arranging the letters of the message in
vertical columns with a different letter equivalent for each column,
e.g., in column 1 A = X, in column 2, A = L, in column 3, A = K...in
column 20, A = B, etc. When the symbols of a code are then replaced
according to such a cipher, the resulting system of communication can
be 'broken' only when cryptanalysts have at hand a large number of
messages sent in the same system.

Further security is sought by (a) having a number of codes, usually
allocated according to place and office, e.g., the Ambassador in
London uses Code #1, the Consul General in London uses Code #10, the
Ambassador in Paris uses Code #2, the Consul General, #11; the
Ambassador in Berlin uses Code #3, etc. (This, incidentally, prevents
one Ambassador from reading messages sent by his colleagues in other
countries--unless he has competent cryptanalysts on his staff); and
(b) by having a large number of cipher systems, which will be employed
according to keys. A cipher system may be chosen at random and
designated by a key, the first or last group in the message, or may be
systematic, e.g., on 14 November we use Cipher #1, according to which
A in the first column = X, in the second column, H, etc.; on 15
November we use Cipher #14, in which A in column 1 = J, and in column
2, P, etc.

The above very elementary description is intended only to show you the
meaning of the basic terms in cryptography.

In very recent years, the general availability of computers has
expedited all phases of cryptography, but the principles remain the
same and the greater complexity the computers permit probably leaves
the time required for cryptanalysis about the same or, with really
subtle adversaries, makes it much longer. Cryptographic systems that
are invulnerable to analysis are now possible but require very
elaborate equipment and constant vigilance in their use.



II. Jane's Fighting Ships. Since 1898, the annual volumes of this
almost perfectly accurate publication have been universally used as a
reference work, and copies of the current edition are kept at had by
the commanders of all ships of any consequence, and on the desks of
everyone concerned with naval or maritime matters, including the
editors of newspapers, who rely on Jane's for pictures of naval
vessels mentioned in the news. It will be recalled that in 1915 when
Winston Churchill, then the British Sea Lord, ordered the Lusitania
diverted to Queenstown and to approach Ireland without naval
protection, so that he could dangle "45,000 tons of livebait" before
the German submarines known to be operating in that area, the
commander of the German U-20 ascertained from the current edition of
Jane's Fighting Ships that the Lusitania was a British warship
(auxiliary cruiser) before he torpedoed it. His torpedoes did not sink
the Lusitania, which was destroyed by an explosion of the munitions
(including a large quantity of guncotton) in its hold. There was a
very satisfactory loss of life, including many Americans who had been
induced to take passage on the Lusitania by the pretence that it was
an unarmed passenger ship and was not carrying contraband. It is
doubtful whether Churchill expected the sinking of the Lusitania to
enable Wacky Wilson to run the Americans into a war against Germany at
one; it was sufficient that Wilson could puff up with moral
indignation and the American press could be stuffed with innumerable
articles about the "Hunnish barbarity" of the "fiendish Germans" and
their "menace to civilization," in preparation for that glorious day
in 1917 when the crackpot in the White House was at last able to
proclaim his "war to end wars." The facts about the sinking of the
Lusitania became indubitable when Colin Simpson gained access to the
archives of the British Navy; see his The Lusitania (Boston, Little-
Brown, 1972). "

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Bit_of_Good_News.html