With the recent seemingly overnight upheaval of media infrastructure in the last two years, news coverage no longer belongs to corporations and state-sponsored TV only. Instead, a new trend sees regular well-informed creators of the internet asking the tough questions and finding the answers themselves, providing it free-of-charge to the people of the world in documentary style videos through platforms such as YouTube.

One of these creators is Uncivilized Media, a burgeoning channel chosen to rise by the selective eyes of YouTube’s algorithm in the last year following the beginning of the Zionist entity’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip.

In their latest video, “How Israel Hijacked the US Deep State”, the smalltime production company discusses the key figures responsible for the rise of what is called the “Deep State” in US culture while explaining in layman’s terms what the name stands for.

For every individual tired of the US’s unrelenting iron grip on so much of the world’s economic infrastructure, especially in West Asia, learning the truth behind the “Deep State” is paramount to understanding how the US exerts control in its foreign policy. By reshaping or destabilizing whole governments, the US ensures total reign over a country’s natural resources and economic development in the hopes of steering it towards a natural acceptance of US imperial superiority, and a lifetime of tribute to the health of the US of Empire.

The “Deep State” therein is another method in which that superiority can be exerted. In short, the “Deep State” is a network of highly influential and extremely rich members of the financial aristocracy of the US using their, what Uncivilized’s video calls, “Big Money” to influence US local and foreign policy officials to pursue actions and decisions favoring their company bottom lines.

In shorter terms:

(Big Money) + (Connections to Politicians and Government Institution Heads) = Foreign and Local Policy Decisions Favoring the US Private Sector.

Obviously, decisions favoring the private sector do not go one way, they eventually feed back into the government through taxes set on its own terms. It is simply another face to the US’s imperial mint.

The Blue Blood

The first character the video discusses is one dubbed by many scholars of the political turmoil prevalent during his time as “The Father of the Deep State”.

In this first clip, we are introduced to Allen Dulles and his sinister business framework that set the stage for the coming exploitation of the US worldwide supremacy.

 Allen Dulles, director of the CIA under John F. Kennedy, did not forget his old friends from Wall St. when he first stepped into the shoes of an institutional director.

Apart from his opinion on the role of the CIA as a tool of foreign policy and a reflection of the US’s “World Police” image, Dulles made news headlines following the failed “Bay of Pigs” operation when US president JFK put a lot of the blame on Dulles and the CIA for its failure, leading to JFK removing the Blue Blooded lawyer from the position entirely.

The operation, done in 1961 was a failed invasion of Cuba by CIA-trained Cuban exile “rebels” aiming to overthrow Fidel Castro’s communist government. Planned under the Eisenhower administration and executed early in President John F. Kennedy’s term, the mission quickly collapsed after the exiles were met with strong resistance and U.S. air support was withheld.

The debacle embarrassed the U.S. internationally, exposed deep flaws in American intelligence operations, and damaged Kennedy’s credibility at home. It fueled anti-communist paranoia, intensified Cold War tensions, and contributed to a growing mistrust in government among Americans, setting the stage for a more skeptical and divided public in the 1960s.

This divide was reflected in the sudden assault that homegrown US media assailed the CIA with. The failed operation inspired a wave of critical articles, books, TV documentaries, radio shows and many other forms of media exposure that brought CIA covert action to widespread public attention for the first time, and often in a critical light.

Some scholars have downplayed the significance of the press criticism of the CIA in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, arguing that it was ‘mostly covered over by the blanket of “Cold War consensus”. This was certainly true of the decade preceding the Bay of Pigs, a period in which the CIA controlled both the manner and the timing of its institutional publicity. The CIA’s involvement in the Iranian and Guatemalan coups in 1953 and 1954, for example, went almost entirely unreported in the press.

It is widely known in conspiracy circles how the CIA either committed or covered up John Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, and the removal of Allen Dulles post Bay of Pigs is considered a connection to this almost beloved theory.

Not many, however, discuss the very probable role of Israel in his very well-planned killing. But it only takes one look at Kennedy’s foreign policy towards Israel to find more than enough motive for such a plan. Especially since conveniently enough for “Israel”, he was preceded by a president that single-handedly raised the status of the Israeli lobby to astronomical heights and even helped cover up the Israeli bombing of a US reconnaissance ship USS Liberty during the Six Days War, after they had failed to destroy it and kill everyone on board.

John F. Kennedy, although his speeches during his time as senator were seen as favorable towards the Zionist entity, was waging a secret legislative war against Israel. Starting with efforts to force the American Zionist Council (AZC) and their subsidiary AIPAC to register as foreign entities, to outright demanding regular inspection of the Israeli Dimona reactor, as he was heavily concerned that they may have covertly acquired the technology and materials to build their first nuclear warheads, from the US.

The Mistress

Our next character sets the stage for the entrance of the Israeli lobby into the infrastructure of the Deep State: Matilda Krim.

Although given worldwide acclaim for her career as a genetic scientist fighting AIDS, little did people knew of the sinister undertakings of the soft-spoken Matilda Krim.

What most news outlets overlook is Matilda Krim’s pivotal, though less publicized, contribution: her role in aligning the U.S. presidency with Israel during the 1960s. The now-familiar “no-daylight” stance—America’s unwavering support for the Israeli government, evident today in Donald Trump’s relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu—can be traced back to the presidency of Krim’s close confidant, Lyndon B. Johnson.

In the tense lead-up to the 1967 Six-Day War, Krim, a former Israeli settler, and her husband Arthur, were in near-constant contact with Johnson, offering guidance on his public messaging and reinforcing pro-Israel positions from within the White House.

It is also likely that Johnson himself did not need that much convincing, as some scholars debate that he was already quite dedicated to the Zionist cause, some even suggest that the president himself was of Jewish heritage.

“Johnson was the pivotal president for our relationship with Israel and I think Matilda Krim’s sway over Johnson was such that it turned the entire relationship, allowing Israel to continue on, especially after the Six Day War, in a manner that defied not only the U.N. but the whole world with regard to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians,” says Martin Brod, a retired systems analyst in New York who has long studied the role of Israel’s American friends in cementing the special relationship.

Matilda Krim would become a Zionist operative of deep complexity and potent influence. But like many impassioned youngsters that love a good story, she seemingly started out as nothing but a misguided compatriot of a budding terrorist.

In the years following the fall of the Nazi regime, Krim was deeply affected by accounts of Nazi oppression against European Jews, which led her to support Zionist terrorists during and after the war. Her New York Times obituary by Robert D. McFadden includes a notable reference to her Zionist fervor:

“Appalled by newsreels of Nazi concentration camps in 1945, she sought out Jewish activists, joined the Zionist underground Irgun and spent a summer smuggling guns over the French border for resistance fighters against British rule in Palestine.

After earning a bachelor’s degree in 1948, she married an Irgun comrade, David Danon, a Bulgarian medical student, and converted to Judaism.”

It can be quite amusing to hear hardcore Zionists use terms such as “resistance fighters” today, considering all of what we know about the Zionist entity’s media propaganda.

David Danon, the “Irgun comrade”, had been exiled by the British from Palestine due to his terrorist attacks against British assets, and Krim viewed him as a “dashing and heroic figure” committed to a noble cause that had employed terrorism to achieve its goals, she said in an interview with the late Donald Neff, a former Time Magazine correspondent, for his book Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (1984).

Krim said she was moved by the “despair” of the Zionists. The bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 and the assassination of Lord Moyne in 1944 “represented the depth of the convictions of Danon and the Irgunists, the measure of both their commitment and their despair,” Neff reported.

Danon spent his time “recruiting and carrying out secret Irgun operations throughout Western Europe,” while his wife used her bicycle to transport explosives across international borders destined for the Irgun in Palestine— “a seemingly innocent petite and pretty blonde out for a bicycle ride,” Neff says.

In many documented cases, those “innocent and petite blondes” were the frontline operatives for many of the Zionist entity’s worldwide operations. Matilda Krim was just the “cream of the crop”, evidently.

The Hijacker

Our third and final character is the poster child for the American Neocon movement that proliferated in the US political scene, and towards the end of the 20^th century, made up the essential decision-making body for US local and foreign policy.

Dick Cheney was considered by many as the main progenitor of US Middle East policy, but he most definitely couldn’t do it all without his favorite “Prime Minister”: Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Clean Break”. Officially, it was a simple policy report drafted by a study group hired by none other than Benjamin Netanyahu for the Zionist government. But, behind the closed doors of the neoconservative elements in the “Deep State”, it became a plan to reshape the entirety of West Asia through proxy wars targeting the 7 nations that constitute a threat to US hegemony while letting loose their private sector to tear down each of these countries natural resources and claim them for the empire.

The strategy began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, with Iran being the final target. Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan were the rest among the list of countries designated for destabilization.

General Wesley Clark, a retired four-star U.S. Army general and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, recounted a conversation he had at the Pentagon shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. In this discussion, a senior military officer informed him of a classified memo outlining a plan for the U.S. to “take out seven countries in five years.” The nations listed were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Clark shared this account during a 2007 interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! and in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars.

Dick Cheney, as Vice President under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009, played a central and forceful role in shaping US foreign policy in West Asia following the 9/11 attacks. While not directly involved in drafting the 1996 Clean Break strategy—Cheney’s actions in office strongly echoed its core ideas: namely, the use of American military power to destabilize and reshape West Asia in favor of US and Israeli strategic dominance.

Through his influence over national security decisions, Cheney became the chief architect of the Bush Doctrine, which emphasized preemptive strikes, unilateral action, and regime change as legitimate tools of US foreign policy. All the while, he reaped the benefits as a main shareholder and board member of Halliburton.

Cheney was instrumental in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. He relentlessly promoted the idea that Saddam Hussein posed a grave and immediate threat, citing unverified or misleading intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Behind the scenes, Cheney empowered key neoconservative allies—such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and his own chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby—who were closely aligned with the ideological vision laid out in Clean Break. These officials operated within the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, producing selective intelligence to support a case for war and further interventions across West Asia.

Even after the fall of Baghdad, Cheney’s ambitions extended beyond Iraq. Cheney resisted diplomatic overtures and preferred military pressure, supporting efforts to isolate or destabilize regimes viewed as hostile to U.S. interests. His actions—driven by a blend of ideological conviction and deep ties to the defense industry—contributed significantly to a foreign policy strategy that favored permanent American presence and influence across West Asia, often at the cost of long-term regional stability.

This militant strategy still echoes today in the sounds of dumb bombs exploding over the heads of the innocent Palestinian population in Gaza and in the crackling gunfire of the newly revived settler movement in the West Bank as they make their final campaign towards forced domination of a land that never birthed them.

“The Settlers”: An Objective View on the Roots of the Israeli Expansionist Ambition#Israel #Israeli_settlers #West_Bank #Palestinehttps://t.co/Z01XDQlPep pic.twitter.com/Zvk0DQCOAz

— ManarWeb (@WebManar) May 7, 2025

In the final few moments of the video, Uncivilized discuss how Trump; the president who started his whole campaign on the promise of dismantling the “Deep State”, is just another cog in its monolithic machine, and that just like his neocon friends, he is a tool in the hands of those much more devious than he could ever be.

Far from being a relic of Cold War paranoia, the so-called “Deep State” emerges in the documentary as an enduring system: a complex, well-funded apparatus in which private sector titans, intelligence agencies, and foreign lobbies collude to direct the course of global events behind a façade of democracy. The consequence has been decades of war, occupation, and economic strangulation across West Asia—masked by media narratives and justified by manufactured threats.

In shining light on this entangled web of influence, Uncivilized reminds viewers that understanding the historical lineage of today’s imperial strategy is not just an academic exercise—it is a moral imperative. For those who truly seek to challenge the violent status quo and envision a world free from the grip of empire, confronting these uncomfortable truths is the first step in reclaiming sovereignty, dignity, and justice for all.

Source: Al-Manar English Website