Chapter Four
The 1905 Revolution In Russia
Should American citizens in the 1990's be interested in learning the roots of the Red Revolution that eventually overthrew all of Russia, turned it into a Communist Hell, and began molding it into a subversive and military power for the express purpose of destroying America? Many will not be interested in this "old history." However, if you are afraid for an America that faces destruction at the hands of Communist Russia, you should want to know.
Who Were The Red Revolutionists?
This amazing article in this old, old magazine reveals the identity of those who, over 85 years ago, were seeking the overthrow of the Czar and the establishment of a Communist Red Bolshevik Empire over Russia. Their identity is practically unknown in America today. You ask: "If it was known then, why didn't my father or my grandfather tell me?"
Probably because they never expected it to be of any importance to them or to you. Who, when this National Geographic article was published in 1906, 35 years before World War II, would have dreamed that within this century, a Red‑ruled, Bolshevik Russia would be poised to, and possibly capable of, destroying the United States of America? If they had thought that, they would have told you. They didn't.
Now you can find it out for yourself in this reprint. You might even find gems of wisdom to help in the saving of America from this Communist Red Bolshevik enemy. May the God of Israel {The White Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples of the world} have mercy on America and its Israel people {and this does not include those known today as the Jews}.
The Revolution in Russia
By William Eleroy Curtis
(In an address to the National Geographic Society, December 14, 1906)
"In order to understand the significance of events in the revolution that is now going on in Russia, it is necessary to recall what you learned in your school days, that it has the largest area of any nation and a population of one hundred and forty million souls, including eighty million peasants. The illiterate classes constitute at least three‑fourths of the population ‑‑ one hundred and twelve millions who cannot read or write. During the last few years there has been a very rapid improvement in this respect by reason of the establishment of village schools, but a wise man once said that 'a little learning is a dangerous thing,' and his wisdom has been demonstrated in Russia.
The introduction of a school system accounts for the remarkable spread of socialistic ideas among the working classes of that Empire. Kipling once said that as long as a Russian Muzhik wore his shirt outside his trousers he was a safe citizen: when he tucked it in, he became dangerous to the state. The truth of that quaint remark has been forcibly demonstrated within the last eighteen months.
The Russian workmen, in the cities and factory towns and the peasants in the fields, who constitute four‑fifths of the vast population, have vague and fantastic ideas of government and of the meaning of the word 'liberty.' They will follow anybody who promises to improve their condition, and are merciless and vindictive toward every one they distrust. For that reason they are more dangerous and destructive than the corresponding class in France. The peasants were formerly serfs, and were emancipated by the grandfather of the present Czar, who is known as Alexander the Good. When they were given their freedom the government applied the socialistic principle that the soil belongs to the men who till it, and each family was given an average of six and a quarter acres of cultivated land, which was then sufficient to supply their wants.
The increase of the population has cut down this average to three and a half acres, which is not sufficient to support a family. According to experts, at least seven acres is necessary to sustain an average family; so that the peasant has only about half the land he needs. The remainder of the Empire is held in vast estates belonging to the government, the crown, the monasteries, the grand dukes, the nobility, and the boyars or gentry, and only part of it is under cultivation. The peasants need the idle land and they demand it. They have emphasized their demands with the torch and the bludgeon, and during the last eighteen months have destroyed several hundred million dollars' worth of property, including some of the finest estates in the Empire, under the leadership of demagogues, who have aroused their passions and have made them insane with drink.
In his natural state the Russian peasant is honest, stupid, superstitious, and stubborn; when he is excited he becomes a savage. He has no ideals; he has no comprehension of politics; he does not comprehend the word "constitution," but he knows that he needs more land. There is not enough vodka in all the Empire to quench his thirst, and his vision is limited to his own local interests. The greater part of the peasants' land is held in common and the fields are allotted by the village elders, who are elected by the heads of families and exercise a tyrannical authority over the communities. No peasant can sell his land or borrow money upon it; he cannot leave his native place without the consent of the elders. His condition of serfdom has been continuous; only master has been changed. The provincial government is administered by 'zemstovs,' which enact and enforce laws for local purposes, assess and collect taxes, provide schools, build roads, look after the poor and the afflicted, and, under the censorship of a governor‑general appointed by the Throne, perform the function of our state officials.
The imperial government is administered by the Czar with the assistance of a council of state corresponding to our Cabinet, and a Senate, which corresponds to our Supreme Court, with some additional jurisdiction. The Czar issues edicts which have the force of law, upon the recommendation of his minister; the Senate formulates the imperial will into statutes and promulgates them. The Czar seldom sees his advisers together, but confers with them separately; so that there is no unity, no co‑operation, no team‑work, and continual friction, intrigue, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding.
The Prime Minister is nominally at the head of the government and is supposed to frame and direct its policy, leaving the details to his associates and subordinates, but in the past they have often tried to undermine and betray him and counteract his influence with the sovereign. Thus there is always a struggle going on around the Throne between conflicting interests in the cabinet, the members of the imperial household, and the Czar's own family, his mother and his wife taking an active part.
His Majesty is pulled and hauled this way and that by the various factions that are able to reach him, and the person who has exercised the most powerful influence over him is his former tutor and the tutor of his father, an aged lawyer named Pobiedonostseff, for many years the actual head of the Russian church. His is the most reactionary man in Russia, a type of the fifteenth century statesman, the most conservative of conservatives, who resists all innovation to the well‑being of man. He is convinced that the best form of government is an absolute despotism, and continually admonishes the Czar that he has no right to share the government with the representatives of the people, because God has conferred the duties and responsibilities of an autocrat upon him and he must retain them or offend God.
The Czarina was formerly very liberal, but since the birth of her boy, two years ago, her opinions have been reversed, and she is now quite as determined as the Czar's old tutor in support of the autocracy, because she desire to hand down to her son all the prerogatives and power his ancestors have exercised.
Nicholas II has a gentle disposition, a kind heart, and a desire to promote the welfare of his subjects. We have been told that a certain place is paved with good intentions and believes that progress is good intentions; and he has an abundance of that material, but has no fixed purpose. He is a timid opportunist and usually acts too late. He vacillates as different people talk to him, and the last person he sees usually controls his actions.
Instead of strengthening himself by attracting the support of the liberal elements, he has continually discredited his own sincerity and has placed himself in antagonism to the interests he promises to serve. He excites the distrust of his ministers and his supporters, instead of winning their confidence. Every concession he has made has been wrung from him by fear. He formally declared it to be his 'inflexible will' that Russia should have a constitution and a parliament, but as soon as the words were uttered he began to devise means to prevent himself from carrying out his own promises or limiting their fulfillment as much as possible.
Concessions that would have been received with universal gratitude at the beginning of the present year would now be rejected with contempt. Naturally he is inclined to be liberal and tolerant. At the same time he is devotedly attached to the traditions of the autocracy, and has a profound sense of his obligations to the memory of his father and to the founders of the Romanoff dynasty, which makes him hesitate about departing from the policies they pursued. He has a deep vein of religious sentiment and is intensely superstitious. He believes in miracles and omens; he wears amulets. In order to secure an heir to the throne, he made a pilgrimage incognito to the shrine of Saint Seraphim, where women who have no children are accustomed to go. He surrounds himself with clairvoyants and often communicates with the spirit of his father through spiritualistic mediums.
Charlatans impose upon his credulity and occupy time which should be given to matters of state. His ministers complain that he insists upon discussing trifles when momentous problems require his attention. He is devoted to his family; he is the first Czar that anyone can remember who lived a moral life and his ministers complain that he is playing with his children when he should be in the council chamber.
He is a voluntary prisoner, guarded by an army of 6,000 men, and no one can see him except in the presence of his guards. He knows only as much about events and affairs as his attendants think expedient. They prepare a summary of the contents of the newspapers for him every morning and naturally do not include anything that might interfere with their own plans or weaken their own influence. He does not comprehend the situation in Russia. He has been the continual victim of misrepresentation and bad advice. If he would break away from the influences that surround him; if he would talk with well‑informed and disinterested men, he might adopt a different policy.
The Officials Are Not Responsible
To The People or the Courts
The fundamental error in the Russian system of government is that the officials are in no way responsible to the people or the courts. If an official offends his neighbor, if he commits a crime, if he robs the treasury or murders an innocent citizen, he is tried by his superior officers in secret and not by a court. The prosecuting witness is not permitted to confront him or to be represented by counsel, and neither he nor the public are permitted to know what has occurred at the trial or what punishment has been imposed. That is the reason why no one is punished for the Jewish massacres.
Everybody knows that they were planned and carried out by the police in retaliation for the activity of the Jewish revolutionists. This has been admitted over and over again, but no one has ever been punished. Members of the recent ministry were guilty of revolting cruelties and acts of barbarism, but they were allowed to go without even a reprimand.
When I asked why this was permitted, a prominent minister replied that it was impossible to fix the responsibility under the present system of government. At present any official knows that he will be protected in anything he does, provided his act does not offend the men above him, and can defy the public and the courts. Mr. Herzenstein, one of the ablest men in the Empire, the highest authority on financial and economic questions, and of unimpeachable integrity and patriotism, was assassinated last August by a policeman under the orders of his superior officer.
It was a deliberate murder, and one of the government organs at Moscow published the news twelve hours before the deed was committed. The assassin's name was Nishikin; he was absolutely identified, but he was never punished, because he was responsible to no court and to no authority except the men who directed him to commit the crime.[1] It is easily understood why such a condition has not been corrected. The entire bureaucracy of the Empire has been united in defense of their most important prerogative.
But until the officials are made responsible to the courts like ordinary citizens, there can be no genuine reform in the Russian civil service. In the third section of a famous manifesto of October, 1905, the Czar promised 'to make all classes equal before the law and assure the independence of the courts.' In the first paragraph he says: 'It is the first duty of all authorities in all places to fix the legal responsibility for every arbitrary act, in order that sufferers through such acts shall have legal redress.'
To this the douma responded: 'The whole Russian people welcomed this message with an impassioned cry, but the very first days of liberty were darkened by heavy afflictions laid upon the land by those who still bar the way of the people to the Czar and trample under foot all the principles of the manifesto; by those who cover the land with sufferings and executions without judicial sentence; with atrocities, fusillades, and with imprisonment.'
As I have said already, the spread of socialism among the peasants during the last few years has been going on with amazing rapidity as they learn to read and write and tuck their shirts into their trousers, while a passive revolution under unconscious leaders has transformed most of the entire population of the Russian Empire from submissive subjects to discontented critics of the ministry and the court.
Dissatisfaction with the autocracy has penetrated every stratum of society in every part of the Empire, because of the appalling corruption of the court and the government, the tyranny of the police, the scandalous behavior of the grand dukes, and the general recognition that an autocracy is not consistent with modern civilization. When the armies of Russia were defeated in Manchuria and its navy was destroyed, this universal dissatisfaction was manifested in various forms. The labor unions furnished the motive power, as you might say, and gave an impetus to an irresistible movement, while the 'Intellectuals' and the 'Intelligencia,' as the educated classes are called, followed their lead.
The great strike which stopped every wheel and paralyzed every industry in the entire Empire convinced the Czar that he must do something to satisfy public clamor, and he promised his people a constitution and a parliament. Twenty‑three years before his grandfather prepared a plan of limited representation in the government for the people.
It was lying on his desk awaiting his signature when he was assassinated, and the clock was burned back twenty‑five years. When the time came when something must be done to save the dynasty, in a manuscript dated March 3, 1905, Nicholas II said: 'I am resolved henceforth, with the help of God, to convene the worthiest men possessing the confidence of the people, and elected by them to take part in the elaboration and consideration of legislative measure, and with the examination of a state budget.'
The Members of The First Douma
A commission under the Minister of the Interior prepared a plan, an awkward and complicated system, which was almost equivalent to universal suffrage; an election was held in march, 1906, and a fairly representative parliament was chosen. There was an upper house composed of ninety‑eight members, one‑half of whom were appointed by the Czar and the other half chosen by the commercial, industrial, and professional organizations, the faculties of the universities, and the church.
The lower house, called the douma, consisted of 440 members, of whom, according to a canvass, 276 were in favor of a reorganization of the government from an autocracy into a limited monarchy, and 164 were in favor of a republic, to be secured by armed revolution if necessary.
There was not one supporter of the autocracy in the entire body, and only five of the members refused to vote for the radical and impossible program adopted as a reply to the first speech from the Throne. Those five conservatives did not vote against the address, but left the chamber in order that it might be adopted unanimously. One of the most striking figures in the entire assembly was a Roman Catholic archbishop, Monsignor Roop, of Wilna, whose serene face, stately presence, and purple robes made him conspicuous.
Seven Mohammedan mullahs, sent up by the Tartars of the Caspian provinces, appeared in their conventional robes and turbans and sat beside several priests of the Orthodox Greek Church wearing long hair and beards and the peculiar hat and veil of their profession. It was therefore a most interesting assembly.
It probably contained a greater variety of elements, conflicting and rival, than any other legislative body that ever met all grades of society, education, and intelligence. Princes sat beside peasants, and mingling with the thirty‑seven college professors were six shaggy Muzhiks who could not read nor write.
The ablest theorists of the Empire and some of the most profound scholars of Europe were sent by the different universities, and the man who controlled the action of the douma, as completely as Speaker Cannon controls the present House of Representatives in Washington, was a member of the faculty of the University of Chicago, Professor Milukoff, a charming gentleman of great learning, of lofty ideals and unlimited benevolence, but entirely without experience in politics or legislative affairs, or practical knowledge of administration.
There were twenty‑seven different political organizations, representing every phase of opinion from the ultra‑conservative to the red radical; socialists, trades unionists, and other men of fixed purposes and extreme views. The most noisy and conspicuous were professional agitators, socialists and labor reformers, most of whom, although they call themselves 'the party of toil,' had never earned a dollar by manual labor in their lives.
They professed to represent the views of honest farmers and mechanics and had been elected by them, but accomplished nothing and only injured the interests of their constituents.
Twenty‑three races and Almost every occupation and Religion was also was represented
Russians 265 Peasant farmers 56
Orthodox Greeks 322 Little Russians 62
Boyars, or large land‑owners 46 Roman Catholics 30
Poles 51 Lawyers 39
Old Believers 20 Jews 25
College professors 37 White Russians 12
Clergymen 27 Mohammedans 12
Cossacks 12 Managers of large estates 26
Protestants 11 Lithuanians 10
Merchants 24 Armenians 9
Tartars 8 Government officials 24
Buddhists 2 Letts 6
Capitalists 22 Georgians 5
Village officials 21 Germans 4
Factory workmen 17 Vashkirs 4
Physicians 16 Armenians 4
Commission men 15 Buriats 2
School teachers 14 Mordvanians 2
Army officers 13 Votiaks 2
Engineers 11 Kirghis 1
Newspaper men 11 Circassians 1
Contractors 9 Bulgarians 1
Bankers 7 Roumanians 1
Railway men 4 Kalmuks 1
Scientists 3 Chuvas 1
Ossetines 1
The Political Parties
The members of the douma might be divided into three groups.
Conservatives 60
Moderates 250
Radicals 150
The principal parties were, first, the Octoberists, so called because they were elected upon pledges to support the manifesto issued by Nicholas II in October, 1905, in which he promised his people a constitution, a parliament, free religion, free speech, and all that is meant by civil and political liberty. This party was composed chiefly of business and professional men from the great cities, land‑owners, and men of large affairs. Their numbers were limited, and they came nearer than any other class to support the government. Stolypin, the present Prime Minister, was one of the leaders of the Octoberist party. His brother is still the secretary of its executive committee and one of the editors of its newspaper organ. Generally speaking, the Octoberists advocated a limited monarchy similar to Germany, and a broad, liberal system of education. They demanded a reorganization of the entire government, the reform of the judiciary, and almost universal suffrage.
The Constitutional Democrats in their platform demanded all this and more, including a ministry responsible to the parliament rather than to the Czar. They would be satisfied with a government like that of Great Britain. The Constitutional Democrats controlled the douma because they had a majority of its members, and if they had adopted a rational and practical program and carried it through, they would have accomplished great things for Russia; but, from the beginning, they committed blunder after blunder and threw away every one of the many golden opportunities that were offered them.
They should have shown some gratitude to the Czar for the constitution he had given them and for other concessions he had made, and encouraged him to make more; but, instead of adopting a conciliatory policy, they bullied his ministers and accused him of insincerity. In order to avoid controversies among themselves they made concessions to the socialists and revolutionists and allowed the most radical members of those parties to control the proceedings of the douma. Their generosity was suicidal. They seemed to think that they must present a solid front to the autocracy. They sacrificed everything for the sake of unanimity and loaded down their program with wild and impracticable propositions. It was a pitiful display of incapacity. When the leaders were criticized for yielding to the radicals, they would explain that the fundamental principles of their doctrine was freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and what right had they to object to the opinions of a fellow‑being?
No such Utopian policy was ever known in a legislative body before. No such generosity was ever extended before by one political party to another, and it not only impaired the usefulness of the 'Cadets,' as the Constitutional Democrats were called, for short, but proved their destruction.
The Social Democrats were next in numbers, and their platform was purely socialistic, based upon the theory that differences in wealth and station are wrong, and that all authority and all law are violations of the rights of man. They want a republic in Russia. So do the Social Revolutionists, who would accomplish the same thing by violence and are responsible for the bomb‑ throwing, the assassinations, the mutinies, the destruction of property valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, and other crimes against individuals and society in carrying on their propaganda. The members of this party defy all law; they trample upon all rights. They are vindictive, cruel, and merciless. They are anarchists, nihilists, and terrorists, but are always willing to die with their victims. The nerve and stolidly of the Russian revolutionists were never surpassed by any human beings. They do not seem to have the slightest fear of death and are utterly indifferent to danger. Their boldness is amazing. Very few bomb‑throwers have escaped alive, and no member of the fighting group of the Social Revolutionist party has broken down or even faltered in the presence of the hangman.
Considering the material of which it was composed, the douma displayed a remarkable amount of patience and self‑control, although its time was wasted on unprofitable discussions and its demands upon its sovereign were unreasonable and impossible to grant. But that was perfectly natural. A dozen or more of the leaders had suffered banishment to Siberia; as many more had been imprisoned in dungeons for conscience's sake; two‑thirds of the entire body had suffered injury or humiliation in one form or another from the government because of their political views.
One of the peasant members had been beaten almost to death, as his maimed and crippled body bore witness, because he had been brave enough to present the complaints of his village to the governor of his province. The douma was in session 119 days and it passed two bills, both of them of the greatest significance. One abolished the death penalty, and every member on the floor felt a vivid personal interest in that legislation; the other provided for the appointment of a commission to supervise the expenditure of the famine relief fund, which was a fortunate thing, because the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, one of the worst men in Russia, is now under investigation for pilfering from that fund.
Until the douma met, the people of Russia had never been allowed to express their opinions, and the repression of a thousand years was relieved at its sessions. Speech is a safety‑valve for an overcharged mind, elsewhere as in Russia, and the outbreaks of enthusiasm and indignation were not more boisterous than I have seen in our own Hall of Representatives, and, compared with other legislative assemblies of Europe, the proceedings of the douma were orderly and decorous. But, unfortunately, instead of protecting its own rights and insuring its own existence; instead of passing laws to gratify the land‑hungry peasants; to provide election machinery; to make government officials responsible to the courts; to reorganize the judiciary and the police; to establish a system of education and other important measures, the time was wasted in abusing and baiting the ministers and in high flights of oratory. The Extremists ruled because they were the most aggressive; the Conservatives submitted in order to promote harmony and present an unbroken front of opposition to the autocracy.
Finally a minority, under the lead of the Radicals, overstepped the bounds of decency and passed a resolution false in statement, wrong in spirit, intemperate in terms, warning the people that they could not trust the Czar or his officials. Only about one‑third of the members voted for it, the Radicals and the Revolutionists; but the Conservatives and moderate members would not vote against it, because they were afraid of the Extremists. They retired from the chamber; but the effect was the same, and the Czar exercised his right to dissolve a mutinous and disloyal parliament, just as the German Emperor, for even less reason, dissolved the Reichstag December 12.
But there had been no sympathy between the two powers from the first, and if the douma was guilty of many blunders, he was guilty of more. His list of lost opportunities is longer than that of any ruler in modern times. If he had received the members of the douma with kind words and a conciliatory disposition, he might have won over a large number of them to the support of his own policy or program without relinquishing a particle of his dignity or authority; but on the day it met he practically repudiated the body he had himself created. Hence the Czar had no friends or supporters in the lower house, and the upper house, composed one‑half of men of his own choice, was also against him. Unfortunately for himself and for his country, Nicholas II is always wavering between right an wrong. If he goes wrong, he acts promptly; if he does right, he delays his action so long that he loses all the credit he deserves. On the 3d of March, 1905, he promised his people a constitution, but it was not until the 10th of May, 1906, that the promise was fulfilled. In the meantime revolutionary horrors increased, deputations came to beseech him to carry his purpose into effect; but he would do nothing until the creditors of the Empire compelled him to act, in order that he might obtain a loan of four hundred million dollars to settle the accounts of the war and bring the army back from Manchuria. The creditors of the Empire compelled him to keep his pledge and refused to advance another dollar until a parliament had been elected and the draft of a constitution or fundamental law was submitted for their approval. It was not a liberal constitution, but was more than might have been expected. It was a long step in advance, and it gives as much self‑government as the people of Russia are capable of exercising; perhaps more. They have had no experience; the masses are densely ignorant; only one out of four can read and write; 70% of the population do not have the slightest comprehension of what self‑government means. The Emperor of Japan voluntarily relinquished the autocratic power that had been exercised by his ancestors for more than 2,500 years; the Empress of China has recently taken the first step toward a similar concession; the Shah of Persia has conceded a parliament which will share with him the responsibility of government and, as long as Nicholas II was compelled to give his people a constitution in order to save his throne, one might suppose that he would have made a virtue of necessity and gained as much credit as possible for the act; but he lost all that he might have gained, and what is even worse and more lamentable, he has destroyed the faith of the people in his sincerity and has forfeited their respect by permitting the letter and the spirit of his constitution to be violated by his own officials almost every day since it was proclaimed. The Czar has many good impulses; he has frequent lucid intervals; sometimes he shows a wise and generous spirit. Three times during the douma he offered the Liberals an opportunity to form a ministry, and if the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic party had possessed a particle of common sense, they would have met him half way and accepted his olive branch. The first time he offered them the administration of the government they rejected his overtures in the most contemptuous manner they could devise. The second time they gave the matter serious reflection and discussed it for several days. Finally they agreed to accept, but adopted a program so preposterous and absurd that their reply was not worthy of attention. They would not be content with gradual reform; they insisted that everything should be done in an instant. They were so foolish as to attempt to transform an absolute despotism into a liberal monarchy by the stroke of a pen.
James Russell Lowell, writing of Spain, said: 'Institutions grow and cannot be made to order; they grow out of an actual past and are not to be conspired out of a conjectural future. Human nature is stronger than any invention of man. When party leaders learn that an ounce of patience is worth a pound of passion. Spain may at length count on that duration of tranquility, the want of which has been the chief obstacle to her material development.' Elihu Root, in his address to the third Conference of American Republics, at Rio de Janeiro, July 31, 1906, said: 'Not in one generation, nor in one century can the effective control of a superior sovereign, so long deemed necessary to government, be rejected, and effective self‑control by the governed be perfected n its place. The first‑fruits of democracy are many of them crude and unlovely; its mistakes are many; its partial failures many, its sins not few. Capacity for self‑government does not come to man by nature. It is an art to be learned, and it is also an expression of character to be developed among all the thousands of men who exercise popular sovereignty.' If the leaders of the first Russian parliament could have realized the profound truth of those axioms, and had they been willing to allow a gradual development of democratic ideas and liberal forms of administration, they might have had the opportunity to guide and control the regeneration of Russia; but they would not listen to reason; they demanded all or nothing. When I asked Professor Milukoff, their leader, why they did not accept what they could get and wait in patience for more, he replied: 'Would you have insulted your revolutionary fathers with such a cowardly suggestion?'
A Carnival of Crime and Assassination
For several weeks after the dissolution of the douma last August, Russia saw a carnival of crime, assassination, and violence such as never occurred before, even in the bloody history of that empire. The week I spent in Warsaw twenty‑two policemen were killed on their beats, and not one of the assassins was detected. There were mutinies in the army and the navy.
You will remember how the fortresses at Cronstadt and Helsingfors were seized and the terrible slaughter that attended those incidents. One of the Petersburg papers, edited by Professor Kovaleski, enumerated the assassinations and gave an amazing estimate of the mortality. It declares that 7,300 persons were killed and more the 9,000 were wounded by bombs in massacres and mutinies. Among the killed were 123 governors, generals, chiefs of police, and other high officials. Thirty thousand revolutionists were arrested and most of them were sent to Siberia, while 221 persons were executed. Twelve railway trains containing government treasure were held up and successfully robbed, 400 government liquor stores were robbed and destroyed, and $630,000 of government money was stolen by burglars and highwaymen. All of this was done by the revolutionists.
According to the authority of the 'Retch' newspaper, the organ of the Constitutional Democratic party, one member of the late douma has been assassinated, one has become insane, two of the present members (Mr. Stevanduk and Mr. Grevoff) have been beaten nearly to death because they did not accomplish anything for their constituents. Onipko, a most repulsive person and the leader of the terrorists in the douma, has been sent to Siberia. He was captured red‑handed, leading the mutiny at Cronstadt. Five members of the douma have been banished; the houses of thirty‑three have been searched; twenty‑four have been imprisoned for political reasons; 182 have been deprived of civil rights and are under indictment for having conspired to induce the people to disobey the law. These were the members of the douma who signed what is known as the 'Protest of Viborg' against the dissolution of the douma and appealing to the people not to pay taxes or to serve in the army. This is a very foolish procedure, because there are no direct imperial taxes in Russia. The revenues of the government come from indirect duties paid upon liquor, from duties on imported goods, from monopolies, and similar sources. The manifesto, therefore, did not injure the general government, but only the local 'zemstovs' and 'mirs,' who collect taxes for schools, roads, and other purposes. The men who signed that protest, 218 in number, might have been held for treason, but the government merely indicted them for conspiracy, and thus made them ineligible for re‑election to the douma. About one‑half of them belonged to the Constitutional Democratic party and the remainder to the Social Democrats, social Revolutionists, and other radical organizations. The Constitutional Democratic party, however, is held responsible for the manifesto; its meetings are prohibited notwithstanding the guarantee of free speech in the constitution, and the Emperor's October manifesto. It has been practically dissolved by proclamation, but has nominated candidates against whom the government can find no objection and is carrying on an active campaign.
The more conservative element have organized what they call the 'Party of Peaceful Regeneration.' It consists of those who refused to sign the Viborg protest, and their platform condemns their former associates for their uncompromising opposition to the government and their alliance with the revolutionists. Another new party is called the 'Progressive Reformers,' but its platform differs little from that of the Octoberists. It advocates a form of government similar to that of Germany, with a ministry responsible to the sovereign, but in harmony with the parliament. Mr. Stolypin is a member of the Octoberist party and a sincere believer in parliamentary government, but has never declared himself on the question of ministerial responsibility.
The Government's Attempt to Elect A Second Douma Which it Could Control
The first douma was elected by practically universal suffrage. Almost every man in Russia twenty‑four years of age and older was able to participate, which was a mistake, because the illiterate and ignorant millions by the volume of their votes controlled the result. This time Stolypin is determined to get a practical and reasonable douma, and in order to do is using arbitrary measures. He is fighting fire with fire and force with force. He is disfranchising the revolutionary forces wherever he has an excuse.
This is not done directly, but by the Senate, which corresponds to the Supreme Court of the United States and whose duty is to interpret the laws. He has stated frankly that if he does not succeed in getting a douma that will co‑operate with him in the reorganization of the government and the reforms he is now carrying out, it will be dissolved and another election will be ordered with still greater restrictions. Stolypin has instructed all provincial officials to use their best efforts in support of the Octoberist candidates, and in districts where they have no chance, to help the 'Peaceful Regenerationists' or other conservatives. The result depends upon the votes of the peasants, who have always been loyal to 'The Little Father,' as they affectionately call the Czar. At the previous election they were controlled by socialistic agitators, itinerant apostles of anarchy and violence, most of whom were non‑residents and were elected to the douma because they promised to accomplish all sorts of impossible reforms. Stolypin is trying to eliminate such leaders from the campaign and to keep professional agitators like Alladin out of parliament. To do this the Senate has construed the election law so that only persons with fixed homes can vote or be voted for, and non residents are prohibited from taking part in the campaign. This disfranchises several hundred thousand workmen who participated in the last election because they have migrated from the country to the manufacturing centers. The Senate has also debarred 278,000 employees of the government railways, postal service, and workmen in the government shops, including the most skilled and highest‑ paid labor in Russia, such as locomotive engineers, stationary engineers, machinists, and draftsmen. The reason, frankly given, is that these classes of workmen are too easily influenced by agitators. It is a wonder that the order was not followed by strikes. Another edict, issued November 11, forbids officers and soldiers of whatever rank to join political parties, or to attend political meetings or to discuss political questions, and disfranchises every man in the military service. Civil employees of the government who join or assist either of the revolutionary parties forfeit their positions and all claims to pensions. This includes school‑ teachers and university professors, nearly all of whom belong to the liberal or revolutionary parties.
The students in the universities are debarred because they are all revolutionists. A recent canvass of the University of Odessa illustrates the political sentiments of the students:
Social Democrats 777
Social Revolutionists 712
Octoberists 317
Constitutional Democrats 167
Labor Reformers 167
Total against government 1,823
Total for government 317
In some of the universities the students are unanimous against the government. Every one of them is a revolutionist, and because they insist upon holding revolutionary meetings, making revolutionary speeches, and singing revolutionary songs in the buildings and n the campus, the government has closed all of the nine universities in Russia and scattered between fifteen and twenty thousand agitators throughout the land, when it might have kept them segregated, where they would do no harm.
Although the October manifesto of the Emperor and the constitution of Russia guarantee free speech, free press, and the right to hold political meetings, the government has suppressed a large number of newspapers and has compelled the publishers of those which are allowed to exist to sign an agreement not to advocate revolutionary doctrines, nor excite the people by attacking the arrangements for the approaching elections, or criticizing the acts of the ministry...Although public meetings are broken up by the police every day, newspapers are suppressed, and innocent people as well as wicked conspirators are arrested for political reasons, there has been a remarkable change in Russia, and especially in Saint Petersburg, within the last few months. Formerly every printed book and manuscript found in the baggage of a traveler was closely examined and usually seized, in the effort to prevent the dissemination of revolutionary literature. Nowadays manuscripts, books, and pamphlets are passed without question. You can buy revolutionary music, photographs, and postcards on the streets and at the news stands. You can find all kinds of newspapers, including the most radical organs of the socialists, upon the files in the reading‑rooms of the hotels, and cartoonists are taking amazing liberties with public men and public questions in the comic papers. If such caricatures had been printed two years ago both the artist and the publisher would have gone to a dungeon. Boys on the street are selling photographs of 'Martyrs for Liberty' ‑‑ Polish Jews who have thrown bombs and assassinated officials, revolutionists who have been killed by the police or executed for political offenses, and the leaders of the mutinies at Cronstadt, Helsingfors, and Sevastopol. One of the most popular and profitable photographs represents William Jennings Bryan sitting in the center of a group of the reddest socialists and anarchists in Russia. It was taken on the steps of Tauride Palace during the session of the douma and has done incalculable harm because it has convinced many honest workingmen that Mr. Bryan and the people of the United States sympathize with the (Jewish) bomb‑throwers and anarchists. The mails are no longer interfered with; the censors have been discharged. Foreign newspaper correspondents can criticize the government as much as they like and send their dispatches over the official telegraph lines...
The Vengeance of the Jews
Perhaps these reforms are the cause of the present tranquility, because the revolutionary leaders nearly all belong to the Jewish race and the most effective revolutionary agency is the Jewish Bund, which has its headquarters at Bialystok, where the massacre occurred last June. The government has suffered more from that race than from all of its other subjects combined. Whenever a desperate deed is committed it is always done by a Jew, and there is scarcely one loyal member of that race in the entire Empire. The great strike which paralyzed the Empire and compelled the Czar to grand a constitution and a parliament was ordered a constitution and a parliament was ordered and managed by a Jew named Krustaleff, president of the workingmen's council, a young man only thirty years old. He was sent to the penitentiary for life, and had not been behind the bars more than three weeks when he organized and conducted a successful strike of the prison employees. Maxim, who organized and conducted the revolution in the Baltic provinces, is a Jew of marvelous ability. Last fall he came over here lecturing and collecting money to carry on the revolutionary campaign, but for some reason has vanished and nobody seems to know what has become of him. Gerschunin, the most resourceful leader of the terrorists, who was condemned to life imprisonment in the silver mines on the Mongolian frontier, has recently escaped in a water cask, and is supposed to be in San Francisco. He is a Polish Jew only twenty‑seven years old. I might enumerate a hundred other revolutionary leaders and every one of the would be a Jew. Wherever you read of an assassination or of the explosion of a bomb you will notice in the newspaper dispatches that the man was a Jew. The most sensational and dramatic episode that has occurred since the mutinies was on October 27, when, in the very center of Saint Petersburg, at the entrance of Kazan Cathedral, four Jews held up a treasury wagon and captured $270,000. They passed the package to a woman, who instantly vanished, and no trace of her has ever been found; but they were all arrested and were promptly punished. On the 8th of November a few Jewish revolutionaries entered a treasury car near Ragow, in Poland, got $850,000 and disappeared. Every deed of that kind is done by Jews, and the massacres that have shocked the universe, and occurred so frequently that the name 'pogrom' was invented to describe them, were organized and managed by the exasperated police authorities in retaliation for crimes committed by the Jewish revolutionists...
The Second Douma
The second douma was elected in February, 1907, and organized in the month following. By the arbitrary restriction of the right of suffrage to certain classes, the government reduced the Radical majority considerably, and secured the election of about thirty reactionaries of absolute monarchists. During the first month of the session the proceedings were much more moderate and business like than those of the first douma, and, on the other hand, Mr. Stolypin and his associates showed a conciliatory disposition toward that body in striking contrast with the attitude of the previous ministry. The Constitutional Democrats, however, who, with the assistance of the Radicals have an overwhelming majority, are inclined to insist upon the same sweeping reforms that were demanded by the first douma, and at this writing do not promise any practical or useful legislation.
It is useless to predict what will happen in Russia; but the autocracy is ended. A constitution and a parliament have been given to the people and cannot be recalled. It is one of the great mysteries of Providence, which our feeble minds have never been able to solve, that human liberty must be bought with suffering and blood; but it would seem as if we were entering upon a new period. There has been comparatively little bloodshed in Russia, and in China and Persia a peaceful regeneration of their governments is going on. The year 1906 will ever be memorable in the history of civilization because it has seen the dissolution of three despotisms and the establishment of representative governments upon their ruins. Only two despotisms still remain among the nations of the earth, Siam and Turkey; but the king of Siam has an American adviser, and the Great Turk dare not go outside the walls that inclose his palace. [2]
Aleksei Nicholaevich Romanoff
Rightful Heir to the All‑Russian Imperial Throne
Following Are Some Facts That Every American Must Know: In order to better understand the Romanoff Dynasty: The Czars of Russia. The Illuminati, International Jewish conspirators tried to establish an Anti‑Christ one‑world, United Nations at the close of the Napoleonic Wars. It was known as the Congress of Vienna, in 1830.
It was at a time when Europe was devastated, industries prostrated and people starving and desperate. They thought their diabolical scheme was accomplished through their planned bloody wars. But the Czar saw through all of the machinations of the treasonable conspiracy and upset their plans. He bluntly rejected all suggestions of a "league of nations" and a World Court. All the rulers present supported the Czar even against their own advisors. This made the Illuminati, Rothschild conspirators furious. The demonic one‑world racketeers denounced the Czar as a foe of all mankind. They called Russia a rogue nation and started a lying crusade to make the Russian people believe they would have to destroy the Czar or be excluded from the World's Family of Nations.
The fact was that the Czar was mankind's best earthly protector and friend at that time in history. The Czar never allowed the Rothschild money lenders to establish a branch in Russia. The Czars refused to accept any of their treacherous financial aid, and often said that the Rothschilds were like the thieving money changers Jesus lashed out of the temple.
This caused the conspirators to vow to destroy the entire Czarist family so that there would never again be a Romanoff heir to the throne. To down grade the Czar and cause him to be hated by the nations, the one‑world Illuminati committed mass massacres and then told the Russian people that the Czar had ordered them.
This was a lie. It did, however, have the desired effect. Remember there is no difference between the objectives of the Rothschilds and those of the Rockefellers who have by craft and deceit captured our nation (The United States). Let us also remember that it was the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Illuminati, Jewish one‑worlder money changers that planned, caused, and financed BOTH sides of World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and that they caused these wars with all of their suffering and blood shed and loss of life to emasculate, impoverish, and bankrupt the United States, destroy patriotism and Christianity and force us into their one‑world, anti‑Christ, Communist, United nations deathtrap! The Congressional Record, 67th Congress, 4th Session, Senate Document No. 346 reads: "The responsibility for the last World War (WW I) rests solely upon the shoulders of the international financiers. It is upon them that rests the blood of millions of dead and millions of dying."
We have also been told: "Only now, after the terrible events...it has become possible to appreciate fully the accuracy of the information presented in the secret report of Count Lamsdorf, former Russian Foreign Minister, to Emperor Nicholas II, dated January 3, 1906, on the international aspect of the first revolutionary outbreak in Russia in 1905. Some of the passages in this report are so striking that we feel it necessary to quote them in extenso: 'The events which took place in Russia during 1905, and which assumed especially acute forms at the beginning of October last, when after a series of strikes, they brought about an armed revolt in Moscow, and many other towns and localities of the Empire, plainly indicate that the Russian revolutionary movement; apart from its deeper, internal, social-economic and political causes, has also quite a definite international character...The most decisive indications which warrant this conclusion are given by the circumstances that the Russian revolutionaries are in possession of great quantities of arms which are imported from abroad, and of very considerable financial means, because there can be no doubt that the leaders of the revolution have already spent on our anti-government movement, the organization of all sorts of strikes included, large amounts of money. Since, however, it must be acknowledged that such support given to the revolutionary movement by sending arms and money from abroad can hardly be ascribed to foreign governments (with very special exceptions, as, for instance, that of Sweden supporting the revolutionary movement in Finland, and of Austria which helped the Poles) one is bound to come to the conclusion that there are foreign capitalists' organizations which are interested in supporting our revolutionary movement. With this conclusion the fact must be confronted that the Russian revolutionary movement has the outspoken character of a movement of the heterogeneous nationalities of Russia which one after another, Armenians and Georgians, Letts and Esths, Finns, Poles and others, arose against the Imperial Government...If we add to the above, that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a very considerable part among these heterogeneous nationalities is played by Jews, who, individually, as ringleaders in the other organizations, as well as through their own (the Jewish Bund in the Western Provinces), have always come forward as the most bellicose element of the revolution, we may feel entitled to assume that the above-mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles. In this respect one must not ignore the following concurrences of facts which lead to further conclusions, namely, that the revolutionary movement is not only supported but also to a certain degree directed from abroad. On one hand, the strike borke out with special violence and spread all over Russia not before and not after October, that is, just at the time when our government tried to realize a considerable foreign loan without the participation of the Rothschilds and just in time for preventing the carrying out of this financial operation; the panic provoked among the buyers and holders of Russian loans could not fail to give additional advantages to the Jewish bankers and capitalists who openly and knowingly speculated upon the fall of the Russian rates... Moreover, certain very significant facts, which were also mentioned in the press, quite confirm the obvious connection of the Russian revolutionary movement with the foreign Jewish organizations. Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned importation of arms, which according to our agents' information was carried on from the European Continent through England can be duly appreciated if we take into consideration that already in June, 1905, a special Anglo-Jewish committee of capitalists was openly established in England for the purpose of collection money for arming fighting groups of Russian Jews, and that the well-known anti-Russian publicist, Lucien Wolf, was the leading member of this committee.
On the other hand, in view of the fact that the sad consequences of the revolutionary propaganda affected the Jews themselves, another committee of Jewish capitalists was formed in England, under the leadership of Lord Rothschild, which collected considerable amounts of contributions in England, France and Germany for the officially alleged purpose of helping Russian Jews who suffered from pogroms. And lastly, the Jews in America, without thinking it necessary formally to distinguish between the two purposes, collect money for helping the pogrom sufferers and for arming the Jewish youth.'" [3]
Some of the following has been stated elsewhere in this publication, but please bear with us for saying it again. But we believe that it must be stated again here to properly present this portion of history. Our American Textbooks continue to teach American school children that the American Civil War was fought over the Slavery issue. But if we look behind the scenes we will find that the "slave question" was but the surface issue. Below the surface ran a current of intrigue that ended with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because he was determined that the United States was to be free from the bondage of the International Bankers. In respect to the Civil War, we will begin with several quotes from a book written in the last century.
"It was to obey those bloody laws that Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nates, caused the death of half a million of men, women, and children, who perished in all the highways of France, and caused twice that number to die in the land of exile, where they had found a refuge. Those anti‑social laws, today, are written on her banners with the blood of ten millions of martyrs. It is under those bloody banners that 6,000 Roman Catholic priests, Jesuits and bishops, in the United States, are marching to the conquest of this republic, backed by their seven millions of blind and obedient slaves.
Those laws, which are still the ruling laws of Rome, were the main cause of the last rebellion of the Southern States. Yes! Without Romanism, the last awful Civil War would have been impossible. Jeff Davis would never have dared to attack the North, had he not had assurance from the Pope, that the Jesuits, the bishops, the priests and the whole people of the Church of Rome, under the name and mask of democracy, would help him. These diabolical and anti‑social laws of Rome caused a Roman Catholic (Beauregard a Jew) to be the man chosen to fire the first gun at Fort Sumter, against the flag of Liberty, on the 12th of April, 1861. Those anti‑Christian and anti‑social laws caused the Pope of Rome to be the only crowned prince in the whole world, so depraved as to publicly shake hands with Jeff Davis, and proclaim him president of a legitimate government.
These are the laws which led the assassins of Abraham Lincoln to the house of a rabid Roman Catholic woman, Mary Surratt (a Jewess), which was not only the rendezvous of the priests of Washington, but the very dwelling‑house of some of them. Those bloody and infernal laws of Rome nerved the arm of the Roman Catholic, Booth (a Jew), when he slaughtered one of the ignoble man in the history of America to that time. Those bloody and anti‑social laws of Rome, after having covered Europe with ruins, tears, and blood for ten centuries, have crossed the oceans to continue their work of slavery and desolation, blood and tears, ignorance and demoralization, on this continent. Under the mask and name of democracy (which is in all reality Judaism) they have raised the standard of rebellion of the South against the North, and caused more than half a million of the most heroic sons of America to fall on the fields of carnage. In the very near future, if God does not miraculously prevent it, those laws of dark deeds and blood will cause the prosperity, the rights, the education, and the liberties of this too confident nation to be buried under the mountain of smoking and bloody ruins. On the top of that mountain, Rome (Judaism through the rule of the Black Pope) will raise her throne and plant her victorious banners." [4]
The Knights of The Golden Circle
The division of the American nation and ensuing war was a necessary step to overthrow the true government and laws of the nation. This task was achieved by the Plutocratic elite through their use of the Jewish‑Masonic organization known as The Knights of the Golden Circle. The purpose of this subversive organization is shown in the following excerpt: "Knights of the Golden Circle, the name of an organization founded for the overthrow of the government of the United States. It was A Secret Society, and was first organized for action in the slave‑labor States. The members were pledged to assist in the accomplishment of the designs of those who were intent upon the establishment of an empire within the limits of the Golden Circle. It was the soul of the filibustering movements in Central America and Cuba from 1850 to 1857; and when these failed, the knights concentrated their energies for the accomplishment of their prime object ‑ The destruction of the union and the perpetuation of slavery." [5]
The Knights of the Golden Circle was a part of the Masonic Scottish Rite. Members of the Scottish Rite established the Knights of the Golden Circle in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1854. Between 1855 and 1860, this secret order had recruited, armed, and trained about 100,000 men in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, and Maryland. "While the Knights of the Golden Circle, the military reorganization of the Confederacy, was being organized under the control of the Scottish Rite's Northern chief, the Swiss J.J. Gourgas, and his lieutenant Killian Henry Van Rensselaer, the Southern Jurisdiction of the Rite was organizing the political leadership for the secession itself. The man in charge of this project was Albert Pike of Newburyport, Massachusetts." [6]
The order of the Knights of the Golden Circle were the instigators and promoters of political and physical rebellion throughout the South, they were the real "secessionists" and "insurrectionists." The true Southern leadership, including Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson, Sam Houston, and other such men were all against secession. Generally, the sentiment of the South was pro‑ Union and secession was not a popular movement. By the time the Civil War started the Knights of the Golden Circle claimed at least 65,000 armed and drilled recruits in the deep South.[7] It was this military organization which became the heart of the Confederate States of America, who provided the military backbone and enforcement for the Confederate insurrection.
The bulk of the true Southern mainstream was sucked into the whirlwind of their planned insurrection, being left with no choice but to fight in defense of the consequential retaliation to that insurrection. Nearly every aspect of the Southern policy on secession, war, and the formation of a new government was derived from members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry or the Knights of the Golden Circle. "The Secessionists, controlling the state governments of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas met at Montgomery, Alabama, under the chairmanship of Scottish Rite Supreme Council member Howell Cobb. They announced the establishment of the Southern 'Confederacy,' and designated Jefferson Davis of Mississippi as President of their rump nation. He made fairly good window‑dressing for their insurrection, being both a Southerner and an American." [8]
When Governor Sam Houston of Texas prevented his state from seceding from the union, he was deposed by a secessionist coup backed by thousands of armed paramilitary Knight of the Golden Circle. When Fort Sumter became the focus of strategic concern for the nation, members of the Knights of the Golden Circle served as officers in the South Carolina forces, "to supervise the attack on Fort Sumpter which started the Civil War." [9] Since the objective of this secret Masonic order was the "overthrow of the government of the United States," they obviously had in plan the establishment of a new government, one based upon the law that guided their order, a Jewish Talmudic law, which is the basis of their de facto government.
The Prize - The South's Wealth
The assessed valuation of all United States property in 1860 was $12‑billion. One‑half of that was in 11 Southern States with only 8‑million Whites.[10] These 8‑million Whites exported 57% of the total exports of the nation. The plan was to bind the South and take her wealth.
With a bonus to eliminate a nation of kings, the natural competitors of the ultimate ruler of the world. War would be necessary since the South could not be expected to willingly give away wealth that had taken over 250 years to accumulate. Then, too, war is good for business. In fact, it is the best of the several ways to force money to be borrowed into existence in a usury society [11]. The usual way the media goes about creating a war climate is:
1). "The enemy" must be made to appear unlawful. He must be made to appear criminal, one that must be restrained and punished for the good and safety of all.
2). The public must be made to believe that the enemy is going to attack them. If the enemy can be made to strike the first blow, opinions harden and unite on war, and "happy days are here again" as war contracts go out.
Is there any doubt that this will work? Think about the wonderful results the media obtained in the so‑called "Gulf War." Where they absolutely convinced most Americans that Hussein must be destroyed in Iraq or he would invade America next!
The Chosen Issue - Radical Abolition
The public issue of the day was the colonization program; the purchasing, freeing, and sending of the slaves back to Africa. It was a subject freely discussed in almost every social setting. It was on the tip of everyone's tongue; a subject ready for the media's propagandist twist. The media took Thomas Jefferson's abolition plan, adopted it, revised it by leaving out "compensation" and "repatriation," and started their own propaganda campaign.
Jefferson's abolition plan minus colonization nullified all that the colonization plan was created to correct, the protection of the White workers from cheap alien labor and the protection of the White race from destruction through contact with strangers and learning their ways. And, of course, to prevent the inevitable interbreeding that always result when two peoples live in the same land. This selection of the abolition issue was a work of genius. It could not fail to succeed where a media monopoly existed. The way it was developed was even more inspired. The media stopped virtually all reference to colonization.
They stopped almost all reference to payment for freed slaves. Abolition took on meaning that was harsh and sinister. It was the San Domingo campaign all over again, done by the same international bankers in the same manner. All that was new was the victim. The only topic the media discussed from 1830 on was the evil of slavery, a topic on which the entire nation agreed. The evil was embellished with reports of the brutality of slave owners. Not only were the slave owners brutes, but they were pictured as fiends who delighted in devising vile punishments to inflict on helpless Black wretches. The story as it appeared in the northern media was the atrocity story, of which we have become so familiar: slave owners were treating slaves in a shameful manner, they were the servants of the devil and any punishment meted out to such evil creatures was too good.
Northern city dwellers traveled very little in those days. They were dependent on others to furnish news of outside events. They only knew what they read in the newspapers and had no way of telling if the stories were true or false. But, they believed if the newspapers printed it; then it must be true. Because then, just as now, Americans could not bring themselves to believe that there were traitors who would destroy our country if only they could.
If what the media said was actually going on in the south, if slaves were being beaten, starved, and maltreated wholesale for pleasure, and if good Black "Christian" slave families were being broken up and sold away from each other just so the plantation master could enjoy the female without the irate slave husband around, the hard opinions were justified.
But, it was lying Jewish propaganda. It was "implied" at first, and later outright demanded, that instant freedom, minus payment and colonization, be granted these "poor" down‑trodden wretches from these slaveholding fiends, even if force had to be used to do it. The word "force" began to enter the papers with increasing frequency and urgency. Money was lavished on this new radical abolition campaign on a scale not seen since the French Revolution. Revolutionary tracts were printed and sent to the salves in the South by the case. As far back as 1835, John Quincy Adams noted in his diary: "Anti‑slavery associations are formed in this country and in England and they are already co‑operating in concerted agency together. They have raised funds to support and circulate inflammatory newspapers and pamphlets gratuitously, and they send multitudes of them into the Southern country into the midst of swarms of slaves." [12]
This was Haiti all over again. The same sort of tracts had appeared among the slaves in Haiti to foment a revolt that exterminated the Whites. The main difference was that these were printed in English while those used in Haiti were in French. The content was the same, the style was the same, and the demands were the same. There were white refugees from Haiti living in Virginia who could identify the tracts and testify as to the results they produced. Margaret Mercer of Maryland, who had freed her slaves, was incensed by the writings of William Lloyd Garrison. In a letter to a friend she says: "This is my apology for feeling and expressing the deepest indignation against the man who dares to throw the firebrand into the powder magazine while all are asleep and stands himself at a distance to see the mangled victims of his barbarous fury." [13] The amazing thing is that through it all the northern people hadn't the faintest idea that the media were trying to foment a slave revolt in the South, and were using them as pawns in the great game of war. They had no way of knowing. The tracts sent to the Southern slaves weren't the same as the editorials appearing in the northern newspapers. Each was slanted to its own particular audience.
Money continued to pour into the campaign. The mails were full of insurrection propaganda. Southern reaction against this incendiary printed matter is given in the following letter by The Rev. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, who visited Virginia in 1854. He wrote: "When these amalgamation pictures were discovered (pictures showing interracial couples in all sorts of poses)...Who can wonder that they broke into the post‑office and seized and burned abolition papers; indeed no excesses are surprising in view of the perils to which they saw themselves exposed." [14]
In his message to Congress in December 1860, President Buchanan wrote: "The incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question through the North for the last quarter of a century has at last produced its malign influence on the slaves...Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. A feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehension of servile insurrection."
George Lunt of Boston, wrote: "It thus appears that an active and alarming system of aggression against the South was in operation at the North thirty years ago, threatening to excite servile insurrection, to imperil union, to stir up civil war." [15]
Professor John Burgess of Columbia University wrote: "If the whole thing, both as to time, methods, and results, had been planned by his Satanic Majesty himself, it could not have succeeded better in setting the sound conservative movements of the age at naught...No man who is acquainted with the change of feeling which occurred in the South...can regard Harper's Ferry villainy as any other than one of the favorite crimes of our history..."
Brown and his band had murdered five men and wounded some eight or ten more in their criminal movement at Harper's Ferry. In Kansas, Brown's gang mutilated prisoners by cutting off arms, etc. [16]. His activities were well publicized in the South. When the Northern media wrote approvingly of these acts the South's wrath knew no bounds. The south acted as people are supposed to act when being conditioned for war. "Add to this the consideration that Brown certainly intended the wholesale massacre of the Whites by the Blacks...it was certainly natural that the tolling of the church bells, the holding of prayer‑meetings for the soul of John Brown, the draping of houses, the half‑masting of flags, etc., in many parts of the North should appear to the people of the South to be evidences of a wickedness which knew no bounds..." [17]
Slave owners in Kansas reacted to John Brown's attacks by organizing vigilante committees for their own protection as it was meant that they should. This played into the hands of the media. This defensive organization and its protective measures were interpreted by the press to their Northern readers as aggressive acts directed against all abolitionists. This was the justification they needed to assert that the North must now arm to protect itself against hostile and aggressive Southern slave owners who threatened to spread their evil society over all the country. The whole affair only cost a few hundred thousand dollars.
America's Hidden Rulers
The manipulation and instigation of the American Civil War by Jewish powers had profound legal ramifications. The Jews knew that such a war would cause both sides to violate fundamental principles and established Christian Laws. Both North and South violated the Law of God which says you shall not "fight against your brethren" without a just cause. Just as God brought Israel into alien captivity for its gross violations and unjust actions against its brethren, so too God brought about a captivity upon Americans by alien, Plutocratic Jews, not a physical captivity, but a legal captivity resulting in a legal revolution.
The Civil War was, in a legal sense, an international war between America and the International Banking Monopoly of the Jews, and the victor of that war was the Jews. However, since they did not engage in any successful armed insurrection, as they did with Russia,[18] they had no right to physical occupation and control. But God gave America into their hands, by giving them legal control over the national government. The Civil War was the second step of the legal control and captivity the Plutocratic Jews had over the U.S. Government and legal system. The Civil Rights Acts, the Reconstruction Acts, the 14th and 15th Amendments were all revolutionary in nature, being based on Jewish Socialistic-Communistic-Zionist principles which are contrary and foreign to the original American system.
The Constitution, State autonomy, and the freedoms of the White citizenry were severe barriers for the advancement of these Judeo‑Socialist principles. Since they did not possess physical control, the Jews could only make advancements against the States or citizenry by deception and legal entrapments. From time to time one could find an agent or debtor of the Jews in political office to directly advance their cause and principles of socialism.
The first president they had control over to some degree was the second Jewish President Woodrow Wilson, who paid his debts to them by signing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the third Jewish President, has proven to be the greatest benefactor to the Jews for the destruction of fundamental American principles and the establishment of Marxist‑Talmudic laws and Judaic‑Socialism to that time.
"Until Roosevelt became president, the Protestant elite both reigned and ruled in Washington. To be sure, Catholics and Jews had been rewarded with occasional appointments, but essentially the government had been run by Protestant descendants of old‑stock Americans. When Roosevelt took office, he set the tone for an administration that recruited people on the basis of their intellectual and administrative talents, not their heritage. As a result, large numbers of Catholics, Jews, and blacks found opportunities to utilize their professional skills." [19]
Roosevelt was very discriminatory in appointing to government positions only those who had "intellectual talents" geared towards the principles of Socialism‑Zionism. While Jews constituted only about 3 percent of the population, "they made up 15 percent of the higher civil service and upper‑echelon appointments during Roosevelt's presidency." Contemporaries sensed this over representation and denounced the so‑called "Jew Deal" and its destructive measures. Roosevelt brought many Jews into the White House orbit and New Deal agencies. The Jew, David Niles of Boston, "roamed as a behind‑the‑scenes political emissary," and the Jewish attorney Ben Cohen from Indiana, "wrote some of the New Deal's most significant legislation." [20] The Jewish financier Bernard Baruch was called "elder statesman because he has advised many Presidents." [21] Jewish subversives have also continued the use of private or secret organizations to alter or abrogate American principles by covert legal means and to gain further control of the government and people. Some of these include the Council on Foreign Relations, the Masonic orders, and the Trilateral Commission whose members are Presidents, Senators, and Judges, with their objective being a new (de facto) government.
Martial Law Rule In America
While much of the defacto nature of the government in America has been achieved by gradual and stealthy deviations from established laws and principles, certain principles surrounding American law and government were too prevalent to change except by force.
Some of these principles include the fact that only White persons could govern or be citizens, that the States were independent political entities, and that the foundation of American rested on Christian principles. Martial law or military force is a common tool used in subverting or displacing the established law and to compel the citizenry to accept a change in the law.
The exercise of martial law has been used by existing governments which desire to step outside its lawful bounds, thus governing unlawfully or in a de facto mode. It also has been used by subversive forces infiltrating a nation to overturn the existing government and law. Certain modes of martial law have been instrumental in bringing about a de facto government in America. We thus need to understand the nature and scope of martial law and how it has been used in the past.
Martial Law and American Law. Martial law is essentially a system of rule through the use of military personnel. It is said to exist only when the nation is actually in a state war and when hostile forces have expelled the governing power and incapacitated its civil courts. It thus is instituted out of sheer necessity, and, since all civil authority is overrun, a military officer assumes authority.
"Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war. It is administered by the general of the army, and is in fact his will. Of necessity it is arbitrary; but must be obeyed." [22]
The manner of government that prevails today would not only be foreign to the Founding Fathers, but would be repugnant to them as well. The 14th Amendment has steadily caused revolutionary changes in the principles and structure of the government in America. It has greatly influenced the acts of legislators, governors, presidents, judges, and bureaucrats. Due to this, the 14th Amendment (and supporting legislation such as the Civil Rights Acts) has been referred to as a "new constitution," as being a basis of new governmental powers.
Wherever the tenets and principles of the "new constitution" are resisted, or wherever the original principles of American government and law (de jure) are supported or implemented, the "new" (de facto) government is quick to meet such measures with force, the same manner of arbitrary force which gave birth to the new government. The 13th and 14th Amendments (known as the "war amendment") along with the Reconstruction Acts, were the beginning of a de facto government, using force, fraud and usurpation to oust the original de jure government of America. "A de facto government is one that maintains itself by A Display of force against the will of the rightful legal government, and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof." [23]
The U.S. Supreme Court in deciding on the nature of such a de facto government recognized it as "a government of paramount force." The Court further stated that: "(A de facto government's) distinguishing characteristics are (1), that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2), that while it exists, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience, rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government." [24]
Modern Day Martial Law Rule
This "government by force" is quite characteristic of the government that now rules America. Whenever traditional American principles are attempted to be upheld, such as those surrounding money and taxation, we see the National Guard, FBI, U.S. Marshals, Federal Agents, SWAT teams or police sent in to prevent original principles from being exercised. It is not the money they are concerned about but rather the protection of one type of law from the influence of another. It is conflict between two diametrically opposing principles of law, that is to say, Talmudic law versus Christian law.
It would be rather naive to view the illegal exercise of martial law acts as something that may have occurred during the Civil War, but had vanished along with the war. This notion is just as foolish as the belief that Martial Law was confined strictly to the Southern States during the Civil War. The events of that war established a foundation for that type of arbitrary and illegal rule which continues to this day.
When the war ended, proclamations by Presidents Lincoln and Johnson declared that the "said insurrection is at an end." (14 Statutes at Large 812, 813 (April 2, 1866); 814, 817 (August 20, 1866). However, the Reconstruction period proved that Congress did not feel it was at an end but rather continued to enact measures as though the war or "insurrection" still prevailed. In the two proclamations declaring the insurrection to be ended, there was specific mention of every proclamation made by Lincoln during the war that dealt with insurrection, thus implying that these proclamations were revoked. However, Lincoln's "Martial Law Proclamation" was never mentioned and was never specifically revoked!
The Civil War allowed new concepts in law and government to be instituted and used, concepts that were contrary to the principles of the Fundamental Christian law of America. These new, anti‑Christ, anti‑American concepts have periodically been exercised by the "Federal Government" to the present day. This was the Czar who voluntarily emancipated 47 million serfs on September 19, 1861, and had the entire Bible translated into the Russian language, and was murdered by the Communist Nihilist, Atheistic, God‑hating, one‑world, Jewish Bankers in 1881.
This is the conflict of the ages. The conflict between right and wrong, light and darkness, good and evil, Christ and anti‑Christ, God and Satan. The same devils murdered Lincoln on April 4, 1865. The history books lie about why Booth killed Lincoln.
Coded messages in Booth's trunk and the key to these codes in Judah P. Benjamin's possession proved that Lincoln was murdered by orders from the Rothschild bankers. Their successors are doing the same today. They have murdered men such as General Patton, Forestall, McCarthy and many others. An enormous amount of labor has been expended by Jews and their apologists to minimize the part played by the Jews in Bolshevism; unfortunately the facts are there for all to see. If they will only look. "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not." [25]
There is no lack of Jewish assertions on the subject; that these are not generally revealed to the public takes away nothing from their value; on the contrary. Here are some: "This reminds me of what Mentor writing in the Jewish Chronicle in the time of the Russian Revolution said on the same subject: Indeed, in effect, it was the same as what Mr. Cox now says.
After showing that Bolshevism by reason of the ruthless tyranny of its adherents was a serious menace to civilization Mentor observed: Yet none the less, in essence it is the revolt of peoples against the social state, against the evil, the iniquities that were crowned by the cataclysm of the war under which the world groaned for four years. And he continued: There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolsheviks, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism...these are things which the thoughtful Jew will examine carefully." [26]
The Jewish Chronicle in 1920 published a manifesto by Israel Zangwill an important Jewish writer of the time, in which he exalts the glories of the race which has produced a Beaconfield, a Reading, a Montagu, a Kurt Eisner, a Trotsky. Mr. Zangwill in his immense enthusiasm has brought together in the same category the Jews of the English Government, the Jews of Hungary and the Bolshevik Jews. What is the difference? All are Jews and all are equally an honor and a benefit to their race. Rabbi J.L. Manges, speaking in New York in 1919, stated: "When the Jew applies his thought, his whole soul to the cause of the workers and the despoiled, of the disinherited of this world, his fundamental quality is that he goes to the root of things. In Germany he becomes a Marx and a Lasalle, a Haas and an Edward Bernstein; in Austria Victor Adler, Friedrich Adler; in Russia, Trotsky. Compare for an instant the present situation in Germany and Russia: the revolution there has liberated creative forces, and admire the quantity of Jews who were there ready for active and immediate service. Revolutionaries, Socialists, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Majority or Minority Socialists, whatever name one assigns to them, all are Jews and one finds them as the chiefs or the workers in all revolutionary parties."
M. Cohen, in "The Communist of Kharkoff" in April 1919 said: "One can say without exaggeration that the great Russian social revolution has been made by the hand of the Jews. Would the somber, oppressed masses of Russian workmen and peasants have been capable by themselves of throwing off the yoke of the bourgeoisie. No, it was especially the Jews who have led the Russian proletariat to the Dawn of the International and who have not only guided but still guide today the cause of the Soviets which they have preserved in their hands. We can sleep in peace so long as the commander‑in‑chief of the Red Army is Comrade Trotsky. It is true that there are no Jews in the Red Army serving as private soldiers, but the committees and Soviet organizations are Jewish. Jews bravely lead to victory the masses of the Russian proletariat. It is not without reason that in the elections for all the Soviet institutions Jews are in a victorious and crushing majority...The Jewish symbol which for centuries has struggled against capitalism (Christian) has become that also of the Russian proletariat. One may see it in the adoption of the red five‑pointed star which has been for long, as one knows, the symbol of Zionism and Judaism. Behind this emblem marches victory, the death of parasites and of the bourgeoisie...Elsewhere an English White Book has published the following passage [27].
I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and, unless as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger could be averted would be collective action on the part of all powers." [28]
Following upon these affirmative texts let us add some facts. The complete list of the higher Soviet officials has been published in detail, notably by the association: Unity of Russia 121 East 7th St. New York, New York, 1920: The question 'who governs Russia?' received a categorical reply in the simple enumeration of the responsible officials of the Soviet government.
The data contained in this pamphlet have been carefully taken from the Bolshevist official organs such as Isvestia Golos Trouds, the Red Gazette, and others...The fundamental fact is incontestable: the Soviet bureaucracy is almost entirely in the hands of Jews and Jewesses, while the number of Russians who participate in the Government of the Soviets is ridiculously small. It is impossible to evade this fact, which stands as a solemn warning to countries and states which claim to be Christian and which believe in national modes of existence, in contradiction with the unlimited internationalism in which the Jewish nation is the dominant power. This list is too long to give in full: the following is a summary:[29]
Members Jews Percentage
Council of Peoples Commissaries 22 17 77.2
Commissariat of War 43 33 76.7
Commissariat of Foreign Affairs 16 13 81.2
Finance 30 24 80.0
Justice 21 20 95.0
Public Instruction 53 42 79.2
Social Assistance 6 6 100.0
Labor 8 7 87.5
Bolshevist Red Cross 8 8 100.0
Provincial Commissaries 23 21 91.0
Journalists 41 41 100.0
Here on the other hand is the list of the high Commissaries of the People (1919).
Alias Real Name Russian/Jew
Lenin Oulianoff Russian, Jewish mother
Trotsky Bronstein Jew
Stekloff Nachamress "
Martoff Zederbaum "
Goussief Prapkine "
Kameneff Rosenfeld "
Soukhanoff Ghimmer "
Lagesky Krachmann "
Bogdanoff Silberstein "
Goreff Goldmann "
Ouritsky Radomiselsky "
Voladarsky Kohen "
Sverdloff Sverdloff "
Kamkoff Katz "
Ganesky Eurstenberg "
Dann Gourevitch "
Meshkovsky Goldberg "
Parvus Gelphanat "
Rosanoff Goldenbach "
Martinoff Zimbar "
Tchernomorsky Tchernomordich "
Pialnitzky Levine "
Adramovitch Rein "
Lointzeff Bleichmann "
Radek Sobelson "
Litvinof‑Wallak Finkelstein "
Lunatcharsky Lunatcharsky Russian
Kolontai Kolontai Russian
Peters Peters Lett
Macklakowsky Rosenblum Jew
Lapinsky Levenson "
Vobroff Natanson "
Ostodoks Akselrode "
Gasine Gerfeldt "
Glasounoff Schulze "
Lebedieva Limso "
Joffe Joffe "
Kamensky Hoffmann "
Naout Gunsbourg "
Lagorsky Krachmalnik "
Isgoeff Goldmann "
Valdimiroff Feldmann "
Bounakoff Foundaminsky "
Manouilsky Manouilsky "
Larine Lourie "
Krassin Krassin Russian
Tchitcherin Tchitcherin "
Goukovsky Goukovsky "
In a total of 545 members the Bolshevist administration comprises.
Jews 447 Finns 3
Russians 30 Poles 2
Letts 34 Georgian 1
Armenians 22 Czech 1
Germans 12 Hungarian 1
These facts are known to everybody: but it is not known that Western Judaism has supported Bolshevism with solidarity. The funds necessary for the Russian revolution have been supplied by international banks and financiers ‑‑ we know what this expression means. The following article by Samuel Sompers explains the situation sufficiently well: "I am mindful of the newly adopted policy of the American‑Anglo‑German Banking group, which perhaps constitutes the most dangerous element in the whole chain of pro‑Bolshevist effort in America because it has its hand on the most power. The truth is that predatory international finance has its appetite up and believes it see loot in Russia.
I know of nothing more cynical than the attitude of European statesmen and financiers towards the Russian muddle. Essentially it is their purpose, as laid down at Genoa, to place Russia in economic vassalage and give political recognition in exchange. American business is asked to join in that helpless, that miserable and contemptible business, the looting of that vast domain, and to facilitate its efforts, certain American bankers engaged in mortgaging the world are willing to sow among their own people the fiendish, anti‑democratic propaganda of Bolshevism, subsidizing, buying, intimidating, cajoling.
There are splendid and notable exceptions but the great powers of the American‑Anglo‑German financing combinations have set their faces towards the prize displayed by a people on their knees...Most important is the espousal of the Bolshevist cause by the group of American‑Anglo‑German bankers who like to call themselves international financiers to dignify and conceal their true function and limitation. Specifically the most import banker in this group and speaking for this group, born in Germany as it happens, has issued orders to his friends and associates that all must now work for Soviet recognition.[30]
International finance is also accurately represented in the hopes placed in and the moral backing given to the British Labor Party and the Revolutionary international socialism of which it is a member. The 100 per cent socialism of that party in Home Affairs seems unimportant in view of the international program ‑‑ ideal from the point of view of these cosmopolitan bankers." [31]
The names several times quoted are not those of individuals only working on their own behalf and for whom Jewry would not be held responsible. Mr. Pitt Rivers in his book The World Significance of the Russian Revolution is definite on this subject, for he says: "It is not unnaturally claimed by Western Jews that Russian Jewry, as a whole, is most bitterly opposed to Bolshevism.
Now although there is a great measure of truth in this claim, since the prominent Bolsheviks, who are preponderantly Jewish, do not belong to the Orthodox Jewish Church, it is yet possible, without laying ones self open to the charge of anti‑Semitism, to point to the obvious fact that Jewry, as a whole, has, consciously or unconsciously, worked for and promoted an International economic, Material despotism which, with Puritanism as an ally, has tended in an ever‑increasing degree to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the ugly and deadening machinery of finance and factory. It is also a fact that Jewry, as a whole, strove with every nerve to secure, and heartily approved of, the overthrow of the Russian Monarchy, which they regarded as the most formidable obstacle in the path of their ambitions and business pursuits.
All this may be admitted, as well as the plea that individually or collectively, most Jews may heartily detest the Bolshevik regime, yet it is still true that the whole weight of Jewry was in the revolutionary scales against the Czar's government. It is true their apostate brethren, who are now riding in the seat of power, may have exceeded their orders; that is disconcerting, but it does not alter the fact. It may be that the Jews, often the victims of their own idealism, have always been instrumental in bringing about the events they most heartily disapprove of; that perhaps is the curse of the Wandering Jew." [32]
A number of their writers such as Bernard Lazare, Alfred Nossig, Kadmi Kohen, have described this agreement between the two poles of Judaism, international Jewish capitalism and communism. We find ourselves therefore face to face with this enigma: how to explain that the Jews in general and great Jewish financiers in particular, spread and support everywhere the socialism and Bolshevism which are destructive of that capital which is one of their most powerful forces. The reply is: understandable or not, it is a fact. It is very evident that they act thus in their own interest and our naivety probably makes them smile. M. Georges Batault says on this subject: "The mode of government which is the most propitious for the full development of the class war, is the demagogic regime which is equally favorable to the two fold intrigues of Finance and Revolution. When this struggle is let loose in a violent form, the leaders of the masses are kings, but money is God: the demagogues are the masters of the passions of the mob, but the financiers are the masters of the demagogues, and it is in the last resort the widely spread riches of the country, rural property, real estate, which, for as long as they last, must pay for the movement.
When the demagogues prosper amongst the ruins of social and political order, and overthrown traditions, gold is the only power which counts, it is the measure of everything; it can do everything and reigns without hindrance in opposition to all countries, to the detriment of the city, of the nation, or of the empire which are finally ruined. In doing this do not financiers work against themselves? It may be asked: in destroying the established order do not they destroy the source of all riches? This is perhaps true in the end; but whilst states which count their years by human generations, are obliged in order to insure their existence to conceive and conduct a far‑sighted policy in view of a distant future. Finance which gets its living from what is present and tangible, always follows a short‑sighted policy, in view of rapid results and success without troubling itself about the morrows of history." [33]
It must never be forgotten that capitalists are of two kinds, proprietors, industrialists and others, generally Christians, and international financiers, principally, though not exclusively, Jews. While social disorder is fatal to the first it furnishes opportunities of profit to the second.
"From the strictly financial point of view, the most disastrous events of history, wars or revolutions, never produce catastrophes, the manipulators of money can make profit out of everything provided that they are well‑informed beforehand...It is certain that the Jews scattered over the whole surface of the globe are particularly well placed in this respect." [34]
These have, moreover, a personal motive for supporting socialism; one of them, Weininger, has explained for us why so many Jews are communists: "Communism is not only a national belief but it implies the giving up of real property, especially of landed property, and the Jews, being international, have never acquired the taste for real property. hey prefer money, which is an instrument of power."
This is exactly what has happened in Russia. Property has there been suppressed for the benefit of the state, that is to say, for the profit of the Jew since in fact, the state is Jewish, as it will always be in every Communist/Socialist state, because of the inherent qualities of the Jewish people. The so‑called dictatorship of the proletariat is in reality the dictatorship of the Jews. They do not wish to destroy capital, but to be the ONLY masters of it.
Collectivism is then neither a popular movement, nor an end in itself, but a means of destruction. The directors, except for a few Jewish fanatics, who judge the world with their brain and not with their soul, know better than anybody that the system cannot work: it has been tried several times in the best possible conditions and has rapidly and completely failed.[35] It can only function in the case of a religious community having abandoned all worldly interest, or in that of nomads living by their flocks in large uninhabited areas. Far from being progress, it is a return to the most primitive form of organization. It is impossible that a modern nation, given over the Bolshevism, should not die of hunger. We have an example of this in Russia, which before the war was the granary of Europe, now devastated by periodical famines for as long as Communism has been applied to its country side. What would conditions be in England, Germany, or America?
It is obvious that ideas such as Communism/Socialism/Bolshevism in no way correspond to the desires of the "people" in any country. Even the peasants of Russia did not want a return to savagery, while to the proletariats of Western Europe nothing would be more abhorrent than the destruction of cities and millions of Christians.
They love the busy life of towns and all the amenities of civilization; they ask for better homes, a higher standard of living, for modern conveniences that will lighten the burden of the working‑man, for devices of science, for movies and music to beguile their hours of leisure.
They do not wish to solve the housing question by becoming nomads or executioners. The cure for social evils ‑‑ slums, sweating, unemployment and exploitation ‑‑ is not less civilization but more. The "people" understand this very well, and thus the program of the revolutionary leaders is still, as it has been throughout history in direct opposition to the wishes of the people. If any doubt on this point still remains, if the history of the World Revolution related in N.H. Webster's book World Revolution does not prove that the revolutionary movement for the last 200 years and more has been the work of a conspiracy whose aims are entirely unconnected with the interests and demands of the people, how are we to account for the following facts?
1). That although the grievances of the people throughout this period have varied according to the changing conditions of our civilization, the program of the social revolution has never varied. For if the succeeding outbreaks had been made by the people each would have been distinguished by different war‑cries, different aims arising from the exigencies of the moment; instead of this each outbreak has been carried on to the same slogans, has repeated the same catch‑words, and each has been directly copied from the earliest, and until 1917 the most successful, attempt, the first French Revolution.
2). That the leaders of the movement have never, in a single instance, been men of the people, but always members of the upper or middle classes who could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as victims of oppression. And if it is objected that these men were disinterested fanatics fighting in a cause that was not their own, then Why?
3). With rare exceptions such as Louis Blanc, they invariably displayed complete unconcern for the sufferings of the people and a total disregard for human life. No instance has ever been recorded of pity or sympathy displayed by the Terrorists of France or Russia towards any individual members of the working‑classes; on the contrary, they turned a deaf ear to all complaints. The Marxists and Bakuninists mutually accused each other of regarding the people as "cannon fodder."
4). That each outbreak has occurred, not when the cause of the people was hopeless, but on the eve of great reforms.
5). That each has been followed, not by reform, but by a period of reaction. For twenty years after the first French Revolution the very word "reform" could hardly be breathed, even in England.
6). That in spite of the fact that each outbreak has thus thrown back the cause of the people, each has been represented to the people as a step forward and further revolutions have been advocated.
So it is obvious to the true student of history. With the sole exception of the American Revolution of 1776, and it has since been contaminated by the conspirators, to the present day, it has been the work of a continuous conspiracy working for its own ends and against the interests of the people. We are told that socialism is the revolt of the workers oppressed by capitalism: that it is the rising of those who have nothing against those who possess. In this connection, let us remark, in passing, that all the money is rather on the side of those who have nothing.
The anti‑revolutionary organizations are indeed constantly hindered by lack of funds while this difficulty does not exist for the revolutionary Communist/Socialist parties which have obviously at their disposal limitless resources. Communism/Socialism is not a popular movement: "The Communist/Socialist intellectual may write of the beauties of nationalization, of the joy of working for the common good without hope of personal gain: the revolutionary working man sees nothing to attract him in all this. Question him on his ideas of social transformation, and he will generally express himself in favor of some method by which he will acquire something he has not got; he does not want to see the rich man's motor‑car socialized by the state; he wants to drive about in it himself. The revolutionary working man is thus in reality not a socialist but an anarchist at heart. Nor in some cases is this unnatural. That the man who enjoys none of the good things of life should wish to snatch his share, must at least appear comprehensible. What is not comprehensible is that he should wish to renounce all hope of ever possessing anything." [36]
Collectivism (Communism/Socialism/Bolshevism) is then neither a popular movement nor an end in itself, but a means of destruction. The Czarist autocracy was the last material obstacle (there still remains a moral obstacle) which barred the way to Jewish imperialism in its conquest of the world; we have considerable Jewish testimony on the subject. "Russia was the only country in the world in which the directing class opposed an organized resistance to universal Judaism. At the head of the state was an autocrat beyond the reach of parliamentary pressure; the high officials were independent, rich, and so saturated with religious and political traditions that Jewish capital, with a few rare exceptions, had no influence on them. Jews were not admitted in the services of the state in judiciary functions or in the army. The directing class was independent of Jewish capital because it owned great riches in lands and forest. Russia possessed wheat in abundance and continually renewed her provision of gold from the mines of the Urals and Siberia. The metal supply of the state comprised four thousand million marks without including the accumulated riches of the Imperial family, of the monasteries and of private properties. In spite of her relatively little developed industry, Russia was able to live self‑supporting. All these economic conditions rendered it almost impossible for Russia to be made the slave of international Jewish capital by the means which had succeeded in Western Europe (and the United States).
If we add moreover that Russia was always the abode of the religious and conservative principles of the world, that, with the aid of her army she had crushed all serious revolutionary movements and that she did not permit any secret political societies on her territory, it will be understood, why world Jewry, was obliged to march to the attack of the Russian Empire." [37]
Russia was an obstacle which Bolshevism has destroyed. In the Soviet revolution, the anarchy of the beginning, the pillage, the seizure of lands, was the peculiarly Russian side. This anarchy rapidly gave place to Jewish organization. After the revolution the Russians had no longer the right to say anything in their own country.
To begin with, the Slav anarchists were promptly exterminated by the Jewish Bolsheviks. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that he had been introduced to the plans of the Learned Elders of Zion, by the Jewish Hidden Hand!
The words sex‑force was emphasized to show that the occultists believe that the sex‑ force is the most powerful force in the world, even surpassing the power of God Himself. It is through this belief that another phenomenon surrounding the secret societies and the occult can be discussed. The sex‑force they believe in is not necessarily limited to the normal relationship with man and woman, husband and wife.
The sex‑force that the occultist believes in, is that of the male aggressiveness towards sex in general. Thus, we can readily see why phallic worship, represented in the obelisk, is so prevalent throughout the world. Who is it that provides some cities of the United States with the obelisk? Who provided the Washington monument?
It was the Masons, a secret society and heavily into the occult. That sex‑force they describe supersedes normal sexual relationships. Why do the homosexuals have so much political power? Why are they protected? Why are there so many of them in places of power and control within the government? Why does the government at all levels protect, expand and normalize the homosexual life style? This sex‑force represents their concept of male aggressiveness and the highest form of aggressiveness to them is to be dominant over and another male.
This dominance is represented through the rituals of the lodge and this arrangement has existed since the days of the Knights Templar. Even the Templar emblem shows two men on a single horse in a rather suggestive arrangement. Homosexuality, the occult and the secret societies have been in partnership from the beginning of the idea of a modern totalitarian one‑world government. Francis Bacon, the father of empiricism and an early Rosicrucian, and several of his associates in espionage, including playwrights Marlowe and Jonson, have been identified as homosexuals. Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo are noted to have been homosexuals and Leonardo da Vinci was a Grand Master of an occult order which traces its existence to the earlier Templars.
After the turn of the twentieth century, it was in England where the prime prerequisite for high political, intelligence, military and ecclesiastical office was to be associated with the secret societies and the occult. Nearly every prime minister of this century was a Mason. Disraeli openly admitted that secret societies ruled the world. Balfour, a Mason, who prepared the Balfour Declaration, which gave us the modern state of Israel. Churchill, another Mason, presided over the designs for a united states of Europe. Anthony Eden was a Mason.
The struggle of Bakunin against Karl Marx, of Anarchy against Communism, was the struggle of two opposite principles and two opposite races: Slavism against Judaism. Thus one may agree with M. Lokotj, who, as he was a former Russian revolutionary condemned under Czarism, can hardly be accused of possessing a reactionary spirit: "Bolshevism, this symbol of chaos and of the spirit of destruction, is above all an anti‑Christian and anti‑ Social conception. This present destructive tendency is clearly advantageous for only one national and religious entity: Judaism. The fact that Jews are the most active element in present‑day revolutions as well as in revolutionary socialism, that they draw to themselves the power forced from the peoples of other nations by revolution, is a fact in itself, independent of the question of knowing if that comes from organized world‑wide Judaism, from Jewish Freemasonry or by an elementary evolution brought about by Jewish national solidarity and the accumulation of capital in the hands of Jewish bankers.
The contest is becoming more definite. The domination of revolutionary Judaism in Russia and the open support given to this Jewish bolshevism by Judaism the world over finally clear up the situation, show the cards and put the question of the battle of Christianity against Judaism, of the National State against the International, that is to say, in reality, against Jewish world power." [38]
It must not be ignored, however, that there is an ideology of Communism/Socialism and that it has only triumphed in Russia, thanks to the resolute fanaticism of its pioneers Lenin and Trotsky and others. In order to understand Bolshevism clearly, we must not lose sight of the extraordinary medley which characterizes the Jewish mind: on the one hand Messianic fanatical idealism which intends to direct humanity by imposing upon it Jewish ideas, on the other hand a practical judgment, most prudent and most materialistic. To the first we owe international socialism to the second; our present economic civilization in which gold is king.
Fanaticism explains Bolshevism, the practical business sense explains why Jewish high finance has supported Bolshevism for racial interest; for the end in view: the domination of the world, is the same for both; socialism represents the spiritual side, high finance the material side. The following lines written by a Hungarian lady during the Bolshevist rule well expresses the opinion of those who lived through these tragic hours. "There is little resemblance between the mystical and undecided Slav, the violent but tradition‑living Magyar, and the heavy deliberate German. And yet Bolshevism wove the same web over them all, by the same means and with the same tokens. The national temperament of the three races does not the least reveal itself in the terrible conceptions which have been accomplished, in complete agreement, by men of the same mentality in Moscow, Buda‑Pesth, and Munich.
From the very beginning of the dissolution in Russia, Kerensky was on the spot, then came Trotsky, on watch, in the shadow of Lenin. When Hungary was fainting, weak from loss of blood, Kunfi, Jaszi and Pogany were waiting behind Karolyi, and behind them came Bela Kun and his Staff. And when Bavaria tottered Kurt Eisner was ready to produce the first act of the revolution.
In the second act it was Max Lieven (Levy) who proclaimed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat at Munich, a further edition of Russian and Hungarian Bolshevism. So great are the specific differences between the three races that the mysterious similarity of these events cannot be due to any analogy between them, but only to the work of a fourth race living amongst the others but unmingled with them.
Among modern nations with their short memories, the Jewish people is the last representative of ancient oriental civilization. As heir to the Biblical traditions it fervently invokes the hour in which will be realized the great calamities prophesied so many centuries ago. Whether despised or feared it remains an eternal stranger. It comes without invitation and remains even when driven out. It is scattered and yet coherent. It takes up its abode in the very body of the nations. It creates laws beyond and above the laws. It denies the idea of a homeland but it possess its own homeland which it carries along with it and establishes wherever it goes. It denies the God of other peoples and everywhere rebuilds the temple. It complains of its isolation, and by mysterious channels it links together the parts of the infinite New Jerusalem which covers the whole universe. It has connections and ties everywhere, which explains how capital and the Press, concentrated in its hands, conserve the same designs in every country of the world, and the interests of the race which are identical in Ruthernian villages and in the City of New York; if it extols someone he is glorified all over the world, and if it wishes to ruin someone the work of destruction is carried out as if directed by a single hand.
The orders come from the depths of mysterious darkness. That which the Jew jeers at and destroys among other peoples, it fanatically preserves in the bosom of Judaism. If it teaches revolt and anarchy to others, it in itself shows admirable obedience to its invisible guides. In the time of the Turkish revolution, a Jew said proudly to my father: 'It is we who are making it, we, the Young Turks, the Jews.' During the Portuguese revolution, I heard the Marquis de Vasconcellos, Portuguese ambassador at Rome, say, 'The Jews and the Freemasons are directing the revolution in Lisbon.' Today when the greater part of Europe is given up to the revolution, they are everywhere leading the movement, according to a single plan. How did they succeed in concealing this plan which embraced the whole world and which was not the work of a few months or even years? They used as a screen men of each country, blind, frivolous, venal, forward, or stupid, and who knew nothing. And thus they worked in security, these redoubtable organizers, these sons of an ancient race which knows how to keep a secret. And that is why none of them has betrayed the others." [39]
Mr. Wickham Steed, in his book The Hapsburg Monarchy, quotes a letter written by a so‑called semi‑Jew on the question of the Jews in Hungary, in which this remarkable passage occurs: "There is a Jewish question and this terrible race means not only to master one of the grandest warrior nations in the world, but it means, and is consciously striving, to enter the lists against the other great race of the north (the Russians), the only one that has hitherto stood between it and its goal of world‑power. Am I wrong? Tell me. For already England and France are, if not actually dominated by Jews, very nearly so, while the United States, by the hands of those whose grip they are ignorant of, are slowly but surely yielding to that international and insidious hegemony. Remember that I am half a Jew by blood, but that in all I have power to be I am not. [40]; "In Austria‑Hungary," the author observes on p. 155, "the spread of Socialism has been largely the result of Jewish propaganda. Dr. Victor Adler, the founder and leader of the Austrian party, is a Jew, as are many of his followers. In Hungary the party was also founded and inspired by the Jews."
But the Bolshevik revolution has a deeper meaning. We find in it the dominating idea of all the revolutions since 1789: the destruction of present day civilization: "The final goal of world revolution is not socialism, or even Communism, it is not a change in the present economic system, it is not the destruction of civilization in a material sense. The revolution desired by the leaders is moral and spiritual, it is an anarchy of ideas in which all the bases established nineteen centuries ago shall be overthrown, all the honored traditions trodden under foot, and, above all, the Christian ideal finally obliterated." [41]
It is a struggle between two different conceptions of the world: the Jewish conception, and the Christian conception. "The inward thought of Moscow indeed appears to be that for twenty centuries while humanity has been following Christ, it has been on the wrong road. It is now high time to correct this error of direction by creating a new moral code, a new civilization, founded on quite different principles. And it appears that it is this idea which the Communist leaders wished to symbolize when a few months ago they proposed to erect in Moscow a statute to Judas Iscariot, to Judas, this great honest misunderstood man, who hanged himself, not at all, as it is usually and foolishly believed, because of remorse for having sold his master, but because of despair, poor man, at the thought that humanity would pay for by innumerable misfortunes the wrong path which it was about to follow." [42]
Following is a circular of the Communist party which illustrates this point. "In our decrees, it is definitely proclaimed that religion is a question for the private individual; but whilst opportunists tend to see in these words the meaning that the state would adopt the policy of folded arms, the Marxian revolutionary recognizes the duty of the state to lead a most resolute struggle against religion by means of ideological influences on the proletarian masses."
The struggle against God has been led with fierce determination and with blood‑thirsty hate, the most degrading means have been employed in it, such as:
1). The systematic demoralization of young people through teaching, in the schools, the lowest sexual instincts;
2). The organized destruction of the family by the abolition of marriage and the socialization of women;
3). The massacre of the Russian Christian clergy, the transformation of the Churches into dance‑halls and cabarets;
4). The spiritual division of the Church by the creation of the Living Church; etc.
"In this somber tragedy, there are occasional comic interludes. In 1923, Trotsky, and Lunatcharsky presided over a meeting in Moscow organized by the propaganda section of the Communist party to judge God. Five thousand men of the Red Army were present. The accused was found guilty of various ignominious acts and having had the audacity to fail to appear, He was condemned in default." [43]
Bolshevism is then the logical application in Russia of the revolutionary plan which we have seen developing in the world since 1789. It's essence is the same; we have only seen up to the present the destructive phase; this takes different forms according to countries and the circumstances. Bolshevism is the Russian form or to be exact, the form applied to Russia, for it is only Russian in so far as it is taking place in Russia and that they are Russians who suffer from it. Now that we are beginning to see more clearly what has happened in that unfortunate country, the prophecy contained in the following extract seems all the more impressive. It is from a book by Copin‑Albancelli published in 1919. "La conjuration juive contre les peuples."
"There is in existence a plan of world organization about which much has been said for several years past, in favor of which determined propaganda has been made among the masses, and towards which our present rulers are causing us to slide gradually and unconsciously. We mean to say the socialist collectivist organization. It is that which is the most in harmony with the character, the aptitudes and the means of action of the Jewish race; it is that which bears the signature, the trade‑ mark of this new reigning people; it is that which it wishes to impose on the Christian world because it is only by this means that it can dominate the latter. Instead of wearing a military or political character, the dictatorship imposed by the Jewish race will be a financial industrial, commercial dictatorship. At least for a time, it will show itself as little as possible.
The Jews have endowed the commercial, industrial and financial world with the Joint‑Stock Company, thanks to which they are able to hide their immense riches. They will endow the entire Christian world with that which they have bestowed on France: the Joint‑Stock Company for the exploitation of nations called Republic, thanks to which they will be able to hide their kingship. We are moving then towards the Universal Republic because it is only thus that Jewish financial, industrial and commercial kingship can be established. But under its republican mask this kingship will be infinitely more despotic than any other. It will be exactly that which man has established over the animal. The Jewish race will maintain its hold upon us by our needs.
It will rely on a strongly organized and carefully chosen police so generously paid that it will be ready to do anything just as the presidents of republics, who are given twelve hundred thousand francs and who are chosen especially for the purpose, are ready to put their signature to anything. Beyond the police, nothing but workmen on one side, and on the other engineers, directors, administrators.
The workers will be all the non‑Jews. The engineers, directors and administrators will, on the contrary be Jews; we do not say the Jews and their friends; we say, the Jews; for the Jews then will have no more friends. And they will be a hundred times right, in such a situation, to rely only upon those who will be of the 'Race.' This may all seem impossible to us; and nevertheless it will come about in the most natural way in the world, because everything will have been prepared secretly, as the revolution was. In the most natural way in the world, we say, in this sense that there must always be engineers, directors and administrators so that the human flock may work and live and that, furthermore, the reorganization of the world which we shall have disorganized cannot be operated save by those who will have previously gathered in wealth everywhere. By reason of this privileged situation, which we are allowing to become established for their benefit the Jews alone will be in a position to direct everything.
The peoples will put their hand to the wheel to bring about this state of things, they will collaborate in the destruction of all other power than that of the State as long as they are allowed to believe that the State, this State which possesses all, is themselves. They will not cease to work for their own servitude until the day when the Jews will say to them: 'We beg your pardon! You have not understood. The State, this State which owns everything, is not you, it is us!' The people then will wish to resist.
But it will be too late to prevent it, because all moral forces having ceased to exist, all material forces will have been shattered by that same cause. Sheep do not resist the sheep‑dog trained to drive them and possessing strong jaws. All that the working class could do, would be to refuse to work. The Jews are not simpletons enough not to foresee that. They will have provisions for themselves and for their watch‑dogs. They will allow famine to subdue resistance. If the need should arise they would have no scruple in hurling on the people, mutinous but unarmed, their police made invincible because they will be provided with the most up‑to‑date weapons against powerless mobs. Have we not already a vision of the invincibility of organized forces against the crowd. Russia has known ‑‑ and she has not forgotten the rule of the Masonic Terror. She will know, and the world will know with her the rule of the Jewish Terror." [44]
Here are a few details of this Terror in Russia: First of all the principles of it. In the beginning the Red Terror was first of all intended to exterminate the Russian Intelligentsia. "The extraordinary Commissions are not a medium of Justice, but 'of extermination without mercy' according, to the expression of the Central Communist Committee. The extraordinary Commission is not a 'Commission of Enquirey,' nor a Court of Justice, nor a Tribunal, it decides for itself its own powers. 'It is a medium of combat which operates on the interior front of the Civil War.
It does not judge the enemy but exterminates him. It does not pardon those who are on the other side of the barricade, it crushes them.' It is not difficult to imagine how this extermination without mercy operates in reality when, instead of the 'dead code of the laws,' there reigns only revolutionary experience and conscience. Conscience is subjective and experience must give place to the pleasure and whims of the judges. 'We are not making war against individuals in particular,' writes Latsis (Latsis directed the Terror in the Ukraine) in the Red Terror of November 1918. 'We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look in the enquire for documents and proofs of what the accused persons has done in acts or words against the Soviet Authority. The first question which you must put to him is, to what class does he belong, what are his origin, his education, his instruction, his profession." [45]
In fact Communism only maintains itself by general Terror, and in the end the working and peasant classes have suffered as much as the others. Once launched on the way of massacres, extermination has been carried out at random in order to impose Communist rule by general terror. One of the Soviet leaders, who at least possesses the merit of frankness, has dared to write: "Yes, certainly your Russia is dying. There no longer exists anywhere, if it has ever existed, a single class of the population for which life is harder than in our Soviet paradise...We make experiments on the living body of the people ‑‑ devil take it ‑‑ exactly like a first year student working on a corpse of a vagabond which he has procured in the anatomy operating‑theater. Read our two constitutions carefully; it is there frankly indicated that it is not the Soviet Union nor its parts which interest us, but eh struggle against world capital and the universal revolution to which we have always sacrificed everything, to which we are sacrificing the country, to which we are sacrificing ourselves. (It is evident that the sacrifice does not extend to the Zinovieffs).
Here, in our country, where we are absolute masters, we fear no one at all. The country worn out by wars, sickness, death and famine (it is a dangerous but splendid means), no longer dares to make the slightest protest, finding itself under the perpetual menace of the Cheka and the army...Often we are ourselves surprised by its patience which has become so well‑ known...there is not, one can be certain in the whole of Russia, a single household in which we have not killed in some manner or other the father, the mother, a brother, a daughter, a son, some near relative or friend. Very well then! Felix (Djerjinsky) nevertheless walks quietly about Moscow without any guard, even at night...When we remonstrate with him for these walks he contents himself with laughing disdainfully and saying: 'What! They would never dare 'psakrer,' and he is right. They do not dare. What a strange country!" [46]
Better than any dry statistics the following description by a witness will give an idea of the scale upon which these butcheries are made. When the Rohrberg, Commission of Enquiry entered Kief, after the taking of that town by the Volunteer Army in August 1919, it found the execution hall of the (Jewish) Cheka in the following state: "All the cement floor of the great garage (the execution hall of the departmental Cheka of Kief) was flooded with blood. This blood was no longer flowing, it formed a layer of several inches: it was a horrible mixture of blood, brains, of pieces of skull, of tufts of hair and other human remains.
All the walls riddled by thousands of bullets were bespattered with blood; pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter twenty‑five centimeters wide by twenty five centimeters deep and about ten meters long ran from the center of the garage towards a subterranean drain. This gutter along, its whole length was full to the top of blood...Usually, as soon as the massacre had taken place the bodies were conveyed out of the town in motor lorries and buried beside the grave about which we have spoken; we found in a corner of the garden another grave which was older and contained about eighty bodies.
Here we discovered on the bodies traces of cruelty and mutilations the most varied and unimaginable. Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out and the head, face, neck and trunk covered with deep wounds. Further on we found a corpses with a wedge driven into the chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner of the grave we discovered a certain quantity of arms and legs..." [47]
We have no exact documents permitting us to estimate exactly the total number of victims, the figures given exceed imagination. Professor Sarolea gives in the Scotsman 7th November 1923 the following figures. (These are the official figures published everywhere). 28 Bishops, 1219 Priests, 6000 Professors and Teachers, 9000 Doctors, 54,000 Officers, 260,000 Soldiers, 70,000 Policemen, 12,950 Property owners, 535,250 Members of the Intellectual and Liberal Professions, 193,290 Workmen, 618,000 Peasants. The commission of enquiry of Denikin on Bolshevist proceedings during the period 1918‑1919, in an account of the Red Terror, computed 1,700,000 victims.
Elsewhere a theoretical computation has been made by Ev. Komnin in the Roul (3, VIII, 1923): "During the winter of 1920 the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics comprised 52 governments with 52 Extraordinary Commission (Jewish) (Cheka), 52 special sections and 52 revolutionary tribunals. Moreover numberless 'Este‑Chekas,' Chekas for transport systems, Chekas for railways, tribunals for troops for internal security, flying tribunals sent for mass executions on the spot. To this list of torture chambers the special sections must be added, 16 army and divisional tribunals. In all a thousand chambers of torture must be reckoned, and if we take into consideration that there existed at this time cantonal Chekas, we must add even more. Since then the number of Soviet Governments has grown: Siberia, the Crimea, the Far East, have been conquered. The number of Chekas has grown in geometrical proportion.
According to direct data (in 1920, when the Terror had not diminished and information on the subject had not been reduced) it was possible to arrive at a daily average figure for each tribunal: the curve of executions rises from one to fifty (the latter figure in the big centers) and up to one hundred in regions recently conquered by the Red Army. The crises of Terror were periodical, then they ceased, so that it is possible to establish the (modest) figure of five victims a day which multiplied by the number of one thousand tribunals gives five thousand, and about a million and a half per annum!" [48]
However unbelievable these figures may appear, these three different sets of statistics are sufficiently in agreement, and have certainly a strong foundation of truth. The Red Terror became so wide‑spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the Cheka (Now replaced by the Guepeou) to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes.
These are held responsible for any anti‑Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest etc.) and are immediately executed. Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold‑blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka.
"Thus I have in front of me photographs taken at Kharkoff, in the presence of the Allied Missions, immediately after the Reds had abandoned the town; they consist of a series of ghastly reproductions such as: bodies of three workmen taken as hostages from a factory which went on strike. One had his eyes burnt, his lips and nose cut off; the other two had their hands cut off. The bodies of hostages, S. Afaniasouk and P. Prokpovitch, small landed proprietors, who were scalped by their executioners; S. Afaniasouk shows numerous burns caused by a white hot sword blade. The body of M. Bobroff, a former officer, who had his tongue and one hand cut off and the skin torn off from his left leg. Human skin torn from the hands of several victims by means of a metallic comb. This sinister find was the result of a careful inspection of the cellar of the Extraordinary Commission of Kharkoff. The retired general Pontiafa, a hostage who had the skin of his right hand torn off and the genital parts mutilated.
Mutilated bodies of women hostages: S. Ivanova, owner of a drapery business, Mme. A.L. Carolshaja, wife of a colonel, Mmo. Khlopova, a property owner. They had their breasts slit and emptied and the genital parts burnt and having trace of coal.
Bodies of four peasant hostages, Bondarenko, Pookhikle, Seventry, and Sidorfehouk, with atrociously mutilated faces, the genial parts having been operated upon by Chinese torturers in a manner unknown to European doctors in whose opinion the agony caused to the victims must have been dreadful.
It is impossible to enumerate all the forms of savagery which the Red Terror took. A volume would not contain them. The Cheka of Kharkoff, for example, in which Saenko operated, had the specialty of scalping victims and taking off the skin of their hands as one takes off a glove...At Voronege the victims were shut up naked in a barrel studded with nails which was then rolled about. Their foreheads were branded with a red hot iron five pointed star. At Tsaritsin and at Kamishin their bones were sawed...
At Kief the victim was shut up in a chest containing decomposing corpses; after firing shots above his head his torturers told him that he would be buried alive. The chest was buried and opened again half an hour later when the interrogation of the victim was proceeded with. The scene was repeated several times over. It is not surprising that many victims went mad." [49]
Let us recall that on the 17th July 1918 at Ekaterinenburg, and on the order of the Cheka (order given by the Jew Sverdloff from Moscow) the commission of execution commanded by the Jew Yourowsky, assassinated by shooting or by bayoneting the Czar, Czarina, Czarevitch, the four Grand Duchesses, Dr. Botkin, the man‑servant, the woman servant, the cook and the dog. The members of the imperial family in closest succession to the throne were assassinated in the following night. The Grand Dukes Mikhailovitch, Constantinovitch, Vladimir Paley and the Grand Duches Elisabeth Feodorovna were thrown down a well at Alapalevsk, in Siberia.
The Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch was assassinated at Perm with his suite. [50] Dostoiewsky was not right when he said: "An odd fancy sometimes comes into my head: What would happen in Russia if instead of three million Jews which are there, there were three million Russians and eighty million Jews? What would have happened to these Russians among the Jews and how would they have been treated? Would they have been placed on an equal footing with them? Would they have permitted them to pray freely? Would they not have simply made them slaves, or even worse: would they not have simply flayed the skin from them? Would they not have massacred them until completely destroyed, as they did with other peoples of antiquity in the times of their olden history?..."
What is going to happen in Russia now? The present situation is as follows: Bolshevism the agent of destruction has accomplished its mission: its very violence prevents it from lasting eternally. The time has come to proceed gradually to a durable form of government; in the nature of the French Republic, a most convenient form, for, cloaking the real masters, it would permit Jewry to establish itself definitely in Russia and to benefit fully from the victory obtained, thanks to Bolshevism, over the Russian people.
Unfortunately the Soviet leaders, probably exceeding orders, have gone too far, which has had for them the disadvantage of showing to some extent their cards. People have begun to see that the world revolution was partly artificial, the work of a conspiracy directed principally by the Jews.
Thus Communism is only maintained in Russia by the Terror. As soon as it is relaxed, pogroms appear. In consequence, world Jewry and Masonic governments (such as that of France for example) pretend to blame Bolshevism by condemning its unpopular excesses, whilst in fact they are supporting it and making it last until the means are found for it to evolve into a more lasting form.
If it were to fall at present, the reaction, would be such that it is doubtful whether Judeo‑Masonry with all its power would be able to prevent the re‑establishment of a national and religious Russia governed by a monarchist leader with absolute power. It would be a catastrophe for Judaeo‑masonry which will do the utmost to avoid it, for the world would then learn with dismay what Bolshevism really was.
The true authors of world revolution and their objects would for the first time appear in the light of day and it would be the end of democratic, socialist and other illusions. Russia, henceforth a forbidden land to freemasons, to Jews, and to International Revolutionaries, and able, thanks to its natural resources to be self‑supporting without passing through the Caudine Forks of Jewish High Finance, would be the base upon which the counter‑revolutionary elements of the world would lean.
These, instead of fighting blindly against an invisible, subterranean enemy, would know whom to attack. It would be without doubt the beginning of a new general orientation of the world in order to deviate from the revolutionary slope down which it has been slipping since 1789.
Involuntarily one asks the question: How does the civilized world permit such a state of things to reign over the sixth part of the globe? If there was still a monarchy in Russia, it goes without saying that nobody would admit it.
There would be thundering questions in the parliaments of the two hemispheres, fiery protests from all the leagues of the "Rights of Man," articles in the indignant newspapers, a rapid and unanimous understanding among all social classes and a whole series of national, economic, diplomatic and military measures for the destruction of this plague. But present‑day democracy is much less troubled about it than about a cold of Macdonald or the broken nose of Carpentier. And although the Occidental bourgeoisie knows perfectly well that the Soviet power is its irreconcilable enemy, with which no understanding is possible, that moreover, it would be useless since economically Russia is nothing more than a corpse, nevertheless the flirtation of this bourgeoisie with the Comintern lasts and threatens to become a long romance.
To this question there is only one answer: as in Western Europe international Judaism (Or its ally freemasonry) holds in its hands political power as strongly as the Jewish Communists hold it in Russia, it does all that is humanly possible to retard the day when the latter will fall.[51]
Jews and Socialism
We have dwelt at length with Bolshevism, for it has shown the revolutionary action of the Jews in the full light of day; their part in it has become apparent indeed during the violent revolution, but although less visible, they are none the less the directors of revolutionary socialism in all its forms all over the world. "In that which concerns the Jews, their part in world socialism is so important that it is impossible to pass it over in silence. Is it not sufficient to recall the names of the great Jewish revolutionaries of the 19 and 20th centuries, Karl Marx, Lassalle, Kurt Eisner, Bela Kuhn, Trotsky, Leon Blum, so that the names of the theorists of modern socialism should at the same time be mentioned?
If it is not possible to declare Bolshevism, taken as a whole, a Jewish creation it is nevertheless true that the Jews have furnished several leaders to the Maximalist movement and that in fact they have played a considerable part in it. Jewish tendencies towards communism, apart from all material collaboration with party organizations, what a strong confirmation do they not find in the deep aversion which, a great Jew, a great poet, Henry Heine felt for Roman Law! The subjective causes, the passionate causes of the revolt of Rabbi Aqiba and of Bar Kocheba in the year 70 A.D. against the Pax Romana and the Jus Romanum, were understood and felt subjectively and passionately by a Jew of the 19th century who apparently had maintained no connection with his race! Both the Jewish revolutionaries and the Jewish communists who attacked the principle of private property, of which the most solid monument is the Codex Juris Civilis of Justinianus, of Ulpian, etc...are doing nothing different from their ancestors who resisted Vespasian and Titus. In reality it is the dead who speak!" [52]
Jews were the creators of Communism/Socialism. The great prophet of the collectivist idea and the founder of the International, Karl Marx, was a Jew who's real name was Mordechai. Jews are the present leaders of the movement, and its funds are from Jewish sources which explains perhaps the limitless amount of the resources at the disposal of the socialists; in France, the newspaper Humanite has been founded by Jewish money. It is the same for the greater part of socialist newspapers throughout the world.
In England, "Jewish influence on the less extreme forms of socialism in this country is no less apparent. If the Labor Party is solidly pro‑German, it is also solidly pro‑Jewish." [53] Moreover, on the subject of Jewish influence in socialism, nobody is more definite than one of the spiritual leaders of Judaism, Mr. Alfred Nossig, who says word for word in his book "Le Judaisme integral." [54]
(68). Socialism and the Mosaic code are programmes which are not at all in opposition. Between the fundamental ideas of the two doctrines there is on the contrary a striking agreement. Jewish nationalism ought not to turn from Socialism as from a danger which threatens its ideal, nor Jewish Socialism turn from the Mosaic code. The two parallel ideals will be realized by following the same road.
(69). From an examination of the facts it emerges in an irrefutable manner that: it is not only modern Jews who have co‑operated in a decisive manner in the creation of socialism; their own Fathers were already the founders of the Mosaic system...or in another form the Mosaic system is socialism freed from the Utopias and Terror of Communism, as well as from the 'ascese' of Christianity. The Mosaic code throughout the ages both as a doctrine and as a law, has influenced some consciously and others unconsciously.
(74). The modern socialist movement is in great part of the work of Jews; it was the Jews who imprinted upon it the mark of their brain; it was equally the Jews who had a preponderant part in the government of the first socialist republics, although the Jewish socialist leaders were for the most part estranged from Judaism; in spite of which the part which they played did not depend on them alone; in them was operating in an unconscious fashion the race‑cultural system of the mosaic doctrine, the blood of the old apostolic people was living in their brain and in their social temperament. Present day world socialism forms the first stage in the accomplishment of the Mosaic teaching, the beginning of the realization of the future state of the world announced by our prophets.
(79). It is not until there will be a League of Nations, it is not until its allied armies will be employed in an efficacious manner for the protection of all the weak races, that we shall be able to hope that the Jews will be in a position to develop without hindrance their national state in Palestine, and equally it will only be a League of nations impregnated with the socialist spirit which will render possible for us the possession of our international as well as of our national requirements. This is why all Jewish groups whatever they are, Zionists or adepts of the Diaspora, have a vital interest in the victory of socialism; they must exact it not only on principle, not only because of its identity with the Mosaic doctrine, but also on tactical grounds.
(87). The Jewish socialist is reproached with playing a leading part not only in the collectivist party but also in the communist terrorist party. This must be regretted by all Jews, who in as much as they are true disciples of the Mosaic teaching, disapprove of the Terror. This is only explained by two reasons; the complete estrangement of the Jewish terrorists from the spirit of the mosaic doctrine and the strong mixture of Tartar and Cossack blood. That has not prevented the dissenters of the Jewish race from being exalted in the socialist idea, but it has inculcated in them savage and cruel principles.
We have just seen the preponderant part played by Judaism in the modern revolutionary movement, Bolshevism, socialism etc. Let us now examine the direction of Jewish influence in the world in general and in the different branches of human activity.
Jewish Influence In The World
Throughout the world and in all parts Jewish activity is exercised consciously or unconsciously in a revolutionary direction destructive of Christian civilization. The two poles of the Jewish people ‑‑ at the bottom the socialist and Bolshevist revolutionaries, at the top the High Finance ‑‑ are working in the same direction. Consciously or unconsciously there is indeed a radical difference between the two conceptions of existence, the Jewish conception, which believes in the immense value of earthly life, and which thrusts from it the hope of a future life, and the Christian conception which is based n the inverse.
Whether one admits or whether one denies the idea of a world wide Jewish conspiracy, the fact remains nevertheless that since 1789 the Jewish idea is gaining the upper hand over the Christian idea which had hitherto prevailed, and the general materialism which proceeds from it logically brings the atheism, the socialism and the universal anarchy from which we are suffering. The Jewish question is then before everything a question of safe‑guarding our civilization and our culture, a question of changing the face of the world. Without us Aryans being conscious of it, the idealism pertinent to our race, that idealism which was so zealous throughout the ages for all that is beautiful, all that is noble, for sincerity, loyalty, right, duty, trust, all this is being irresistibly impelled by the seductive conception of Jewry towards a cynical and unscrupulous materialism, which finds its political expression in the Judeo‑Masonic universal atheist republic. The propagation of the Jewish idea is then destructive for us; and for spreading its ideas and putting them into practice, Judaism has, as its chief forces, gold and the Press.
Thanks to them it directs or interferes with everything which acts on public opinion and everything which has a revolutionary influence in the world: Freemasonry, Socialism, Communism, Theosophy, the Theater, the Cinema, News Agencies, Wireless, Education, etc. It has an effective influence on most governments, either indirectly through freemasonry, or directly by selected Jewish nationals who surround and direct the leaders of the State and influential politicians, as we have seen it in a preponderant fashion at the Peace Conference. The Jewish mentality for gold has a religious basis for: "The principal characteristic of the Jewish religion consists in its being alien to the Hereafter, a religion, as it were, solely and essentially worldly. [55] Man can only experience good or evil in this world; if God wishes to punish or reward He can only do so during the life of man. It is therefore here below that the just must prosper and the impious suffer." [56]
Thus the Jewish religion exalts riches as the supreme blessing, and money is for the Jew the aim of life. "It is useless to insist upon the differences which proceed from this opposition between the two different views in the respective attitudes of the pious Jew and the pious Christian regarding the acquisition of wealth. While the pious Christian, who had been guilty of usury, was tormented on his death‑bed by the tortures of repentance and was ready to give up all that he owned, for the possessions unjustly acquired were scorching his soul, the pious Jew, also at the end of his days looked with affection upon his coffers and chests filled to the top with the accumulated sequins taken during his long life from poor Christians and even from poor Moslems; a sight which could cause his pious heart to rejoice, for every penny of interest enclosed therein was like a sacrifice offered to his god." [57]
It was an English Jew banker, the well known economist David Ricardo, himself the son of a Dutch Jew banker who emigrated to London at the end of the 18th century, who is the inventor and the theorist of a purely economic conception of the world which rules nearly everywhere today.
The contemporary political commercialism; business above everything, business considered as the supreme aim of human effort, comes directly from Ricardo.[58] The root cause of the evil is then the disappearance of all spiritual ideals. Dostolievsky [59] had already declared this as far back as 1873 in this prophetic passage: "Their kingdom is at hand, their perfect kingdom. The triumph of those ideas is approaching in the presence of which the sentiments of humanity are mute, the thirst for truth, the Christian and national feelings and even the common pride of the peoples of Europe. That which is coming, on the contrary, is materialism, the blind and grasping appetite for personal material well‑being, the thirst for the accumulation of money by any means; that is all which is regarded as a higher aim, such as reason, such as liberty, instead of the Christian ideal of salvation by the sole means of the close moral and brotherly union between men.
People will laugh at this, and say that it does not in the least proceed from the Jews...Was the late James de Rothschild of Paris a bad man? We are speaking about Judaism and the Jewish idea which has monopolized the whole world, instead of defective Christianity. A thing will come about which nobody can yet even imagine. All this parliamentarism, these theories regarding the community which are believed in today, these accumulations of wealth, the banks, science, all that will collapse in the winking of an eye and without leaving a trace behind, except the Jews however, who will know than what they have to do, so that even this will be for their gain. All this is near, close by..."
President Washington Attempted to Warn America
President Washington attempted to warn the American people about getting embroiled in the affairs of Europe.
George Washington's Farewell Address
Friends and Fellow‑Citizens: "The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the Executive Government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with the important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the resolution I have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of and consonance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a reference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this previous to the last election had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions with which I first under took the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed toward the organization and administration of the Government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my political life my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me, and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead; amidst appearances sometimes dubious; vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging; in situations in which not infrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the consistency of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guaranty of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which can not end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people.
These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget as an encouragement to it your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite movement that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watch for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly out weighted by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefitting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted.
The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the Progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionally greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalries alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter.
Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal.
We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations; Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western, whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that thee is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.
You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the Executive and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have witnesses to the formation of two treaties ‑‑ that with Great Britain and that with Spain ‑‑ which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations toward confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the while is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support.
Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.
But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill‑concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations of associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discontinuance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill‑founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which fee governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness; these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.
The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow‑citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are not at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no great error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish ‑‑ that they will control the usual current of the passions the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good ‑‑ that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism ‑‑ this hope will be full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe my proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined as far as should depend upon me to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.
The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity toward other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty‑five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow‑citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government ‑‑ the ever‑favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers." [60] 1913: The Sixteenth Amendment was declared ratified. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Follow The Money Trail: First, the Biblical principles and then the secular history. “And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And Ye Shall Cry out in That Day Because of Your King Which Ye Shall Have Chosen You; and the Lord Will Not Hear You in That Day.” [61]
It takes money, lots of money, to accomplish what those verses in 1 Samuel describe. In the days of the Bible, the nations were primarily agriculturally oriented. It was enough to confiscate a tenth of your agriculture products to accomplish the needs of a king and his military which he used to enforce his mandates. We all know, through extreme hardships and suffering, a simple ten percent would be a blessing in today’s world!
To further compound the hardships of the suffering American people, the “kings” of the world now want to unite and form a universal consortium of kings with a “super-king” to rule over us. This, too, will demand additional money for that folly. This, too, has a Biblical precedent. The Word of God has examples and principles for conceivable foolishness that our government today can devise. “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Babylon has been developed more than once. But now, one more time, we must go through it. But it takes money, lots of money. How, when, where and who are we talking about? Again, our people tend to think in terms of a short time. They cannot comprehend or conceive that a long-term “conspiracy” can be ongoing right before our eyes. We have been taught that conspiracies are created in some smoke-filled room by a few men of influence and power. Conspiracies are made in the heart, mind and soul of individuals. Almost invariably they come from the Occidental mind. Very seldom do conspiracies of such magnitude come from other peoples.
The conflict that drives these conspiracies is the still ongoing fight between Jacob and Esau. The wrestling match described in Genesis 32 is symbolic of the age-old conflict. Read chapter 32 very carefully and thoughtfully. Esau is still alive and very well indeed.
Now for the secular history in terms of the money system required to insure and enforce one more try at a world order. The conflict between Federalism and States Rights is basically two forms of government. The Federalists don’t want citizens to believe that. It is their desire that we believe that both forms emanate form the Constitution. With the direct election of Senators and the removal of the teeth of the Tenth Amendment through the use of treaties, the Constitution, as we have been taught it, is now dead for all practical uses.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “One precedent in favor of power is stronger than a hundred against it.” This thought is derived directly form the passage found in 1 Samuel when the children of Israel wanted a king. You only have one King when you have a biblically arranged republican form of government and such as our Articles of Confederation and, to a degree, as the Constitution originally mandated. It was a nation “Of the people, by the people and for the people.” That is not a democracy (mobocracy) but rather a true republican form (not the Republican Party either).
It is a maxim that the economic control of a nation, or nations, is always followed by the political control of all the nations of the world, there must first be total economic control. The king (or government) of one nation needs money to obtain control He (it) will do whatever is needed to obtain it, even if it means he needs to form a cooperative society with other kings to collectively control all members of such united nations.
What follows could be to some considered dull and boring because it deals with money and its power. However, because of the very fact that most of us are not interested in financial affairs, those who are conspiring can do their evil without the majority of citizens being aware of their actions. “Dear Sirs: A. Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A., as to the profits that may be made in the National Banking business under a recent act of your Congress (National Bank Act of 1863), a copy of which act accompanied his letter. Apparently this act has been drawn upon the plan formulated here last summer by the British Bankers Association and by that Association recommended to our American friends as one that if enacted into law, would prove highly profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world. Mr. Sherman declares that there has never before been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act and that the old plan, of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new scheme will, by contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the national Banks an almost absolute control of the National finance. 'The few who can understand the system,' he says 'will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.' Please advise us fully as to this matter and also state whether or not you will be of assistance to us, if we conclude to establish a National Bank in the City of New York...Awaiting your reply, we are.” [62]
In reply to the above letter Messrs. Ikelheimer, Morton and Vandergould replied: Dear Sirs: “We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 25th, in which you refer to a communication received from Honorable John Sherman, of Ohio, with reference to the advantages, and profits, of an American investment under the provisions of the National Banking Act.
Mr. Sherman possesses, in a marked degree, the distinguishing characteristics of a successful financier. His temperament is such that whatever his feelings may be they never cause him to lose sight of the main chance. He is young, shrewd and ambitious. He has fixed his eyes upon the Presidency of the United States and already is a member of Congress (he has financial ambitions too). He rightfully thinks he has everything to gain by being friendly with men, and institutions, having large financial resources, and which at times are not too particular in their methods, either of obtaining government aid, or protecting themselves against unfriendly legislation...Requesting that you will regard this as strictly confidential, Most respectfully yours, Ikelheimer, Morton and Vandergould.” [63]
However, we must take the time to understand the plans of the enemy. The first principle in the art of warfare is to know your enemy. For those of us who are old enough to remember the importance of the Taft-Hartley law we realize that there was a system of checks and balances with respect to monopolies.
It was nearly impossible for a large company specializing in a certain commodity to destroy or take advantage of a smaller company doing the same type of work. The Taft-Hartley Act was an anti-monopoly law and it worked very well. A smaller family-owned business could produce its product without fear of being destroyed by a large corporation doing the same type of work. This came into effect after John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil attempt to systematically destroy smaller oil companies.
The Taft-Hartley Act permitted a healthy competitive activity among companies. Additionally, the United States patent laws protected an inventor of a new product for 17 years, which was enough time for him to establish his operation. The Constitution is very specific about patent protection. But all of that is gone. Today we have mergers, hostile take-overs and the outright destruction of those smaller companies which resist the huge conglomerates.
Protecting and abetting this totally un-American activity is the Congress of the United States. The Executive Branch further abets this activity with such endeavors as now (1997) attempting to release all U.S. Patents to the public domain. There are four bills before Congress presently which, if enacted into law, could literally destroy America’s patent system as we know it.
The bills are crafted to gratify the wishes of multinational corporations and foreign interests. The U.S. Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman (just another traitorous Jew) has agreed to provide the Communist Chinese Patent Office the “entire” U.S. Patent database on magnetic tape for free! According to an article in the FDA Week, Commissioner Lehman has “offered to provide the Chinese the entire collection of U.S. patent documentation, covering over 160 years of patents, in digital form.” To further pour salt in the wound of this travesty, Lehman wants to give the Chinese Patent Office what is called the “first-page database,” which isn’t even available in the United States! This “first-page database” provides a condensed version of the patents, bibliographical data and drawings. This front file will include all new data issued each week.
Lehman, through the Patent and Trademark Office, has sent to Congress for approval four bills. The accords to be approved by these bills will hinge on approval of H.R. 1733, titled “Patent Application Publication Act of 1995.” This bill will prematurely disclose an American invention to foreign countries so they can begin production of the invention before its inventor has any protection. The U.S. Code defines patents as “private property” which means that the patent application is the property of the inventor and is supposed to be held in secret until the patent is issued. These bills will remove this protection. The other bills are H.R. 1659, H.R. 1732, H.R. 2235, and H.R. 3460. All of these bills, if enacted, will destroy the incentive of American inventors which has historically been the force which has advanced the world’s civilization to the highest ever known to mankind. Is this, too, a part of our “tree-hugging experiment” and worshiping the goddess of nature, Gaia? This information regarding Lehman’s actions within the Patent and Trademark Office can be found in an article written by W. Arthur Fisher titled “Dismantling America’s Patent System” and published in the Anti-Shyster Magazine, Volume 7, Number 1, P.O. Box 540786, Dallas, Texas 75354.
This proposed debacle within the patent office, Congress and the Executive Branch (regardless of who is president) is but a part of the overall drive toward a One World Order. The financial community calls this “globalization.”
When we watch the financial “experts” give their analyzes on TV about why the N.Y. Stock Exchange is almost daily braking records (up and down), they try to convince their listeners that it is because the United States economy is so healthy. The entire government-news media system is frantically trying to tell the American people that we are so well off and our standard of living continues to rise. Even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve gets into the act by raising interest rates in a feeble attempt to slow the stock market down, which in itself is a ruse. For a rise in interest Causes Inflation because it causes an increase in the cost of goods and or services. They are proud, at last they are eager to announce, that the stock market has now “sucked-out” the average person’s life savings, which they have invested in the stock market. If that is true, then we all are a part of the demise of this once Christian Republic.
The following article is excerpted from the January-February, 1997 issue of the Ecologic Magazine. This article follows the money trail and thus we should better understand the enemy.
Who Controls the Money? Economic Globalization, Glass-Steagall and the Dow: [64] “...Globalization and all that it entails is at the heart of this puzzle. Globalization as I define it, the blending together of economies, people, laws, politics, monies and social ethics into one, appears to be at a crucial crossroads. In order to fully integrate the world economically, all remaining legislation pertaining to banks and investment firms, specifically the Glass-Steagall Act, must be torn down.
Representative Jim Leach, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, told the American Bar Association in May, ‘the reform of the Glass-Steagall Act is the most exciting comprehensive banking bill of the century and more consequential than any prior legislation excepting perhaps the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.’
Is he correct? What in the world does this mean? What are the repercussions of this action? What will be the impact on Americans? There are many players in the economic globalization game. Some are known, while others operate in anonymity, which suits their purpose.
As identified, they are: (1) The Dollar/Mark/Yen; (2) The Federal Reserve Bank; (3) The Glass-Steagall Act; (4) The Group of Seven and the Group of Ten; (5) The Bank for International Settlements and two of their committees (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the Tripartite); (6) The International Organization of Security Commissions (IOSCO); (7) The GATT/World Trade Organization; (9) The World Bank/International Monetary Fund; (10) The United Nations; and the (11) Stock Market. Has the stock market performed well two years in a row because the U.S. economy is expanding or is it as a result of the globalization process?”
The writer of this article clearly shows that the United Nations is way down on the list of conspirators and that the stock market itself is last. Now for a brief description of each of the players:
The Dollar/Mark/Yen: The Currency of Globalization. “When I started to track the drop in the dollar against the German Mark and Japanese Yen in 1989 and 1990, there was no comprehension as to the magnitude and scope of what it entailed. In 1992, the book Euroquake, by Daniel Burstein, pointed out that the dollar, yen and mark would be equal in value to one at some point in time. Today, they are equal within a ten percent differential. It does not make any difference how you convert from dollars to marks or yen, using that combinational or any other combination, you get the same value within ten percent. In essence, a global currency has been birthed. The sperm was the passage of the Emergency Banking Act by Roosevelt and the egg was the severing of any relationship the dollar had to gold August 12, 1971, when Richard Nixon closed the ‘gold window.’ It is the dollar which bore the b runt of the birth pains as it has dropped anywhere from 57.7% to 63% against the mark and anywhere from 68.1% to 77% against the yen from its original value in 1973. It is this equalization of currencies that basically is the currency of globalization.”
Here is proof that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are players in this. Further, notice that it was the Americans who bore the brunt of this process. They all-the-while attempt to convince that our standard of living is so great!
The next section is explaining the Federal Reserve. Many of us have known the truth about the Federal Reserve for many years. But many Americans do not, so it is wise to include it. Additionally, there will be some information that will be new to even us old timers. Please bear with us! Continuing:
The Federal Reserve: “The paper money in your wallet contains these words: ‘Federal Reserve Note. This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.’ Why does paper money not state that it is a note from the Treasury of the United States? The Federal Reserve is not the Treasury; so what is it? The Federal Reserve is a ‘central bank.’ To put it in every day terms, it is a private corporation which claims to provide a service to the people of the United States by furnishing the money which is used in our banking system.
Another way to look at it is that the monetary system of the United States is in the hands of a few very wealthy and powerful individuals who control virtually every aspect of our economy (They are listed elsewhere in this publication). What this means is that the power of the Federal Reserve exceeds and supercedes that of our President and Congress. The Federal Reserve is not accountable to them. They have never published an annual report and their meetings re not reported to the press until six months after they have made a monetary decision.
Consider why Americans cannot forgive themselves the interest on the federal debt: it is because they do not owe it to themselves, they owe it to a private corporation that demands interest. How did we get a central bank? Here are three fine books on the subject: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins, Bankers Research Institute, 1993; The Federal Reserve-An International Mystery, Thibaut deSaint Phalle, Praeger Press 1984; and Tragedy and Hope, by Carroll Quigley, originally published by MacMillian, 1965. Dr. Carroll Quigley was Bill Clinton’s mentor from Georgetown University (or so he says - however, I suspect that his real mentor is one of the Elders of Zion) and the one who whom he paid special tribute at his first Inaugural Address.
In looking to define central banks, Dr. Quigley says: ‘Notes were issued by...banks of issue and were secured by reserves of gold or certificates held in their own coffers or in some central reserve...There were formerly many banks of issue, but this function is now generally restricted to a few or even to a single central bank in each country. Such banks, even central banks, were private institutions, owned by the shareholders who profited by their operations.’ [65]
The federal Reserve has been amended more than 195 times since its founding. One of those amendments, Section 25(a), set up the Edge Act. It is this bill that allowed national banks to establish foreign branches in order to conduct ‘international or foreign banking’ activities. Lastly those who passed the original Act in 1913, would not recognize it today. Its power and domain far surpass what was ever intended. The Fed is a very important member of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).”
The Group of Seven/Group of Ten: “The Group of Seven (G-7) which comprises the top seven industrialized countries of the world (the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, England, Italy and Japan), represents 65% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product and the majority of votes in the United Nations Security Council. They have been meeting since 1973. President Nixon called a number of world leaders together to help manage the international monetary affairs of the world. The G-7 has been behind every phase of the globalization process. The G-7 countries as a result of their economic strength and power in the Security Council.
The Information Super Highway was created and fostered by the G-7. It is the G-7 who are also structuring the world police system to combat terrorism. At the last G-7 meeting in Lyon, France, the G-7 renewed their determination to work together in partnership with leaders of other countries in our ‘increasingly interdependent and inter-active world with rapid globalization.’ [66] The Group of Ten (G-10) is an expansion of the Group of Seven as it includes Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, Belgium and Luxembourg, the countries where five of the major money centers of the world are located. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision which is part of the Bank for International Settlements is comprised of the central banks from the Group of Ten countries.”
The Bank of International Settlements: “Operating in great obscurity in Basel, Switzerland, this institution wields even greater power than the Federal Reserve as it is considered the central banks’ bank. The BIS, operating on the global level, coordinates with the ‘local central bank’ in each country, the material changes in domestic law necessary to bring the world monetary system into harmony or one. Over the years, it has, like the Federal Reserve, amassed greater and greater control over more aspects of the global monetary system.
According to Dr. Quigley: ‘...the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a hole...The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations...The BIS is generally regarded as the apex of the structure of financial capitalism whose remote origins go back to the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 and the Bank of France in 1803...It was set up rather to remedy the decline in London as the worlds’ financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.’ [67]
Ten times a year, the heads of the world’s major central banks, the G10 countries, meet ‘at their supranational second home, the BIS at Basel...They are ‘international freemasons,’ possessing a natural second allegiance to the often lonely interest of international monetary order...’ [68]
It was the Bank for International Settlements which designed the present borderless flow of monies between countries when it pushed for the deregulation of monetary laws of the major North American, European and Asian countries around the world, creating the monetary flow of more than 1.2 trillion dollars on a daily basis. It was the BIS which also designed a number of very sophisticated investment instruments being used today, such as derivatives, futures, and options. It also paved the way for trading treasury bonds on a global basis...
According to BIS report, ‘Changes in the Organization and Regulation of Capital Markets,’ published in March, 1987, any of the needed changes in national laws have been effected in most countries to facilitate the BIS agenda. Since every country is different, the final completion date for each country will vary. Some of the innovations encouraged by the BIS include the issuance of new issues of bonds, Treasury Bills and stocks, stock exchanges, new auction procedures for bonds and the development of financial futures and/or options markets.
In the U.S., these changes have come in the form of deregulation and the tearing down of any national law which would prohibit the free flow of money in or out of the country, as embodied in the 1980 Monetary Control Act. This Act is the chief cornerstone that removed all of the restraints on the U.S. banking system, such as the interest rate ceiling, Regulation Q, the amount of interest a bank could pay on deposits. The 1980 Monetary Control Act also erased Regulation D which set a minimum required amount of reserves to be held by commercial banks. Because of how these laws are applied to foreign branches of U.S. banks, it led the way for capital to leave the U.S., which opened the door to the globalized world we see today.”
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: “This important and powerful committee is comprised of the central banks from the G-10 countries. This committee also works very closely with the International Organization for Security Commissions (IOSCO) in harmonizing world security exchange regulations. It has been said of The Basel Committee, as it is called, ‘Although the Committee focus is on supervision of internationally active banks within the G-10 countries, its conclusions are generally applicable for all banks no matter where they are...”
The Tripartite: “In 1993, the Basel Committee created the ‘Tripartite’ which is comprised of bank securities and insurance regulators from around the world, ‘acting in a personal capacity but drawing on their experience of supervising different types of financial institutions. The purpose...is to identify problems which financial conglomerates pose for supervisors and to consider ways in which these problems might be overcome.’ The term ‘financial conglomerate’ means any group of companies which offer more than one financial services such as banking, securities and insurance.”
International Organization of Security Commissions (IOSCO): “This international group of security commissioners has been meeting in obscurity since 1975. The only place a person will hear of IOSCO is in global economic power circles and in industry publications such as the World Securities Law Report. In describing itself, IOSCO says its members are the ‘Securities and futures regulators, responsible to ensure in their own jurisdictions high standards of transparency, integrity and investor protection, needed to continuously adapt their regulatory framework and procedures to this changing environment. The IOSCO is at the heart of this global cooperative effort. ‘...Arthur Sevitt, the SEC Commissioner calls IOSCO, ‘the single organization that brings securities regulators from around the world.’ He further states that, ‘there has never been a greater need for us to work together. We regulate one of the most innovative industries on the face of the earth, whose main commodity, capital, has little regard for national borders. We must expand our cooperation to cover regulatory issues beyond enforcement.’ The activities of IOSCO basically make it a ‘global Security and Exchange Commission,’ i.e., a global regulatory body which is bringing together national laws to conform to an international jurisdiction over the whole global market place.” The description of GATT which follows should be of great interest to everyone. Remember, it was Dole who forced this treaty through the Senate.
General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs: “At the United Nations Bretton Woods Monetary Conference in 1944, the three-pronged economic framework for a fully integrated world was established. The U.S. Senate confirmed two of the three; the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The U.S. did not ratify the International Trade Commission, the precursor to the World Trade Organization. IN its place, 23 countries ratified the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Between 1948 and December, 1994 when GATT/WTO was finally passed by a lameduck Congress, fourteen GATT ‘Rounds’ had been held, including the Dillion, Kennedy, Tokyo, and Uruguay Rounds. At each of these meetings further concessions were made in the negotiations of trade tariffs. Major categories for trade include telecommunications, maritime transport services, Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPPS), Financial Services, the environment, competition policies, government procurement, technology, labor, agricultural reform and textiles. The GATT is more than 26,000 pages long and no single article could ever explain or comprehend what this global agreement really does or means. This massive Agreement whose intent it is to break down all of the trading barriers in the world, will change everything. Given the above negotiations and the length of the GATT document, it should be noted that trade is not ‘free.’ GATT/WTO represents a complete dismantling of commerce and manufacturing as presently known.”[69]
The GATT is a document 26,000 pages long which, with a great deal of certainty, was not read by one Senator before voting for it. Here is a treaty which will cause the world’s independent and sovereign governments to be nothing but servants to the money cartel.
The WTO Financial Services Agreement: “The financial services sector is one of three service sectors whose market-opening negotiations were not completed during the Uruguay Rounds where basic principles for implementing liberalization of services were agreed to. Currently only 29 countries are participating in a second agreement made after the Uruguay Rounds. There are three more meetings set for 1997 to complete the tearing down of the borders in the financial services sector. According to the Uruguay Round, the following activities are considered financial services; insurance and related services; life and non-life, reinsurance, insurance intermediation such as brooking and agency services, banking and other services; acceptance of deposits, lending of all kinds; consumer mortgage, commercial, financial leasing, all payments and money transmissions services, trading in money market instruments, foreign exchange, derivatives, exchange rate and interest rates instruments such as swaps and forward rate agreements, securities and other negotiable instruments, gold, participation in new issues of securities, money brokering, asset management such as portfolio management or pension fund management, settlement and clearing services for financial assets...Because the commitments vary so widely (among countries), it is difficult to summarize in ;precise terms what they mean. There are common trends. In many countries, more foreign banks, securities firms and insurance companies are being allowed to operate...with various conditions...attached. More asset management and other financial services can be provided by wholly or partly foreign owned companies...”
The World Bank/International Monetary Fund: “Both of these institutions, comprising the key economic cornerstones for the global infrastructure, were birthed at the U.N. Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. The World Bank has evolved from its original mandate of making developmental loans to one of epic magnitude in scope. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (the first piece of the World Bank empire) and the International Development Association (IDA) make loans to developed countries and developing countries of the world. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), established in 1956, promotes the development of capital markets ro stock exchanges, brings new stock to market through the privatization process and creates ne financial instruments. The ‘country’ closed-end mutual funds were one of their ideas. Country funds became very popular as a way to invest in specific countries. IFC is a major mover and shaker in the globalization process as it works with 150 country funds and has levered $19 billion or 2000 companies in 125 countries. Then there is MIGA, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency that provides guarantees to foreign investors against losses caused by non-commercial risks. IN 1996, they issued 68 contracts covering $2.3 billion. (Note: Non-commercial could include third world governments and/or the kitchen-sink. A form of transfer of wealth with regard to those who end up ‘holding the bag.’)
It is important to point out some of the World Bank’s major programs, such as their Environmentally Sustainable Development Division. Established in 1993, the World Bank mandate states ‘development could be achieved and sustained only through the integration of economic, social, technical and ecological dimensions. The Environmentally Sustainable Development division is concerned with water management, agriculture and forestry, urban and industrial management, social issues, biodiversity and the Global Environment Facility. The World Bank, as a whole, is involved in much more and basically wants to be your bank!
World Bank President James A. Wolfenshohn, in his annual address in October said, ‘...We have expanded our links with the U.N. and its agencies, the World Trade Organization and the European Union...The Bank is working with governments to help them improve the policies and legal, tax and judicial systems that are crucial for encouraging investment.’
The International Monetary Fund is currently being restructured by the Group of Seven, the World Bank, and the United Nations, to fulfill the functions of a ‘world central bank.’ In an interview at the annual IMF World Bank meeting in October, he referred to the IMF as just that. As greater economic powers are conferred to the IMF it has basically orchestrated the transfer of growth from the north to south (terms used to describe developed countries and developing countries) through their economic policies. For example, the U.S. has a growth rate of 2% while China has a growth rate of 6%.”
The United Nations: “The United Nations holds more than 5,000 conferences a year in order to change the global infrastructure in all areas of life so that it can fulfill its Charter which calls for ‘harmonization’ between all countries of the world. In essence, the U.N. and its fifteen plus agencies and fourteen plus commissions act as a ‘global octopus,’ bringing all of the different commercial, legal, economic, trade and social aspects of life under its sphere of influence. The World Bank/IMF, World Trade Organization, World Postal Union, etc., all come under the auspices of the U.N.”
The Glass-Steagall Act: “As a result of the 1929 banking crash (orchestrated by the Federal Reserve to bring about) , Congress instituted two laws, the McFadden Act of 1927 which prevented interstate banking and the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. With regard to the McFadden Act, it was torn down several years ago with the ability of banks to cross state lines, the merger activity in the banking industry is a direct result of this reversal of policy.
Glass-Steagall adopted five key changes to the Federal Reserve Act: (1) It created the FDIC to protect bank depositors through insurance, (2) It restricts investment banking activities to acting only for its own account, (3) It prohibits the affiliation of any bank to engage principally in investment banking activities, (4) It makes it illegal for any depository institution to engage in investing banking and receive deposits at the same time and (5) It prohibits interlocking directorates and certain other links between member banks and firms or individuals primarily engaged in investment banking. In short, it separated the functions of a bank from that of an investment firm which underwrote stocks and bonds. Currently the only way an American financial institution can own a foreign subsidiary is through a foreign subsidiary, as in the case of Merrill-Lynch buying a British brokerage firm, Smith NewCourt. The repeal of Glass-Steagall would allow foreign banks and brokerage firms to own American banks and brokerage firms directly. It is concevi able that the largest bank in America may one day be Mitsubishi Bank!
The statement by Congressman Jim Leach testifies to the concerted drive by a number of globalists in Congress to break the Glass-Steagall Act. This action would in essence bring U.S. banking institutions into conformity with other banks around the world. The BIS defines mega-banks, banks that can offer insurance and underwrite and sell securities and other services, as ‘financial conglomerates.’ In essence, breaking Glass-Steagall would standardize our banking system with the global banking system that is emerging as a result of the BIS orchestrated changes in the national laws of all countries. For example, all banks could sell insurance, own stock brokerage firms and syndicate stocks and bonds. Lastly, it would open the door to the ‘Cashless Society’ or ‘E-Money’ as many countries outside of the U.S. are further along in the conversion of paper money to E-money than the U.S. is. The American banking system would be in a position to facilitate this global change over. Without the repeal of Glass-Steagall, this cannot happen. The FDIC is spearheading the E-money conversion.
Mr. Leach said that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act ‘would make banks more meaningful..and they would not be crippled by a regulatory environment in terms of their powers.’ He also called for a National Insurance Commission, as other countries around the world have. Currently each state, as protection against too much central power, have their own State Insurance Commission. This may be part of the reason for the Federal Reserve approving the purchase of Mitsubishi Bank’s plan to buy the U.S. units of the Bank of Tokyo which will create the world’s largest bank with $826 billion in assets.[70]
Lastly there is an old rule which says if you want to know who controls what, ‘follow the money.’ According to the BIS, the world’s banking assets are valued at more than $20 trillion, insurance premiums at $2 trillion, stock market capitalization at over $10 trillion and the market value of listed bonds at $10 trillion.”
The Stock Market: “The Dow Jones at the beginning of 1996 opened at 5117, and to the thinking of most experts, after 1995's gain of more than 33%, it could not happen again. The only way 1996 could top 1995 is through globalization and that is the only reason for its continued strength. As part of the globalization process, there was an unprecedented $502 billion in mergers and acquisitions in 1995. That trend continued in 1996. The Dow provides a wonderful example of the effects of globalization on the market. It took the Dow ten years to close above 1000 on a permanent basis which it did in 1982, five years to break 2000 (1987) and four years to cross 3000 (4/17/91). By 1995, four years later, the Dow crossed both 4000 (2/23/95) and 5000 (10/21/95). In 1996, 6000 Arrived on 10/15/96. Today the Dow is up and down from an incredible high of over 6900; the real reason for this growth can be summed up in one word - Globalization.
Then on December 21, 1996, there was an obscure article two sentences long which was the tenth item in the business column of The Washington Times which read, ‘Fed Reduces Banking Barriers. The Federal Reserve took another step yesterday toward eliminating the barriers between banking and other financial services industries. The Fed Board of Governors voted unanimously to increase the percentage of revenues bank subsidiaries may earn from underwriting and dealing in securities of 25% to 10%.’ There it was. The action which could lad to the complete dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act. If a person were not watching carefully, he would not see it. This was the reason for the 127 point rise in the Dow, it was not ’irrational exuberance.’
In this regard, there was a pertinent article in Business Week, November 4, p. 184, entitled, ‘Crashing Through Glass-Steagall.’ It said, ‘With Congress safely out of town federal regulators are poised to enact new rules that will smash gaping holes in Glass-Steagall, separating commercial banks from investment banks. The Fed is expected to boost the share of revenue that banks’ securities’ affiliates can derive from underwriting corporate stocks and bonds from 10% to 25%. In addition the Comptroller of the Currency plans to issue new rules by year end to give banks broader entree into a range of financial services through new operating subsidiaries. Those changes could enable the biggest commercial banks to acquire large Wall Street Investment firms. In addition, he might also give banks more freedom to sell life and auto insurance and create travel and real estate agencies. The Comptroller of the Currency’s gambit is an end run around lawmakers’ authority. Four U.S. Supreme Court verdicts have upheld his authority to grant new bank powers. Wall street analyzes predict that the one-two combo from the Fed and Comptroller could set the state for a spate of merges with U.S. and foreign banks bidding for smaller brokers such as Lehman Brothers and Oppenheimer...’
When Congressman Leach said ‘the reform of the Glass-Steagall Act is the most exciting comprehensive banking bill of the century and more consequential,’ do you now see the vast global implications of his seemingly innocent statement? Settlements in Basle, the Triparte, comprised of the Bank’s Committee on Banking, IOSCO and the International Insurance Association, the Group of Ten, the World Bank and IMF who are orchestrating the financial economies of the countries of the world and the World Trade Organization and the Financial Service Agreement. All of these groups and organizations are pushing to harmonize banking laws in all countries of the world which will result in mergers and acquisitions on a global basis in banking, insurance and securities.”
We have learned much from this very well researched article. Some points she made we probably already knew but all of us should have learned something. We should readily see that the international banking cartel, along with the multi-national corporate structure is genuinely ruling the governments of the world. We should quite readily see that the Congress, the Supreme Court, along with the Executive Branch (be it run by the Democrats or the Republicans) are totally ruled by this corporate structure.
It doesn’t make any difference if the corporation is American, Japanese or any other. We have learned who originated the derivatives’ market which has financially destroyed many people and even governments such as the Orange County, California scandal recently.
We have learned that the safeguards that were installed after the 1929 crash are being systematically removed. We have learned that the laws against monopolies have been removed. We have learned that the insurance companies are not part of world government and thus we can better understand why there are so many laws created solely to protect those companies.
We have learned why it was so important for GATT and NAFTA to be passed by our Congress. To reiterate a point; Congress is not our friend. It has become worthless to think in terms of Republicans or Democrats or any candidate who refuses to leave the financial shelter that either organization provides. But we should take heart. None of this will succeed. The Word of God tells us so. Prestigious intelligence sources till us so. “This Office does wonder what the clients and customers of the very highest prestige International Companies are going to say to such (upon whom reliance is placed), when some of the most significant trends now quite distinctly escalating, do in fact altogether undermine the assurances and predictions upon which very influential concerns have persuaded their clients and customers to rely?...None of the now publicized hypotheses will figure out. What would be extremely helpful would be circulation of the actual truth by the great Banks to their customers...It will divide and splinter religions and sects, many of which will not be ab le to survive...It will gradually lead to a World crisis-to the end of an entire epoch...” [71]
We remember the stories told about the great depression of 1929. Many alive today were able to live through it and that depression made Americans in general much stronger. We were able to get by with less. We didn’t have to have “things.” It has been stated many times, another great depression will cleanse America. We stand by that statement. The Control of Our Country by The money Cartel Will Fall. That Is a Promise of God Almighty! Don’t try to prop it up when it does because you will be partaking of her evil deeds.[72]
Revelation 18:11‑20: “And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. Rejoice over Her, Thou Heaven, and Ye Holy Apostles and Prophets; for God Hath Avenged You on Her.”
Taxes
Do we or should we in America have a moral obligation to pay taxes? Should we be willing to pay whatever amount the government wants or only what the government should need to function? Many people are confident that these two amounts would indeed be significantly different. Some people accept our high taxation as unfortunate but necessary while others reject our taxation as unfair and unlawful.
So we need to ask; are any or all taxes in America necessary, fair, and lawful or has our government gone beyond these boundaries? To determine this we need to look at this confusing and controversial issue of taxes in America from both a candid and moral perspective. We need to find out if the government or the IRS are instituting a fair, lawful, reasonable, and moral system of taxation. After all, where does it say that the government or the IRS has to be fair, lawful, logical, and moral?
Where did taxes come from, and why and how did taxes originate in America? The history of taxes goes back much farther than the history of America and seems to have existed as long as man's history can be accurately traced. Back in ancient times, such as in Egypt and Greece, taxes played a relatively minor role and were often paid in goods and produce. Taxation under the Roman Empire was mainly from impost on land along with some direct taxes (like our income tax today). If the required revenue was not obtained, the tax collectors were held responsible and punished.
In the Middle Ages there was less of a need for many of the taxes, especially with the direct forms of taxes on the people. All income of Medieval rulers came chiefly from their royal estates. He therefore took the greatest care of his many plantations and farms.
As history advanced to modern times the level and activity of taxes has risen substantially. And the development, addition, and increase of taxes and associated laws has become more progressive and apparent in the 20th century than through all the rest of history combined; especially in America. So now today in America we see an almost frightening situation with respect to taxes. We see a system of taxation that is seemingly more and more complex and confusing than most people can understand or care about. The various tax laws and tax rates and tax plans continue to mount up without end.
It becomes both confusing and interesting as to why all the laws, controversy, and terminology regarding taxes need to exist. So today, one can hardly turn around without hearing, seeing, or reading something about; taxes, taxation, tax shelters, loopholes, deductions, tax savings, tax‑exempt, tax reform, tax‑ free income, tax adjustment, tax concession, revenue enhancement (tax increases), itemizing, tax credits, income averaging, tax assessment, write‑offs, tax rebate, depreciation, tax planning, capital gain/loss, tax benefits, amortization, tax relief, exemptions, tax rates, tax indexing, ordinary income, tax evasion, exclusions, tax subsidies, sales tax, interest income, estate tax, tax deferred, accelerated depreciation, tax preference, gross and met income, tax laws, tax codes and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). And if you want to be really confused you can try to read the more than 16,000 page Internal Revenue Code book.
In recent times the news media has been constantly occupied with such topics surrounding taxes, although rarely in a negative tone but rather one that is positive or supportive sounding of it and the IRS. Thousands of books have been written (many of which were best sellers) and almost all dealing with ways to reduce taxes by knowing all the available deductions and loopholes.
There are thousands of court cases heard each year to settle disputes over tax amounts and defining tax law. We are always hearing about some millionaire who paid as much tax as an individual making only $20,000 a year, or of a multimillion dollar company that paid little or no corporate tax for the year. And so the confusion and problems of the tax issue go on.
Now many people today are asking: is there something wrong with our tax system in America that warrants this complexity, controversy, corruption, and confusion which surrounds the issue? One belief that always comes up is that this complexity is needed because we have a very complex society, and if you try to simplify things they could not be organized or controlled very well. But if this is the case, that means there then is only a select few that know what is actually going on and thus are in the position to control things. So would you be satisfied or comfortable with that type of system?
And what would be controlled in it; the tax system, the money, the people, the country, or maybe all of these? Many patriotic Americans are torn between the issues and point of views because they recognize that, while America does need a source of revenue, there appears to be something not right or just with our tax system.
So while they are scratching their heads at all this they may say; well fair is fair and just is just and we are willing to do what is rightly needed to help our country; but what is the truth of taxes in America, how do we know what is right and just and what is not ‑ in essence, what should be our stand on taxes in America? We are capable of making the distinction between what is right or wrong in our thoughts and conduct regarding our stand towards taxation? There is but one way to shed light on the issue and help reveal the truth of a debatable, controversial, and confusing issue such as taxes.
And that would be to examine it from a moral viewpoint and perspective. So we need to produce moral evidence about the issue ‑ that is evidence to establish moral principles of taxation to be used as a standard, or guide, or measure in evaluating it. So when we have gathered and established such evidence, we can use it as a point of reference and then look at the different taxes in America and say either; right or wrong, fair or unfair, just or unjust, lawful or unlawful, moral or immoral. Our purpose is not intended to analyze the tax structures or plans, the theory of taxes, or the ins and outs of the loopholes and deductions. But rather it will help explain and set straight in your mind what your duty, responsibility, and stand should be regarding taxation in America from a moral perspective.
Portions of the following is an explanation of this issue, through a moral perspective, and is a collection of Biblical explanations, principles of law and freedom, historical events, and famous quotes; which was transcribed from a sermon by Pastor Ben Williams on September 1983.
Taxes: A Morals Issue
The Question of Taxation: The question of whether or not our government has a rightful and lawful duty to extract taxes from American wages, as they have been doing for some years under what has been called the income tax, has lately become an inflamed issue.
Today in America we see the beginnings of what could easily turn into a full‑fledged tax rebellion. It is estimated that tax protestors number in the millions now in America, most of which have openly repudiated the government's power to tax wages and they challenge the jurisdiction of the I.R.S. The general public never hears about the majority of these cases because the government and the media both want to keep it as quiet as possible. But nonetheless the seeds have been planted and now they are growing into a mighty movement against what they consider government corruption and the oppression of the people.
To help us come to some conclusions on this let's look at some particular Scriptures from the Bible and also review some parts of American history; particularly in the 1770's ‑ The America Revolution. Also, we will focus in on the Boston Tea Party, which happened in 1773, and the events that led up to all these things; in the hope that by understanding this former tax rebellion we will better understand the present one.
Motives Against Taxes: Today we seem to have two different kinds of people who don't want to pay their taxes, the taxes that have been called income taxes. We have what is called tax protestors and tax avoiders. Tax avoiders seem to be only interested in getting out of paying taxes because they want more of the money left in their pockets.
In other words their motive is mainly greed. But a tax protestor should be protesting because he refuses to pay an unlawful tax. In other words the issue would be lawfulness of the tax as to whether or not he should pay it, not whether or not he wants to keep the money in his pocket. So a protestor's motive should be one of freedom and law rather than greed. Now you think on that as we continue because we are going to try to make a clear distinction between the two and perhaps we can identify some of the motives.
Jesus Speaks on Taxes: Let's start by laying some Scriptural ground work. Turn to Matthew Chapter 22 and we will read something there and hopefully put a verse into perspective that's often misunderstood. "Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle Him (Jesus) in His talk. And they sent out to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, 'Master, we know that Thou are true, and teacheth the way of God in truth; neither carest Thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men." [73]
Jesus evidently considered Himself free from slavery to other men: “Tell us therefore what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" [74]
This is an important question Jesus was confronted with. "Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites? Show Me the tribute money, So they brought unto Him a penny. And He said unto them, Whose is the image and superscript. They said unto Him, Caesar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." [75]
Many people use these verses of Scripture to try to prove that that means Americans should not only pay taxes but do whatever the government tells them to do. However, we have a problem with that Scripture in light of that explanation because in America we have no king or Caesar; unless you want to consider we the people the Caesar.
So therefore, if we the people are the Caesar and if somebody is supposed to render unto Caesar, then somebody must obey we the people. That is a far cry from turning it around and saying we the people are supposed to obey the government, that's putting it in reverse. So you see this verse cannot suggest that we have to obey every statement that our government says. We the people are above our government, therefore, we can judge our government. Now we are not saying that this is done without co‑operation, without organization, I am just saying that you have to keep it in perspective. So it does not apply to Americans because Americans have no Caesar.
Now, turn back to Chapter 17 of Matthew. This is another verse that is often misunderstood. And as you read this we want to pose a question to you for you to think about: Do free men who are children of the king pay taxes? When these verses speak of children they are talking about children who are freemen by birthright. So, do freemen pay taxes? Now notice what this verse says: "And when they had come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money (the tax collectors) came unto Peter and said, Does not your Master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or tribute, from their own children or from strangers? Peter saith unto Him, From strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free." [76]
Here we see Jesus is setting a principle here for Peter to understand: Who pays taxes? And the principle is that freemen do not have to pay taxes unless they want to. Freemen are free to pay taxes or not pay taxes; we will explain that in depth later. Now notice what Jesus goes on to say: "Nevertheless, lest we offend them (Jesus does not admit that He should pay taxes. But since Peter had spoke without thinking if they did not give the tax collectors a tribute, they would have a long drawn out confrontation with them, so Jesus is going to have Peter give them "some" money. Not Jesus' or the disciples money but other money which belonged to no one), to the sea, cast in a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up. And when thou has opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and thee." [77]
So we see here Jesus paid "a" tribute to the tax collector. And so people say, well then that proves we should pay our taxes. But you see we are talking about what is lawful and what is an unlawful tax here. Let us explain that to you.
Free people; that is people who are not under the ownership of kings, people who are not slaves to kings, choose what taxes they want to pay and this is done in America through legislation, supposedly or correctly. The people decide what taxes they pay if the legislation is carried on properly. And so we do not pay tribute to any king if things are in their proper order. Now Jesus makes that clear here when He talks about children being free.
Let's go on and see why He paid this tribute. Jesus had just crossed the border, He had come into a land which wasn't His home land. He was paying a border custom here. He was paying a custom for the privilege of crossing the border. Now He makes the statement that He is the child of the owner of that land by rights. However, the government that was in that land at that time, the Jewish‑Pharisaical‑Edomite government, was a hostile government. It was "Not" the government of His people, of His country. Jesus was a Galilean, He lived in Galilee. When He crossed the border He had to pay tribute to a foreign nation or to a foreign government to cross. That was a lawful tax. Jesus did not pay an unlawful tax. When compared to our Constitution and you think about what is happening to us here, you must realize that our Constitution is not hostile to us. To try to apply this to our situation causes problems.
Our Constitution is not hostile to us ‑ we have some bureaucrats in government that are hostile to us. But, you see, they are trying to usurp the Constitution and as a result this puts them in a pretty bad position ‑ pretty dangerous in fact; and that can only be checked if and when Americans ever relearn the law of this land. While we are on the subject of bureaucrats let's read in Romans 13 and we will explain a verse here also. This is the chapter that lays out the role of "Public Servants." "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God."
Our Christian people have been told that this means God sets up all the governments of the world. But that is a lie, it is simply not true. This verse has "Nothing" to do with God setting up all the governments which rule men in the world. The Scriptures plainly say so in many places. For example: "They have set up kings, but not by me (God): they have made princes, and I (God) knew it not..." [78]
Who are the powers that be in America? Well, some people say that's our government, that's our president, that's our supreme court judges, that's the bureaucrats. Let me remind you who the powers are in America. We the people are the power, we are the supreme power, we are the sovereigns in America. But this is no longer true in America.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." This means let our public servants, our president, our supreme court judges, our legislator, our governors, our senators, and our congressmen ‑ let all of these people be subject unto the people. "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, customs to whom customs are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due." [79] Do you not understand; our public servants had better pay honor and they better fear their owners, their employers, which is the public, which is the people. Now that is just putting that into perspective for you because it has been misunderstood.
Society's View on Taxation: Now today the general public opinion of what is called a tax protestor is not too good. You ask most people around you today (1990) what they think of the tax protestors and they will say: well they're radicals and they're kooks and they're anarchists and they may use other bad names. Mark Twain once said: "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him for then it costs him nothing to be a patriot."
Church opinion today seems mostly to disregard civil politics or try to at least. Rather, they want to concentrate mostly on "heaven," professing to want nothing to do with worldly politics. So the majority of these people, who would otherwise be eligible as a main body in Christ's army against the enemy, are so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good. What form of logic is it that has possessed modern Churchianity, which has made them think that God prefers to be removed from our day‑to‑day civil activities and government which so greatly affects the welfare of every citizen and child of God. One can see indications of a form of brainwashing which has affected the majority of Christians in this country; and they have been taught that any and all government, in other words a government in which men take part in, is worldly government. In other words, what they picture as being the only form of a Godly government is one in which man cannot be involved.
And thus they seem to have divested God of the option of working through mortal men. But the Christian patriots who understand this concept of freedom and the working of man's government must take it upon themselves to educate the ignorant. We shouldn't detest them for being ignorant but rather we should take the advice of Thomas Jefferson who once said: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them."
Thus, to not inform someone of their rights and responsibilities and to take no action to remedy the situation would be wrong and immoral action, or rather inaction. This viewpoint expressed by Jefferson is one that our society needs to adopt today. This also relates well to the prayer which speaks of sins of commission as well as sins of omission ‑ we need to look at that possibility here in America.
A Viewpoint Of Government That Includes God
Can God set up a Godly government through men? Of course He can. He is not limited, He can do that, He has done that. Is God not concerned with the quality of our earthly existence? Of course He is concerned, just as a father is naturally concerned about his children. "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" [80]
Is not the quality of our earthly existence mainly affected for good or bad by whatever form of government we have at the time? Nothing on this earth affects our physical as well as our mental condition more than our government.
Now that is a fact you just can't get away from and I don't care how heavenly minded you are. Those people who try to tell you that God would have nothing to do with our earthly government are actually suggesting that our Heavenly Father does not care about your well being and your life here on earth; and that He is only concerned about your well‑being after the resurrection. Of course we know that God is concerned about the future and about the life after the resurrection ‑ eternity. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." [81] But why must some people try to exclude Him from the here and now? With that form of logic it would follow that a parent should ignore the needs and feelings of his children because they are not important until they become an adult. These passivist, dispassionalists, and malignalists are off track. Until they concede to God's rule upon the earth here and now they will never understand what is happening in the world. God can set up a Godly form of government and He has. It has happened twice, once at Sinai and then again here in America. And in both of these occasions it was freedom that they were seeking. And I think that some people have assumed that the revolutionaries of 1776 were merely trying to preserve their money and their property and that is why they came up against taxes.
But that is not the case. It was not just their property that they were concerned about, they were concerned about their freedom under God; and they were trying to preserve it for them and their posterity. Most of them died pennyless and some sacrificed a sizeable fortune to the patriotic effort. If their personal property had been the issue then they would have done whatever was needed to keep from losing it. But instead they gave their property and their comforts and their blood for the principle of being freemen. In other words men who were not enslaved to kings or any other mortal man.
A statement by Samuel Adams in 1775, at a meeting they were holding, said: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of those who feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
That is a pretty strong statement and I think that he can bring some of us to judgment today. This is the foundational point which negates and eliminates all forms of paganism and atheism which points to man himself as the supreme being. Without the true God of Christianity we are left only with the rule of man. Man is the only king we can have then, under which there can be no form of freedom or liberty. "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." [82]
If men are our kings, freedom does not exist and that is the point the patriots were trying to get across in 1776. That is the meaning behind the literature of our country's founding documents. Only under the true God of Christianity does the type of freedom exist that these documents describe, where We The People are sovereign and were free and our government our servant.
Lawfulness of A Tax: Does our government have powers to tax? Yes they have powers to tax, powers which we the people have given it. But, the tax must be a lawful tax, it must be a constitutional tax. Power to tax can come only from the people; it can come only from those who own the property that is being taxed. Kings own property and they can tax that land. Kings own nations and they can tax the nation. But we the people own America and we the people are the only ones who can tax America, properly. Who is levying and collecting taxes today? Are we the people doing this or is our government doing it? That's the question, isn't it? Is this a lawful tax? With all the different taxes that you want to study you will have to make that decision for yourself. There are different taxes, some are lawful, some are unlawful. Are we the people ruling our government today? Are we being taxed without our consent? Who is in favor of raising taxes, who passes the laws to raise our taxes today? Are we the people passing those laws or are bureaucrats passing those laws? Is it a lawful tax or is it an unlawful tax. Are we being taxed without representation?
Events That Led Up To The Revolutionary War: The Boston Tea Party (Which was a wholly Masonic event) happened in 1773 and we will quote some excerpts on this subject. This is from the book called The Light and The Glory: "King George came into power in 1760.
He was a monarch whose ego demanded total submission to the throne. For a long time he had been waiting for an opportunity to deal with the independent spirit of America. Scarcely had England concluded a peace treaty with France than George decided the time had come. His first step was to increase the size of the British force garrisoned in America, left there to discourage a fresh outbreak of the French and Indian War, from 3100 to 7500 men. The colonies saw no need for this increase but then the colonies had no say in the matter.
The cost of garrisoning these troops was going to be approximately 200,000 pounds sterling per annum, a staggering sum. The crown decided the colonies would pay for this indirectly by imposing various acts and duties. First came the Molasses Act of 1733. The colonies could buy molasses for their making of sugar and rum only from British interests in the West Indies. The old navigation acts were strictly enforced. To accomplish this, customs commissioners turned out to be appallingly corrupt.
Consequently all the revenues raised went to pay the salaries of the commissioners themselves and their large self‑ appointed staff of political cronies (Does that sound familiar? They call that bureaucracy today).
New tariffs were then imposed, the most appalling of which was the Stamp Act of 1765. Every legal document had to have a stamp of the British government on it in order to be official. And as infuriating as it was it was nothing compared to the Townshend Acts of 1767, imposing duties on glass, lead, tea, paper and so forth. There was no longer any pretense of paying the cost of the British garrison. This was for the purpose of raising revenues to pay for England's global adventures.
The mood in America was ugly and getting uglier. At the request of the commissioners, who began to fear for their physical safety, General Thomas Gage and two more regiments of troops were dispatched to Boston in 1768. A year later the hated Townshend Acts were repealed all saved the one on tea. But two years after that the East India Tea Company, then on the verge of bankruptcy, was excluded from these duties. This meant the end of many American tea companies and precipitated the Boston Tea Party.
The king demanded that the culprits be apprehended and prosecuted to the extent of the law in England. And when no culprits could be found he decided to punish the entire city of Boston by closing her ports to commerce in 1774. But, what was meant to be a warning to all the colonies of what would happen to those who resisted soon had precisely the opposite effect. Even as these words were being written, in Virginia a veteran colonel and gentleman‑farmer named George Washington quietly said in Mount Vernon, his beautiful home on the Potomac. 'When ever my country calls upon me I am ready to take my musket on my shoulder.'
The following month from New York came these words from a well known lawyer named William Livingston; 'Courage Americans, the finger of God points out a mighty empire to your sons. The savages of the wilderness were never expelled to make room for idolaters and slaves. The land we possess is a gift of heaven to our fathers and divine providence seems to have decreed it our latest posterity. The day dawns in which the foundation of this mighty empire is to be laid and by establishment of a regular American constitution. Before seven years roll over our heads the first stone must be laid.' This was written in 1768, and then in April 1775, the shot that was heard around the world was fired on Lexington Green ‑ seven years later."
So the Americans would not pay the illegal taxes and they would not buy the tea shipped to them from England because of that. So England adopted a measure freeing all the tea shipped to America from the usual duties and customs of important, with the exception of a very small tax of three pence per pound of tea. Now that was a very small tax. They lifted all other usual duties and taxes but left that small tax of three pence per pound.
Why A King Or Government Wants The authority To Tax Its People: The following is an except from a book called The Rise of the Republic written by Richard Frothingham in 1890.[83]
The Boston Tea Party: Continuing from Frothingham's The Rise of the Republic: "Well, all the eyes were on Boston and on November 28, a vessel containing the tea arrived in the harbor and in a few days two others, which the patriots directed to be moored near the first, that one guard might serve for all, their object being to prevent the cargoes from being landed. They now concentrated their efforts to have the teas sent back in the ships that brought them ‑ they wanted to send the tea back to England. On December 14, the inhabitants of the mourning flocked to the Old South Meeting House', still standing. They were joined by people from the country for twenty miles around. The gathering consisted of nearly seven thousand ‑ 'merchants, yeomen, gentlemen, ‑ respected for their rank, and venerable for their age and character.' The forenoon was occupied mostly with dealing with Francis Rotch, the owner of the 'Dartmouth' (the ship that had been docked), who was informed that he was expected to procure a pass from the Governor and proceed on this with his vessel on his voyage for London. The meeting adjourned at three o'clock in the afternoon...
About six o'clock Rotch returned to the Old south, which was dimly lighted with candles and filled with people, many also standing in the streets. He stated the result of his application to the governor for a pass had been denied. Samuel Adams then stood up and said: 'This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.' A war‑whoop was now sounded at the door, which was answered from the galleries. The shouting become tremendous...'As the party from whom rose the war‑whoop passed the church, numbers naturally followed on; and the throng went directly to Griffen's Wharf, now Liverpool, at the foot of Purchase Street, off which contained the tea. A resolute band had guarded them day and night. John Hancock was one of the guards that evening. The party in disguise, probably his friend Joseph Warren was among them, whooping like Indians, went on board the vessels, and, warning their officers and those of the custom house to keep out of the way, unlaid the hatches, hoisted the chests of tea on deck, cut them open, and hove the tea overboard. They proved quiet and systematic workers. No one interfered with them. No other property was injured; no person was harmed; no tea was allowed to be carried away; and the silence of the crowd on shore was such that the noise of breaking the chests was distinctly heard by them. 'The whole,' Hutchinson wrote, 'was one with very little tumult.' The town was never more still of a Saturday night than it was at ten o'clock that evening.
The men from the country carried great news to their villages. Joy, as for deliverance from calamity, now burst in full chorus from the American heart. The local exultation was extreme. 'You cannot imagine,' Samuel Adams wrote, 'the height of joy that sparks the eyes and animates the countenances, as well as the hearts of all we meet on this occasion.' John Adams said, 'This is the most magnificent movement of all.'"
Just what kind of movement was that? Were they trying to make money? Were they trying to make a profit? Or were they upholding a principle? Were they seeking freedom or profit? That is the question we need to ask today's tax protestors ‑ those involved in the tax issue. The motives are explained in the book (Frothingham's The Rise of the Republic) also where it says, "They did not rise up against the paltry duty because they were poor and could not pay but because they were free and would not submit to wrong."
Taxation Without Representation: America at that time was not compelled to fight on that issue until taxes were first put up to the point where they were intolerable. Compare that from 1776 to today and we find that we have the same thing happening again. We are being taxed to death. In fact the taxes today are far above any taxes they had in 1775 or 1776. But then once the fight begins, once people begin to investigate, then these laws and principles are rediscovered, things begin to be exposed, terms such as unlawful tax are again defined. There can be no tax, constitutionally in this country, except by consent, otherwise people are not free. People must choose to give the tax and we the people must designate how it is to be used, otherwise we are not free. This becomes the basis of the statement of taxation without representation. "Slaves tend to see freedom as a license whereas freemen seem to see freedom as responsibility."
About the time of the revolution there was s sermon preached by a man named Jonathan Mayhue of Boston which he said, "God gave the Israelites a king in His anger because they had not the sense and virtue enough to like a free commonwealth and to have Himself for their king: in other words they did not want God as their king."
What he is talking about in that sermon, he is referring to 1 Samuel Chapter 8. We will look at that Scripture to see what God said about Israel's decision to have a man for a king over them. Under the government set up by God through Moses they had freedom and were freemen. But they evidently did not value that freedom, perhaps somewhat like we Americans have not valued our freedom. And they abused it also because the Book of Judges says several times that, "The people did what was right in their own eyes," which suggest that they did not listen to what God said but they just did what they wanted to do anyway ‑ because they had the freedom and abused it.
Then in 1 Samuel 8 we see how they knowingly and willingly gave up that freedom and became slaves under a man as their king. Now let me point out first that under the laws God gave Israel and under the government Moses set up by these laws, Israel had a republic type government, they had a freeman situation in Israel. This ten lasted for many years. But then eventually Israel decided: 'Well we don't like this, we need a king.' With the following results: "Then all the elders of Israel gathered together, and came to Samuel at Ramah." [84]
Samuel was at that point a judge as well as a prophet, so he was one of the judges in Israel. "...and said to him, Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make for us a king to judge us like all the nations." [85] Here Israel is saying they wanted a king like all the other nations around them. "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."
What did Israel do here? They rejected their king who was God, that He should not reign over them. But instead they wanted an earthly and mortal king. Well that is a great step backward. However, Moses said they would do just that: "When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me: Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whome the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." [86] Going on in verse 8‑9: "According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day...they have forsaken Me and served other gods ‑ so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, harken unto their voice. howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king who will reign over them."
God is telling these Israelites what happens when you have a man as king over you. Now Americans can read this and can understand it to be telling us what happens when we don't have Christ reigning over us, but rather we have some kind of a king or a bureaucratic government that acts as if it were a king ‑ unlawfully. "So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a King. And he said, This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots." [87]
What is this saying? If you have a king over you, or if you give up your freedom and don't uphold your Constitutional and your God‑given rights, your government of your king is going to put you into slavery. They are going to take your sons and they are going to send them to war. They are going to take your sons and they are going to make them take care of the king's palace and the king's chariots and the king's horses and you won't be free. "He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants." [88]
Is the bureaucracy in America today taking our vineyards and our businesses and our wages and giving them to the public servants ‑ the bureaucrats in office? "He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your finest young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants." [89] Samuel told the Israelites; all right, you want a king, you can have a king, but just remember, a king will put you into slavery, you won't be free.
In 1776 the revolutionaries understood what this meant. They understood that they have been slaves to King George III in England. They understood that they wanted freedom. Thus they knew in order to be free from servitude to King George and his oppression; whether it be religion, taxation, stationing a standing army in the colonies, or forbidding their own legal tender money; they would have to sever themselves from his reign over them.
This then became the principle behind the Declaration of Independence; to list their grievances, demand their natural rights, and become free from the rule and tyranny of a king. Continuing in 1 Samuel 8: "And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." [90]
These people thought they needed a king. They evidently did not want the responsibility. They evidently felt themselves to be unable to do the things that a free person must do. Maybe this came from them being an unrighteous people at the time. "And Samuel heard all the words of the people and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. So the Lord said to Samuel, Harken unto their voice, and make them a king." [91]
Now I want you to contrast that with what the men of Marlboro, Massachusetts, in 1773 proclaimed: "Death is more eligible than slavery. A freeborn people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their laws and liberties. We implore the Ruler above the skies that He would bare His arm in defense of His church and people and let Israel go."
One of the contemporary crown appointed governors wrote back to England stating: "If you ask an American who is his master, he will tell you he has none nor any governor except Jesus Christ." That Christian spirit gave rise to this cry which was passed up and down the coast by the committees of correspondence: "No King But King Jesus."
So the tax issue here in America then must be seen as much more than a political or civil matter; it is a religious issue. It is an issue which asks this question; Who are we serving, God or Caesar? Or as William Livingston put it; "Are we idolaters and slaves or are we freemen?"
Now each one of us owes it to ourselves and to our family as well as to those patriots that died back some two hundred years ago, who sacrificed their lives and their fortunes and their blood to fight the inequities of civil slavery, we owe it to them to learn the truths of these matters in both the Constitution and the Bible. We owe it to our country to become knowledgeable on this issue so that we know what we are doing. Because without the truth there can be no freedom.
And a tax movement which is based on anything other than freedom and Christ will be an immoral one; and it won't benefit the people. So study your Constitution and your Bible and you pray that you will be able to make good decisions in this matter, in your pursuit of truth and freedom. The tax of our first constitution was based on fairness and equality and the Bible ‑ as it says in Exodus 30:15: "The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less..."
This is the principle of the tax law of apportionment, the principle that America basically had throughout colonial time, and 150 years later saw fit to write these principles into our present day constitution as we will see later. It must be noted that all the time American used or was under this principle of taxation, there was no significant events of opposition or protest against it to be found in history. We need to remember that the tax protest starting in 1765 was against direct taxes being paid to England by colonies not represented in Parliament. So, when the colonist established the principles of self‑government and taxing according to our first constitution they were trying to, "...maintain, as a fundamental principle, that taxation and representation are inseparable; that the colonies were neither actually nor virtually represented in the British parliament; and that, if their property might be taken from them without their consent, there would be no limit to the oppression which might be exercised over them." [92]
The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The U.S. Constitution. The passage dealing with taxation was a very sound and moral doctrine, as quoted from Locke's work:
Of Civil Government, 1689
'Tis true. Governments cannot be supported without great Charge, and 'tis fit every one who enjoys his share of the Protection, should pay out of his Estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own Consent, i.e. the Consent of the Majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them.
For if any one shall claim a Power to lay and levy Taxes on the People, he thereby invades the Fundamental Law of Property, and subverts the end of Government. For what Property have I in that, which another may be right take, when he pleases to himself. So we see here a certain sense of duty in paying a tax when needed but only through representation and by proportionment. And if you read the remaining volumes of Locke's work you will find an amazing similarity in principle and wording in other civil documents of our country.
1913 and 1943: The Push For Socialism: In 1913, developed another incident that was an outright and severe disregard for the U.S. Constitution that is actually a greater abomination than the unlawful income tax scheme. However, both stem from the same bureaucratical tyrannical, and corruptive methods that have been gradually placed on the American people to fulfill the same purpose, to attain a "one world" Socialist State. The new push to achieve this goal was the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act which introduced a Fiat "paper money" system in lieu of the more sound and stable gold and silver money system.
The basis of our money system, as described in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, states: "The Congress shall have the Power To coin Money, regulate the value thereof..." In essence the people had control of the money as our Founding Fathers intended. Now how did these treacherous bureaucrats try to change the intent of the Constitution this time? They didn't. Rather they attempted to change our thinking through legislation.
The act was voted on in Congress in December of 1913. The Act was passed and the Federal Reserve Board was established. I do not know what these members of Congress were thinking (or how much they were paid off), but they certainly must have known what they were creating and how the similar "Banks of the U.S." had caused so much economic strife.
But the people were fooled (again), or didn't care enough to do anything about it, so the power to issue credit "notes" went into the hands of the Federal Reserve Board (we have gone into this at length in other places so we will only lightly touch upon it here). However, we will high light a few pertinent facts.
* They pay real estate tax, unlike other government agencies.
* They don't have free U.S. Postage privileges as would any bona fide government agency.
* They admit that their employees are "NOT" Civil Service Employees.
* Has Class A stock issued and is set up to make a profit, like any other privately owned corporation. But they pay no income tax.
As we gradually allowed our Constitutional money system to dissolve away, the Federal Reserve System grew, along with its ability to "Create" fictitious wealth out of thin air.
The "Federal Reserve Note" has no value at all and is backed by nothing. They can have the Treasury print their phoney "Federal Reserve Notes," and then obtain them from the Treasury by merely establishing a credit book entry. This is true whether they have a "One Dollar Bill" or a "One Hundred Dollar Bill" printed. So $1‑Billion in "Dollar Bills" actually cost them nothing to obtain. Since Congress no longer "Coins and regulates" lawful money (gold and silver) they have been borrowing, from the Federal Reserve Board, paper credit notes on an equal par with lawful money and at interest. Thus, the country becomes indebted to a corporation that is owned by Jewish International Bakers or banks under their control ‑ which is all sort of foolish since they could obtain "Notes" from the Treasury for free!
So What Is The Real Reason For Taxes Today?
The main reason taxes exist today is not to finance the government, for they can obtain all the paper money they want for free; taxes exist today to cover up the "FRAUD" and fictitious wealth of the paper money (Federal Reserve Note). The psychology behind it is that if people think the tax is real, they then will think paper bills are real money with a real value.
A secondary reason for the tax, is to control people. People will tend to accept paper bills, because of their convenience, and, will then become dependent on them. Since a corporation controls the issuance of the notes, they in turn, control the people that are dependent on them. "Taxes," are, imposed, on the American people to control them, by taxing away, the medium of exchange (purchasing power) so they became dependent upon. Thus impoverishing America into a third‑rate nation. Also, this method of having the credit of the nation in the hands of the Federal Reserve Board, where all banks are members of it, follows the 5th Plank of the Communist Manifesto that calls for: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
The sound and effective principles of money that this country used and prospered on for over 100 years are now based on communist principles and the harmful results are quite evident. Fictitious wealth is also used to create fictitious debts.
Without debts (loans and interest) banks cannot exist. Thus, the alleged debt of this country has been escalating at gigantic proportions since the enactment of the Federal Reserve System. So the Banker's plunders and socialistic system will have put America from a $1‑billion dollar level of debt to $2‑trillion (2,000 billion) in just over 70 years, along with about $5‑trillion of debts directly on the people and industry. When you pay your taxes it goes to these Bankers to pay off the interest on the public debt! The government used the high debt to justify raising your taxes. Why? So they can give your money to the Bankers, not the general welfare of America.
This scheme of plunder and economic bondage did not stop at the $1‑trillion level, as many bureaucrats and economists had told us in their "plans," and it will not stop at $2‑trillion or $3‑trillion. And if any president or congressman tries to tell you of a plan to reduce the deficit without elimination of the Federal Reserve board and restoring our constitutional interest‑free money system, he is either a very deceived and ignorant person or he is intentionally usurping and ignoring the constitution (in other words he is a damn liar). In either case that person does not belong in office, and we need to act and keep them out of office. As Abraham Lincoln said: "The people of these United States are the rightful master of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
1914: World War I was said to have started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914. Walter Scott, the secretary of the new England Education League, has a bill introduced in Congress (H.R. 12247) "to create an international board of education and a fund for international or world education."
But in 1914, it was not to be. There were those who were secretly planning America's involvement in World War I whether the American people wanted it or not. The pressure to involve the American government started in 1909, long before the actual assassination of the Archduke. Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee's investigation. The Committee states: "The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war...They discussed this question...for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This was in 1909." [93]
So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the "life of the entire people could be altered." This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to "peace."
How Certain Fools Set the World on Fire: Some very stupid men set the world on fire; they thought they were doing a fine thing. That shows how stupid they were. The men who ostensibly did this were the Czar Nicholas, the Kaiser Franz Joseph, the Kaiser Wilhelm, the Emperor of Japan, the President of the French Republic, the Kings of Great Britain, Belgium and Serbia, the Czar of Bulgaria and the Sultan of Turkey. These men were all tools in the hand of more cunning men.
After some time the Kings of Italy and Rumania led their people into the war: These kings bargained and dickered with both belligerents and practically sold their people to the highest bidders. And finally President Wilson led the American people into the war.
Each Government did its best to keep the people excited to the fighting pitch; that is to say, to keep them in a stat of mind resembling lunacy, because common observation shows that when a man is fighting mad he is in no condition to reason or to be reasoned with. And if people stopped to reason calmly, it would be hard to excite them to kill one another and enjoy the bloody and stupid business. The methods used to excite the different people to destroy each other were many, but all had the same purpose, which was to excite fear. loathing and deadly hatred. Thus the German and Austrian people were constantly told how brave, magnanimous and heroic their soldiers were and how cruel, beastly and vile the enemy soldiers were; and the British, French, Italian and American people heard the same tales of their own soldiers' bravery, magnanimity and heroism and of the savagery, cruelty and beastliness of the enemy soldiers.
Many millions of honest but gullible Germans still firmly believe that the British and French and Italian and American soldiers commonly murdered prisoners, abused and outraged civilian men and women and conducted themselves like savages; and millions of honest but gullible Americans still firmly believe that German soldiers spitted babies on their bayonets, cut the tongues and breasts form outraged women, tortured prisoners and conducted themselves like savages.
It is no wonder that people otherwise shrewd and intelligent should have been so completely bamboozled by the atrocity-mongers, for surely never before in all the history of the world was lying practiced on such a colossal scale and with such a lavish expenditure of wealth and labor as during the war.
That the Germans were completely outdone in this line by the Jews was due to no lack of effort or intention on their part, but to the superior skill and longer professional experience of the Jewish propaganda machine. In their own line of production the Jewish propaganda manufacturers have long been unapproachable. At different periods Jewish propagandists has succeeded in making the rest of the world abhor the Spaniards, the Hollanders, the French, the Russians, the Belgians and the Turks and at any future time it serves their interest they will perform the same office for America.
Of course there were frightful cruelties perpetrated by all the belligerents. The war began to be terribly cruel at the very beginning. It began with the ruthless invasion of Belgium by the Germans, which was immediately followed by the ruthless blockade of Germany and neutral countries by the British. And the Jews, as demonstrated by the Boer War, always make war upon the enemy's women and children and men who are old and feeble. The weapon they use is starvation, the most cruel torture which can be inflicted upon a human being. By thus torturing and putting the enemy's women and children and babies to a slow, cruel, agonizing death, the Births strive to break the courage and resolution of the enemy people's soldiers in the field.
The English have seldom been very successful in fair, stand-up fighting on land. So they have seldom gone to war without allies, and they have usually let their allies do most of the fighting with the enemy's soldiers, while they have attended to killing the enemy's women and children by sea-blockade and starvation. This is not a very heroic way of making war. It is, however, a terribly effective method, cruel and horrible method of waging war.
In this savage war which ended in 1918, the British killed so many German women and children and babies by starvation that the spirit and courage of the German soldiers were finally broken. Men who can stoutly endure their own sufferings cannot endure the agonies of mothers, wives, sisters, and little children and babies. Some Englishmen were ashamed of this way of making war by killing women and babies instead of enemy soldiers, and were manly enough to say so publicly. The great British writer, George Bernard Shaw, speaking of submarine warfare and starvation warfare, wrote: "I have no desire to kill a baby, but if I had to kill one, I would much rather kill it with a bomb or a torpedo than to starve it to death."
War is a mean, brutal, dirty business, and some of its results is that the people at home are soon infested with a species of homicidal ferocity. Men and women who are ordinarily kind and tender-hearted gloat over tales of suffering and slaughter.
The collective mind, and most individual minds, become incapable of reasoning or reasonableness. Officials and private citizens are alike victims of this lunacy. The press teems with the most absurd stories, and everybody swallows them with childish credulity. While this insanity is at its height people throw away their money by the billions, abandon their normal industries for the sport of killing and destroying, and spend their spare time in working themselves into ecstasies and furies, and imitate exactly the inmates of a madhouse. It is the most amazing and the most painful phenomenon of collective human life.
The Game That Was Played In America: When people go war-crazy, there are always a few men who keep cool heads. Some of these are crafty, greedy men, who make money in huge amounts amid the general madness. Some are unscrupulous demagogues, who ride to power and opportunity on the tempest of excitement. Others are men who pity the insanity of their brother men and endeavor to assuage that lunacy by reason and sound advice and moderate counsel.
The first kind get rich rapidly; the second kind get office and public applause; the third kind are villously abused, sometimes by prosecutors, juries, who are all temporarily as crazy and unjust as are the mobs. Now, of course, men of all sorts; kaiser, kings, premiers, presidents, generals, admirals, diplomats, politicians, financiers and their followers; who profit by war are anxious, first, to create this insanity of the public mind and, after that, to keep the public mind in that condition. And this bad work is done by those methods of spreading false reports, inflammatory appeals to the best and to the worst sentiments, suppression of true news and of honest opinion, exaggeration, abuse, misrepresentation, forgery, distortion, concealment and downright malicious lying which we lump under the word "propaganda."
The moment the war broke out in Europe each belligerent Government started its machinery of propaganda working overtime; and while no neutral country escaped the activities of the censors and the propaganda mills, America was the particular field in which they outdid themselves. German, Austrian, British, French, Russian, Belgian, Serbian propagandists; all were busy as bees working up sentiment in America favorable to themselves and hostile to their antagonists. The object of the German propagandists was to enlist American sentiment in favor of strict neutrality.
The object of the Allies' propaganda was to draw the United States into the war against Germany. Both sides were playing for a great stake, because if America practiced strict neutrality Germany had confidence that, though the Allied armies and fleets greatly outnumbered hers and had been just as long and as carefully prepared for the inevitable struggle, she could nevertheless eventually win through the superiority of her generalship and the better fighting qualities and more steadfast resolution of her soldiers and people; while, on the other hand, the Allies knew that if they could draw the immense riches and vast manpower of America into the war on their side, they could eventually recover from the humiliating and costly defeats which the German armies had inflicted upon them in France, Eastern Germany, Galicia, Poland; everywhere, in fact, where German and Allied armies had met in the shock of battle.
As time went on and the Allies successively bribed or coerced Italy and Rumania and minor Powers to join them, and still the German armies continued to win victories everywhere, the anxiety of Germany to keep the United States neutral and the anxiety of the Allies to draw the United States into the struggle became more and more intense, and the propagandist activities of both sides in America were proportionately increased.
In this contest Jewish propaganda was as superior to the German propaganda as were the German generals and armies superior to the British in battle. The German propaganda agencies in the United States made every blunder that could be made, but their fundamental error was in relying upon argumentative statements, upon citations of international law, historical philosophy and the conduct of belligerents in former wars. After their national fashion, the German propagandists appealed to reason, sometimes with true logic, sometimes with false logic; but always with an attempt to influence the public mind by logical reasoning.
The Jews knew better than that. They appealed to emotions. They had been building up a colossal empire for three hundred years by three powerful and wonderfully successful means; sea-power with the land-power of one or the other belligerents, the English had come through their wars without the cost of large armies and with the loss of few men, and thus being less injured and proportionately stronger and fresher than either their temporary allies or temporary enemies, they were always able to carry home the richer share of the spoils of victory. This was, and is today, the invariable policy of the British Empire, no matter what Prime Minister is in power, and since it is a selfish, callous, imperialistic policy that cannot be defended upon grounds of fair play, justice or international righteousness, it has always been necessary to disarm fear and criticism by hiding the real motives of this constant instigation of war, and these continued profitable robberies of one people after another, behind a showing of injured innocence and an alleged defense of lofty principles and common rights and liberties against the unscrupulous ambitions and aggressions of the State which was to be beaten and ruined.
The British have many excellent qualities and have done great things in the world; but the hypocrisy revealed by the contrast of their national professions and their national conduct sufficiently accounts for the dislike and detestation in which they are almost universally held by other people not excusing, by any means, the very large majority of the American people.
British, Which Is Jewish Policy is to Divide and Conquer: The part which propaganda always plays in the extension of Jewish power and dominion is to break friendships and to excite deep hatred between the various peoples who have long been friendly. The British Empire, which has been under the total control of the Jews for centuries, grows by steadily pursuing the policy of "Divide and conquer," and the business of Jewish propaganda is to divide friendly people, while using British sea-power and British alliances conquer and annex.
By the calculating, continuous, remorseless employment of these methods the English dominions have increased, within about three hundred years, from an island kingdom containing 50,000 square miles to an Empire containing about 15,000,000 square miles, which is about one-third of the total land area of the globe and more than one-half the total area of inhabitable, fertile land area; and from a population of about 6,000,000 to a combined ruling and subjugated population numbering into the hundreds of millions.
In the steady processes of this huge conquest and absorption of lands and peoples, British sea power, alliances, intrigues and propaganda have successively beaten down and destroyed the naval power and commercial prosperity of Spain, Holland, of Sweden, Denmark, France and how Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia.
Thus English policy has successively wrecked every nation in Europe that aspired to any considerable share in the commerce of the seas and of political power among the States of the world. Each, in its turn, has fallen before Jewish subversion and intrigue and each, in its turn, has been the foolish dupe of this Jewish British intrigue and helped to destroy whatever nation England, at the time, most feared and was most determined to bring to ruin. So that there remains now only two great maritime States which are in the way of England's universal dominion; the Empire of Japan and our own Republic. The rest have all been destroyed, and it is only reasonable to suppose that it will be our turn next.
One who judged present British policy only by knowledge of its past, would expect that policy to be at work now toward three prime objects, which are: First, to excite to the highest possible pitch ill-feeling and eventual war between one or more of the Latin-American states and the United States. This would effectually alienate the Latin people of South America and Central America from the people of North America, and leave the lands and populations of the vast southern regions to the commercial exploitation of England, the only competition which England might have feared; the German, having been thoughtfully ruined for England's advantage by the United States, France, Italy and Japan. An incidental advantage would be the necessary costly increase and up-keep of American land forces, which would operate to keep down American appropriations for navy-building, and thus enable England to maintain her two-power naval supremacy with much smaller outlay. With the German navy at the bottom of the sea and the American navy on the halt, British naval supremacy would have no challenge in fifty years. Second, the instigation of Japanese aggression upon China.
This would inevitably lead, in the long run, to Chinese armed resistance and the intervention of the United States, in which England would either join Japan or the United States, as her interest then dictated, and help to destroy the navy and commerce of one of the two remaining maritime competitors she fears, leaving the other for the eventual struggle for the empire of the world. It is reasonable to suppose that with such a choice, England would join Japan in destroying our naval and commercial competition, as this would leave the weaker antagonist to face her in the final duel.
Third, the eventual absorption of the United States by the United Nations. This the British policy will try to accomplish, first, by establishing naval dominion over America, then by alluring it into a permanent alliance; just now called a League of Nations, which would be dominated and absolutely controlled by England, and then by a bid for formal reunion, made to the Anglophile sentiment which Jewish propaganda is fervently at work to create and enlarge in our country.
What Propaganda Did to Neutrality: Long before the war in Europe, British propaganda was busy in America, creating pro-British sentiment. It was, for the most part, sly in its operations, and while those contemptible creatures known as Anglophiles aided its operations, most of us Americans looked upon them with amusement.
But when England went to war with Germany, propaganda ceased to be sly and acted openly, powerfully and insolently, and upon a scale of which very few Americans have to understand the true conception of it all. Never before were millions of intelligent people so hoodwinked and deceived; never was propaganda so gigantic; never was censorship so insolent and so vigilant; never was truth so suppressed and falsehood so widely spread; never was the control of the mind of one people by the Government of another so successfully established and so skillfully maintained.
From the very beginning of the war; then a wholly European affair, mail and cable communication between Europe and this country was put under British control. Our American newspapers could get only such news as the British (Jewish) censors permitted them to get or the British propaganda bureau, with its headquarters in Waverley House, London, manufactured for American consumption. We were not at war. We had no national interest at stake in the war. We were a neutral nation and entitled, by written international law, ratified at the Hague Conferences, to all rights of free voyage, free cargoes and free mails and cables. Yet our Government refused to protect us in these rights and submitted tamely to each new aggression upon the liberties of neutral commerce and neutral communication.
First, our cable messages to other countries had to be sent through British censorship, and were delivered or not, as some cheap clerk decided. Then we were forbidden to send mails to Europe, until our ships had put into a British port and left their mailbags for British inspection. This was a flat violation of the rights of mail communications between neutrals and belligerents, as minutely specified in the Hague treaties. It was also an insolent insult to our flag and an arrogant contempt of our sovereignty. For just exactly the same conduct on England's part in 1812 our fathers declared war. But those were brave days. This time our Government submitted without even a show of courage.
Not content with making us eat out of their hand in this way, British propaganda influences shut off free wireless communication, and it became impossible for American papers to obtain true news and correct information from any part of Europe. So, of course, you people could not get truth to read, though, Americans got plenty of lies.
We were ostensibly neutral, and had every lawful right to free and uncensored mail and cable communication with all parts of Europe; neutral or belligerent, as guaranteed by the Hague treaties. Yet our Government would not and did not protect us in the exercise of our rights.
On the contrary, it directly and indirectly aided the British Government to put these shameful and humiliating shackles upon our press, to put these insults upon our flag, to make our semen blush for shame as they submitted their cargoes to the insolent dictation of a British official.
Growing with what it fed upon, this British insolence finally reached the pitch where the British authorities ordered that American ships should not leave American ports, not even for neutral ports in South America, without inspection and permission of British Consular and trade officials. And our Government submitted to that; here, on the very soil our free fathers wrested from British control!
Jewish agents established and superintended munitions factories here on our neutral soil; British recruiting officers enlisted men for the British army; British Secret Service spies hounded down men inimical to the English Government; British Consuls directed the work of American Secret Service employees and in one case; that of the poor Hindoo arrested in San Francisco and sent to the penitentiary for the crime of trying to free their country, actually paid the wages of the agents of the United States Government prosecutor and superintended the trials exactly as if they were in authority here and the British Government was ruling America.
Here in the port of New York, American men were arrested and jailed for attempting to send rubber to Germany, though we were at peace with German and the London Conference specifically and by name made rubber non-contraband and an article of free commerce. Mr. McAdoo was thus lending the Treasury Police Agents to arrest men for exercising our own treaty rights to send non-contraband goods to Germany, Mr. Schwab was making and shipping submarines to the English Government, by way of Canada, unhindered by Mr. McAdoo's men, though the manufacture and sale of naval vessels to a belligerent is not only a gross violation of good faith and neutrality, but is the very thing for which we threatened England with war during the Rebellion, and for which the Geneva Commission finally compelled England to pay us an indemnity of $15-million and is expressly forbidden by the Hague Treaties.
There was never a day after the war broke out in Europe when British agents and American financiers and American officials were not actively violating our neutral good faith, actively assisting England to make war, actively refusing Americans their lawful neutral rights of trade and voyage, and deliberately and premeditatedly driving us toward the final entanglement in England's war which has cost us so much and gained us so little. All these things, and thousands of others equally painful and humiliating for a true American to tell, were made possible by censorship and propaganda.
Had our Government enforced our citizens' plain treaty rights of free trade and free communication with all neutral nations; had Mr. Wilson made something more than a deprecatory gesture toward and "illegal and indefensible blockade" of our trade and communication with neutrals and with Germany; had our Government enforced the sanctity of our mails, America would have had no more occasion to get into this crazy European war than had Sweden or Spaon or any other country which had statesmen at the helm who used good sense.
Because, if every man and woman in America had known the real truth about the European war and its events from day to day, and had been able to estimate for themselves the probable value of the gross and innumerable lies they were told, and our ships had continued to go and come on their lawful errands under the protection of our flag, it would have been impossible for foreign propagandists to work up the fever of hatred and the clamor for war which they did excite.
Central Europe ruined; France and Italy bankrupted; fifty thousand millions of American money wasted; three hundred thousand American youths killed or crippled; intolerable taxations and high cost of living ahead of us for years to come; and England with new dominions, new subject peoples to exploit, with augmented dominion over the seas, with trade competition destroyed and the markets of the world at her mercy; Germany ripe for total plunder by the Jews, this is what British propaganda has done for us.
What British Jewish Propaganda Did After The War: Before the war America had not an enemy in the world. After it, it did not have a friend anywhere. The word of America was as the signed bond of Truth herself among all the nations. After the war, the people shrug their shoulders and point to our sham neutrality, our forgotten fine phrases and our broken fourteen promises.
It is going to take America a long time to restore itself in the confidence and respect and affection of the world after these years of delusion by British propaganda and subservience to British insolence and British interests. it is no use crying over spilt milk. We have played the foolish sheep and been well sheared for our pains. All there is left to do is to make the best of it.
We must build ourselves up again in the world's trust and respect and good will. And we must build up and greatly increase our production and our trade in order to pay off the gigantic debts our foolishness has piled on our backs. Jewish propaganda agents have worked overtime trying to keep hatred of Germans alive in this country and hatred of Americans alive in Germany; because they want England to do all the trading with Germany that is to be done.
But the Germans were not fooled by this particular Jewish propaganda and many Americans were not either, and the others would not have been if they had used their common sense and mother wit. But did America do these things? No, in fact, Americans have allows the Jews to almost destroy our country.
There was a time when hating Germans had some excuse. Our Government encouraged hate propaganda and did quite a job of spreading it broadcast itself. The papers were filled with terrible stories of German brutality. The moving pictures displayed horrible atrocities, staged in peaceful studios and about as really truthful as the word pictures; bands of patriotic writers; the sort who provide word-frames to set off the pretty advertising of the Saturday Evening Post or illuminate the exquisitely fair-minded Literary Digest; turned out reams and reams of wild and wooly fiction; sensational preachers, such as Hillis and Eaton, foamed at the mouth with horrible tales of German savagery while believing congregations gasped; newspapers outdid each other in featuring the bloody deeds of the "Huns," who usually wound up a night of rape and orgy by eating a baby, freshly spitted on a bayonet and roasted in its own skin.
Ridiculous as it was, some of these romancers actually worked themselves up to believing their own inventions and became as furiously angry as anybody else over them. But of course most of them simply invented horrible tales of German savagery because it was good war business and the Government was pleased to have them do it.
Mr. Arthur Brisbane revealed the mental processes of these people when he wrote in the signed column he contributed daily to the Hearst papers: "We ought to tell all the lies about Germans we can think of and try to believe them ourselves." For the most part, telling lies about enemies is no less distasteful to self-respecting men than telling lies about friends. But every man to his own taste. The theory of the people who adopted Mr. Brisbane's plan was that anything, no matter how intrinsically base, mean and cowardly, was fair in war; the excuse, as many will remember, with which the Germans condoned the invasion of Belgium.
However, after the war, there was no longer the poor excuse of military necessity for breeding hatred, and if we are sensible enough to consult our own interests, we will pay no further attention to anyone, alien or citizen, who strives to keep alive the fires of hatred between ourselves and the people of Central Europe. Such tactics may have been well enough while the war was on. Many, however, do not believe that such tactics were either necessary, honorable or even beneficial. Rather than to waste time over spilled milk, it must be admitted that telling lies and breeding hatred were patriotic duties during the war.
But now that the objects sought to be obtained by all this play upon the passions of the people have been obtained; now that the German Government is overthrown and the German people starved into subjugation; now that France has glutted its long-nursed revenge; now that England has destroyed German naval and trade competition; now that Europe is sick with the smell of blood and the stench of human carrion; now that these universal war makers have ended by being universal grave-makers; now that Death's maw is filled full with corpses of the poor, foolish, common folk herded and driven to frightful slaughter; now that the coffers of the rich and mighty are heaped up and running over with the money coined in this dreadful mint; now, for humanity's sake, yea, even for the poor sake of profit and gain, ought we not all to make an end of this propaganda of lies, this preachment of hate, this mean and ugly excitation of ill-will among neighbors and fellow-citizens of this world of ours?
For whether we like it or not, we must live in the same world with men and women of every nation and every race. And steam and electricity and man's power over land and sea and air have made it such a narrow world, such a little world, that no people can live wholly apart from any other people, and all must mingle with all, either as friends or as enemies.
The Germans have been beaten. They are helpless; down and out. And is there anything manly, anything brave, anything really American in abusing and kicking a beaten and helpless and surrendered enemy? The ugliness and unfairness exhibited toward innocent and unoffending resident Germans and well-behaved and loyal Americans of German ancestry was disgusting enough to decent and fair-minded Americans even during the war. But it is intolerably offensive to decency and fair play now that the war is over. All may be fair in war. But surely all is not fair in peace. We should get rid of the war state of mind for our own good and the world's good.
All Tarred With The Same Stick: Most Americans would not have lifted a finger to help either side whip the other in Europe, had it not been for the traitorous actions of the Jews of the United States, England, France, Italy, Russia and Germany to name just a few of the countries involved. The German Empire was not an autocracy, but it certainly was not a Republic.
The people of England, France, Italy, Belgium, Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Poland, Greece and Turkey would have good riddance if they were to have chased their rulers and the Jews into obscurity and set up true Republican governments. To speak of the Allied Governments who made war upon the Central Empires as the "free people" is to speak ignorantly or to speak cantingly.
The Governments and the ruling classes and the military and naval powers that plunged the people into an awful war were all tarred with the same stick; Russian, German, Austrian, Hungarian, Italian, Greek, all alike had plotted and planned and prepared for war, meditated the same robberies of lands and people, the same destruction of trade competition, the same enrichment by indemnities and annexations and augmentations of taxes and revenues.
One lot was just as bad and greedy and heartless as the other. We Americans were so unacquainted with European practical politics and were so completely gulled by skillful propaganda; from the President and his Cabinet down to sister Susan tearfully knitting socks for suffering Belgians; that very few of us knew then, and many thousands have not yet discovered, that there was little difference in the motives of any of the Governments that went to war in Europe, as the results have so clearly shown.
The whole kit and caboodle of European rulers and financiers and military class and diplomatic scoundrels, kings, kaisers, grand dukes, prime ministers, generals, presidents; all of them, could cut each others throats until the cows come home for all most patriotic Americans are concerned. Most would not give the life of one single American boy to help settle any European squabble one way or the other, except for the treason by its representatives in Congress, the Courts, and in the Administrations.
Thanks to the Jews and their treason: The Germans don't like us; The French don't like us; The British don't like us; The Canadians don't like us; the Russian don't like us; the Japanese don't like us; the Chinese don't like us; in fact, no nation on earth likes us or trusts us any longer.
The Jew's Meat Is America's Poison: At this time in history Jewish propaganda is at work all over the world to hinder the growth of renewed friendship and trade relations between the United States and other countries; they are working frantically to bring the American people to its knees and therefore make them slaves.
At the same time Jewish propaganda is doing its best to keep national and racial hatred alive in our country. If a number of the American people can be persuaded to ostracize and to hate, or even to dislike, other American of Russian, Irish, German, French, British, Austrian, Hungarian, descent, then the American people will be about evenly divided in hostile camps with the sure result of corresponding bad feeling against the United States in the countries form which these American or their parents originally came from.
The Crucifixion of Ireland: The crucifixion of Ireland began seven hundred years ago, and her agony has endured ever since. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a British work, edited and written from the British standpoint, the most subtle and powerful of all the agencies of British propaganda.
It always conceals, omits, minimizes or palliates the wrongs or crimes committed by British policy and British Governments. It always exaggerates, puts in a false light of deliberately misstatements and misrepresentation of the motives and actions of any people who have resisted British wrongs or British tyranny.
Yet even the Encyclopedia Britannica relates the following about Ireland in its eleventh edition: "Irish political history has largely affected the conditions of agriculture (the occupation upon which the unhappy people chiefly depend). Confiscations and settlements, prohibitive laws; such as those which ruined the woolen industry, penal enactments against Roman Catholics, absentee landlordism, the creation for political purposes of 40s., freeholders, and other factors have contributed to form a story which makes painful reading from whatever point of view, social or political, it be regarded."
The Encyclopedia Britannica might truthfully have explained that the "other factors" so mildly referred to were repeated wholesale massacre, individual murder, famine, fire, torture, rape, house-burning, imprisonment, deportation, hanging, shooting, and every excess of oppression and cruelty that the savage soldiery of a pitiless alien governing class could invent to practice upon the helpless and tormented. Yet it is something that even this professional British apologist and propagandist should be afraid, for more shame's sake, to palliate entirely the tyrannies and brutalities of English misrule in Ireland.
We American have been too apt to dismiss the narratives of English cruelties and oppression in Ireland as things of the past. That has been due to our almost universal ignorance of European politics and governmental practices. There was a time when American ignorance of European affairs was perhaps excusable, but now that we all know what an unconscionable set of liars these fine-talking European diplomats and rulers were and are, and have all had time enough to learn the character and motives of European politics and propaganda, it is a shame to be ignorant of the true conditions in Ireland and of the true character and conduct of the English rule in Ireland.
That oppressive rule is not a thing of the past. It is a thing of the present. It is just as oppressive, just as ugly, just as hypocritical as it has ever been. Former Prime Minister, Balfour, stood on the steps of the City Hall in New York and unctuously declaimed the lofty and unselfish purposes of England and her Allies. They were at war, he said, for no secret objects, a=but for the rights of oppressed people, great or small, fro the spread of democracy and self-rule to every corner of the world, for civilization, for righteousness, for the liberties of the world. And all around him official and financial magnates and excited common people cheered and cheered till they were hoarse.
And yet that very man, standing there and so speaking was the same man who, earned the title of "Bloody Balfour" by the ruthlessness with which he crushed the peasantry of Ireland, struggling against the atrocious tyranny of English bureaucrats and English absentee landlords; the same man who had drowned democracy and liberty and the yearning for self-determination in Ireland in the blood of an oppressed "little people."
Even while this suave and hypocritical hypocrite, with his tongue in his cheek and a sneer in his heart, deceived our Government in Washington and our people here in the United States with his solemn assertions that England and her Allies had no secret selfish purposes of conquest and spoils, the secret treaties providing for the conquest and division of lands and helpless people in Asia, Africa, Europe and the islands of the seas had been drawn up, signed, sealed and were at that very time lying hid in the archives of England. No wonder Mr. Arthur Balfour went away from America with triumph in the air and contempt in his soul!
A proven liar in the outcome, a known tyrant and oppressor, a fervent upholder of aristocracy and class rule, an unscrupulous graduate of the European school of fight-and-grab, a hater of independence and freedom for little people; himself the very Foreign Secretary who once proposed to Germany that she attack France by a sudden armed rush through neutral Belgium, and let it be known that England would not recognize any treaty obligation to interfere with such an invasion of Belgium's neutrality; the Foreign Secretary who drew up, under the direction of the Rothschilds, the Balfour Declaration, which promised Palestine to the Jews, to use their power of finance and propaganda to get the United States into World War One on the side of England; how Balfour must have sneered in his heart when he found our Government and people such easy fools, taking him trustingly at his word, throwing money into his hat by the billions, the President receiving him with all confidence and respect, the Secretary of State pleased to fetch and carry for him, the newspapers reporting his sayings, and the whole country hailing him as the champion of democracy, the rescuer of oppressed people, the unselfish defender of the rights and liberties of mankind! Surely, Balfour was entitled to laugh.
Balfour came to the United States with a stock of the same diplomatic lies and fine phrases which have always been used in European State utterances, and which no one is supposed to believe, and he was probably the most astonished man on earth when he found that not only common people, but even our Government officials and our educated classes were all simpletons enough to believe him.
There is no reason why we Americans should be greatly ashamed of having been so egregiously fooled once by Balfour and other British propagandists. By and large, we are a pretty straight-forward people and are apt to believer in a man when he solemnly gives his word for a statement. And before this war there were only a few of us who really understood the political methods of European Governments or thoroughly realized what unblushing liars and greedy dogs the Jews who control Britain from behind the scenes really were and still are.
So it is no disgrace either to our Government or to us ordinary Americans that we were so taken in by accomplished liars, sent; as the famous definition of an ambassador's duty puts it, "to lie abroad for their country's advantage." To buy a gold brick once may happen to any sensible people. But not twice!
The man who goes back to a confidence operator to be done over again is a fool who deserves no sympathy. And if Americans continue to let Jewish propaganda and its swarm of paid and unpaid propaganda agents fool us a time after time and use our military to rivet the shackles tighter upon the people of the world, to crush their struggle for self-determination, to make a mockery of our own professions that we will continually go to war to make bring ever more people under their control; then we deserve the jeers of the world and the scorn of the ages.
The Oligarchy That Rules The World: It cannot be too strongly emphasized the fact that we should have no animus against the British people or the french people or any other people on earth. People never make war or plot the robbery of other people or sign scoundrelly secret agreements to do these wicked things, in fact, it is hard for most Americans to believe that others are capable of these things either. It is Governments that do such things; and thee has been precious little difference between Governments and their methods. Every single government of any importance has broken treaties, violated neutrality and slain men, women and children in wicked wars of greed. This is true of the British Government, the French Government, the Italian Government, and our own American Government, and the overthrown Russian, German, Japanese and Austro-Hungarian Governments.
Within just one lifetime, the British Government and the American Government has shamefully violated treaties in order to seize Egypt and to destroy the fine little Boer Republics, and has broken the obligations of neutrality at different times to injure the Chile, China, Holland, Sweden, Denmark and Russia. The French Government has violated treaties, made war to subjugate Mexico, cheated Italy of Nice and the adjacent territory, secretly proposed to Germany to fall upon Prussia and robbed China and aided the Czars in their wicked schemes of spoliation in the Balkans and the Near East, and protected the Sultan from punishment for the dreadful massacres of Christians.
The Italian Government has violated treaty stipulations and seized Greek territory, broken faith with its allies and made indefensible wars of robbery upon Abyssinia and Tunis. The German and Austrian and Russian Governments have robbed each other and between them have violated treaties and broken neutral obligations in order to rob Denmark, Turkey, Serbia, China, Persia, Rumania and Belgium, to destroy the liberties of the people and their own subjects. All these things Governments have done in just the past 100 years.
The real bakers of British propaganda, French propaganda, American propaganda and every other propaganda which strives to entangle us in the political affairs and the financial affairs of Europe and around the world are the Jewish International Money Kings. It is easy to see how the bankers and privileged classes have fixed their power over European peoples, but how have they managed to fix their power over us, with our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our institutions of representative government?
Our Government Machinery Should Be Rebuilt: As soon as our fathers started their revolution in 1776, they began to plan the machinery of free government. They spent thirteen years on this job, and when they were through with the work, in 1789, they had built a good machine.
Our system of popular government was then the best in the world. And it would still be the best in the world today, were nit not for the Jewish money power and the traitors in our own race. A study of history proves that people are always trying to go forward but governments are always doing their best to pull backward, to a totalitarian government with unlimited powers.
We live in a world as different as the world in which our forefathers lived as day is from night. We make common use every day of things which would seem miracles to our forefathers. If one of our great grandfathers should come to life and walk out into the world in which we live, such things a railroad trains thundering along; automobiles scurrying over the roads and streets; airplanes roaring overhead and men speaking to one another over hundreds of miles of distance, and buildings towering a thousand and more feet into the air, and all the other customary activities of our life would scare the venerable old gentleman back into his tomb.
Nothing could convince him that he had not woke up on the wrong planet. He wouldn't see a thing from one end of the country to the other that he saw when he went to sleep a hundred years ago, with the single exception of the old government machinery that he had helped to build still creaking on just as it was when he left the world; but he would find it near death.
Now, then, common sense should tell anyone that the machinery of government is just like any other machinery; it wears out, it needs repairing, and finally it become obsolete and should be scrapped. And that is just what we should do to our present machinery of government. It is has been changed. "Those who stand too close to the canvas of history while it is being woven will error in their estimate of forces. Minor setbacks will take on the aspects of decisive defeats, minor advances the aspects of major victories. Only in the perspective of all our history - the longest perspective of which any people can boast - shall we be able to estimate the significance of recent events. Today the hearts of the Jews are oppressed by the bitter events in Germany; let them, while they extend help to the victims of a cruel régime, recall that governments and rulers change, the Jewish people remains. In other lands than Germany there smolders still a dangerous threat against Jewish life. Let the Jews be prepared...Let their fears be tempered by an understanding of their long past, and their hopes be rendered sober by an appreciation of the long future before them. Let them measure all tasks, all difficulties, and all prospects by the standard of a world-wide outlook." [94]
Also: "The Communist desire to 'liberate enslaved nations' will come as a surprise to the enslaved nations of Eastern Europe, and the goal of maintaining 'integrity of their territories' rings strangely in view of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and other oppressed nations. Like other announced goals of World War II, the Atlantic Chapter and the Four Freedoms, Stalin's program achieved only one goal, 'the destruction of the Hitlerite regime,' the only government in the world which had opposed the spread of Communist aggression with its military forces. The 'abolition of racial exclusiveness,' which has (also) been official U.S. Government policy since 1945, was, quite simply, the Jewish Marxist goal of planned genocide of the White Race, because the White Race remained the only possible opposition to the total domination of the world by international Jewish Marxism. No African or Asiatic nation has ever mounted a successful counter-revolution against a Communist regime, nor have they ever desired to.
One hundred million White People died violently during World War II, but the only Asiatic people to suffer serious losses were the Japanese, who were known as 'the Aryans of the East,' because of their aggressiveness and their highly developed technological abilities. Because of their well known opposition to Communism, the Japanese people were selected by Jewish strategists as the guinea pigs for the testing of the new Jewish Hellbomb, a weapon so horrible that when Hitler learned his scientists had begun work on it, he furiously ordered them to halt its development. He refused to allow his name or the name of the German people to be associated with such an inhumane operation. This allowed the Jews to develop their atomic hellbomb in Los Alamos for Roosevelt and Stalin, with no competition from anywhere in the world. They developed it in order to exterminate the entire German people, but, with the unlimited funds provided by American taxpayers, they turned it into a typical billion dollar Jewish boondoggle which dragged on until after Germany's defeat. Fortunately, the homicidal maniacs still had one anti-Communist nation left on which they could conduct their atomic experiment, the island of Japan.
Like most historic Jewish military operations, the great massacres of World War II occurred, not on the battlefield, but in peaceful neighborhood communities. This was in accordance with the dictate of the Book of Esther, which directs the Jews to massacre women and children, and to exterminate the families of those who dare to oppose them. Thus it was in Dresden, a historic German cultural center, where many thousands of German women and children, refugees from Communism had gathered. They were assured by the Red Cross that they would be safe, even while the Jewish generals were preparing to murder the men. The blood-maddened Jews desired not only to murder as many White civilians as possible but also to erase from history all evidence of Western civilization, the greatest examples of White culture which had been gathered in Dresden, the irreplaceable porcelain, the priceless paintings, the baroque furniture, and the rococo mansions with their poetry carved in stone. All was laid waste in a mass bombing attack in which some 300,000 German civilians died in a city which was not even a military target! The responsibility for this horrible slaughter, in which helpless non-combatants died horribly by flame and explosion, rests with, who else, 'the Americans.' At the last minute, the Soviets prudently withdrew from what was planned as a 'joint-Allied' venture. Today, the Soviets denounce the United States for the annihilation of Dresden.
Like Dresden, Hiroshima was also an ancient cultural center, with no visible military objective. Its non-combatant families also died horribly by the hundreds of thousands. Many were pulverized instantly by the first atomic bomb ever used in a military operation, but thousands of other victims lived on for years, mangled and burned, their limbs and organs slowly rotting away from radiation poisoning. Even while the Japanese officials were desperately suing for peace, the Jews hastily ordered the dropping of a second atomic bomb, this one on Nagasaki, bringing off a second 'test' of their Hellbomb against helpless non-combatants, as prescribed by the Book of Esther. Again, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horribly.
At last, the Jews had achieved the weapon which they planned to use to terrorize the entire world into subjecting itself to their insane frenzies and their frequently voiced goal of world domination of the 'animals,' or non-Jews. As Chaim Weizmann boasted, 'We will never actually have to use this atomic weapon in military operations as the mere threat of its use will persuade any opponent to surrender to us." [95]
And: "Ardent propagandists lashed the British public into a fury at the work of German Zeppelin and aeroplane raiders raining death and destruction on defenseless women and children...The carnage caused by allied airmen in German towns has been kept very quiet, but two instances will be enough to show its quality. In June, 1916, British and French pilots bombed Karlsruhe during the Corpus Christi procession, killing and wounding 26 women and 124 children. In a second raid in September they caused 103 casualties in the same city...Already the pitch has been reached in Great Britain where it is considered bigoted or reactionary to do other than praise the Jews for their industry and ability. Few papers will risk any attack on the Jews, however, well-founded, for fear of appearing even distantly anti-Semitic. This is more than true in America where it is dangerous to mention any truth derogatory to the Jews, and in New York it has been made a crime)...It has been estimated that of the world Jewish population of approximately fifteen millions, no fewer than five millions are in the United States. Twenty-five percent of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge American Jewish public by the promise of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorff to be the master stroke of Allied propaganda as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jews in America but to Jews in Germany as well...All over the world, and especially in the U.S.A. Jews will be active against Germany, and the Jew is a natural and energetic propagandist, though perhaps not a very far-seeing one. There are, however, cross-currents in the tide of World Jewry, the identification of Russian Jews with Communism, for example, and Palestine, another of our war propaganda hens which may come to roost! Which should warn us not to rely too much on having it entirely in our favor...
I have said already that the Jew is a more energetic than a skillful propagandist, but he is undoubtedly energetic. At present we are with traditional readiness giving shelter to large numbers of persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria. It would be against nature if these immigrants, whether permanent or in passage, did not harbor resentment against the countries which had expelled them, and it should not be grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism to point out that a great many of them are making an active propaganda to incite feeling against Germany...
The U.S.A. will simply supply the world (with moving pictures, practically all owned by the Jews) Not only is she far and away the greatest producer, but, much more important still, she largely control the machinery of the world film distribution...they (the Americans) can perhaps be expected, in the security of their own detached hemisphere, to see European affairs realistically. For one thing, the American is the great champion of the oppressed, and frequently of the oppressed which may explain why he is so frequently taken in by the 'hard-luck' story of London confidence tricksters! Secondly, the American peoples are still under the influence of much of the Great War propaganda. They are more susceptible than most people, to mass suggestion, they have been brought up on it, and since 1918 they have shut themselves off from reality. Thirdly, they are at this moment the battle-ground of an active propaganda of Labels." [96]
Until: "America: Submerged in a Sea of Zionism. Will history remember America merely as a major captive nation of Zionist world conquest, ignoring the lustrous ascendance and near triumph of the glorious potential of free man? Will Zionist scorched-earth shots to the heart of all that is wholesome buy them their long-sought victory for Babylonian humanism with its showy irreverence and the glorification of all that is sordid? Will all of the goodness, wholesomeness and productivity of our unique Christian Republic, which millions forfeited their lives to give us, be purged from the world, leaving man to enter the 21st century enslaved to the least of God's creations? Must Americans forever witness Zionist self-promotion and self-portrayal as our best and brightest, as our most deserving and selfless citizens suffering a society of lesser humans with intellectually inferior pursuits? Will God allow animal cunning, arrogance, greed and self-aggrandizement a final victory over humanity?
With 'political correctness' based upon Zionist fascism in the ascendance, with the American media system largely a Zionist tool, with Foundations and Zionist Political Action Committees spreading legislative dollars and providing selected candidates massive financial support, with two parties and political commentary dominated by the Zionist International, can traditional Americans hope to reverse the current course of history? Can we develop a formula to reclaim our Republic and the tools of a productive society, recapturing or rebuilding the essence of a nation one deservedly the noble and gracious leader of the world's nations?
Can we collectively observe that our governmental processes are captive to Zionist appointees at every level, that our State, Treasury and Commerce Departments as well as the Presidency are operated by Zionists who take their order from Zionism? Can we perceive that almost all of the national information-flow reaches us only through a Zionist filter and pro-Israel/Zionist propaganda machine? Have we not discovered the demise of education, the growth and development of crime, the decay of our cities and our rapid decline as a united people have happened concurrent with the intrusion of Zionists and Zionism into the American system? Have we not noticed that today it is increasingly difficult for ordinary people, Jew or Christian, White, Black, Yellow or Brown, to live together in 'live and let live' affection and respect, as the ADL the ACLU and the AIPAC attack society's pillars, move to destroy the Christian history of America and indoctrinate our children with ideas and philosophies that most of the world holds to be reprehensible, society-destructive, and beyond civility? Have we not noticed the fear in our church bodies, the manipulation of them to amend and mutate the teaching of Jesus' word to men? Here we have history's master victimizers, representing themselves as the victims, as betrayed and sinned against, demeaned and tormented because of society's jealousy; a colony of Culicidae (insects such as mosquitoes and gnats) decrying the occasional angry slap by those that have been stung. We observe the creators of much of man's sordid and duplicitous record artfully and deceitfully altering, amending, abridging and censoring the record to point the finger of responsibility to others, begging society's pity and solace for pain suggested to have been shared by no other people and never publicly recognizing, though surely perceiving, that it has been their centuries-long manipulation of their fellow man and their self-ordination as gods that has cause the animosity they correctly sense.
Consider an alien system with such a firm hold on American policy mechanisms that they are capable of having American citizenship granted overnight to one of Zionism's most energetic employees and then have him named as American ambassador to his former employer nation and confirmed without a word from our 'illustrious Senate,' including that great defender of American interests, Mr. Jesse Helms? And consider a President's cabinet with 80% Jewish Zionist members and a President, himself a Rhodes Scholar (but unable to finish at Oxford) and a member of the Zionist International; a Trilateralist, Bilderberg secret communist.
Consider an alien philosophy carefully scheming to own and control America's newspaper and broadcasting systems, then combining its now massive propaganda and reinstructional capabilities with the movie, entertainment and documentary producers of Hollywood, in short order reducing life to drugs and sexual fantasies and living to a succession of mindless escapades and romps in the hay; surely and continuously changing Americans then America...finally creating such irresponsible and chaotic conditions in our lives that we then welcome massive regulation, police restraints and New World Order socialist oppression just to get order again; forget morality or social ethics, productivity or national focus.
Consider the raw source of energy and money for the pro-abortion and homosexual lifestyle movements, the illegal immigration madness, loss of personal heritage identity, multi-cultural disarray and the move to make our precious English subordinate to the first choice of everyone's original homeland language. These are funded, not by the grassroots but by single source money...given in every case to reduce our influential Christian nation to helplessness; Babylonians filled with hate for the Christian people who bade them welcome, spending enormous effort and endless dollars to destroy our once wholesome influence on an ugly world. Witness the altered state of church in America; intimidated, compromised, fearful and spiritless. Are they winning? Look and listen to the new mores of our changed society. Consider which nation is our number one recipient of 'loans' and aid. Note that they take what they want from our military arsenal and then without apology copy and sell it around the world, wherever money is to be made or counties subverted. Note their demand for U.N. (American) troops to clear away the enemy which surrounds their homeland and as stalking horses for their political influence thought the world. From the Pentagon, State, Presidency or the United Nations, their influence and numbers overwhelm any possible opposition and America increasingly does what they demand of us.
And then, dear friends, we have just witnessed once again their absolute mastery over our financial affairs. They own Banking, Investment Banking, the control of every major corporation, of course the 'Fed' and control of the Treasury of the United States. As we have just seen in Mexico, they do as they please, manipulating conditions, loaning then withdrawing support capital and grasping control of the resources of nations one by one, sometimes for profit but always for control. And then there is the depreciating dollar and Americans and the humble Mexicans are about to be enslaved by its demise. When we add thought-control (political correctness) emanating from our college campuses and the continuous flow of Marxist ideas from Zionist professors to the 'hate crimes' laws and the massive effort to close down unwelcome publishers and Republican ideas, we can see that our Zionist fascist New World Order elitists have left no scheme destructive of Christian freedom left unutilized.
Consider then the 'we-are-in-charge' arrogance of the 'Justice' department's 92 Waco murders, followed by official lies and media cover-up, to be followed by massive raids on the citizens' militias that resulted...and national martial law, orchestrated and controlled by our Zionist fascist President in collaboration with the ADL.
Finally, we can watch with dismay as black-shirted, hooded world police power is deployed in America, computer programs are prepared for our personal control and prisons are readied for any who would underscore their First Amendment rights by using them. And huge funds of propaganda and money are expended to take from us our last hope of freedom; the Second Amendment and our guns.
And 90% of Americans haven't a hint, a clue. So brainwashed are they that when push comes to shove, most of them will unknowingly side with this enemy. So we who perceive must do the work of thousands." [97]
Any number of great leaders and outspoken teachers, to whom mankind owes its progress in the science of freer governments and better living, have spent the better part of their lives in prison, or have lost their lives by the sword or at the stake or in the hangman's noose. The world has always had a bad habit of stoning its prophets and crucifying those who attempt to follow Christ, and it has continually belted out the same punishment to men who were neither prophets nor Christs, but who in their small way and to the best of their abilities courageously spoke the truth and stoutly carried forward the torch of progress and liberty.
It is very foolish and childish to look upon machines of government as sacred things, as things too holy to be profaned by touch or examination. Governments, and the men who run the machinery of government, like to encourage and inculcate this foolish reverence for themselves and their machine. Any one who examines attentively the speeches and the writings of the men who lived between 1776 and 1860, and the speeches and the writings of the men who have the public ear and the public eye today, cannot fail to see how changed is the attitude that our people now take toward our government and toward the men we hire to run it.
There have grown, and have came to us from alien lands, a species of official arrogance and top-loftiness and a species of popular subservience which are both painful to look upon and both surely fatal to the sovereignty of the people over their public servants and to the perpetuity of the liberties of the country. We see, for example, the person who happens to occupy the position of President surrounded more and more with that divinity which used to be supposed to hedge about a king.
We are witnessing President Clinton exercising the same attributes and powers assumed by kings of the past; parceling out land and people, making alliances, pledging the United States to policies of war and peace, and doing these things wholly upon his own initiative and his own individual will and decisions, without deigning to consult the representatives of the people and without the knowledge of a single one of the millions of Americans whose hired servant he is theoretically supposed to be; and we have seen the Congress of the United States pass totalitarian laws completely unconstitutional in their aspects and effect, and the American people tamely submit to this assumption and exercise of royal and autocratic powers.
More than that, we have seen representatives of the people in both Houses of Congress actually introduce laws to make a felony to criticize any speech, writing, or actions of the sacred person and the sacred actions, not only of the President, but of others of our hired men in Washington. Having fought two world wars and several lesser wars, all in the name of freedom, it seems, now that the government is to enjoy the blessings of the law of "lese majestic," by which these obliterated autocrats were accustomed to muzzle and to put in prison any citizen who criticizes their sacred persons or their sacred actions. To such a low estate have we fallen that the expressed mandate and prohibition of our own great Bill of Rights is no longer to be a protection to the exercise of that right of free speech and free printing upon which the whole edifice of our collective and individual liberties has hitherto firmly rested.
We need a better working machinery of really democratic government, and the very first step toward getting better machinery of government is to rid ourselves of the undeserved reverence and the unbecoming awe with which we have accustomed ourselves to regard the men whom we hire to run our government. There is nothing sacred in government itself. Governments are just like individuals; good, bad and indifferent. Why, we have just been engaged in knocking out three of the most sacred governments on earth, if long existence and absurd reverence make a government sacred.
Neither, by the same token, is there anything sacred about the men and women who run government. They don't know more than anyone else; and many of them don't know half as much as other people in private life. It is ridiculous for a self-respecting people to make themselves believe that one of their number suddenly becomes all wise, all knowing because they take him or her and put them in office. Putting a handle to a man's name doesn't make him a Solomon or some sort of tin god.
We act too much like the silly African Negro who takes a ball of mud and molds it into a rude figure, sticks a feather or two in its head, sets it up on a stone or in a tree crotch, and then falls down and says his prayers to it. If we are going to stay free we must get rid of this ridiculous and unbecoming attitude toward our hired men and women in government.
People talk about kings, prime ministers and presidents as being wiser than the rest of us! Why, just look over the world and see what a sorry mess these so-called wise men and women have made of it. See what these sacrosanct and omniscient rulers have done to the people of the world.
They have loaded the people of every nation in the world with debts, to pay it will take generations of workers who must bend their backs and rob their families even of sufficient food to pay the enormous taxes being leveled against them; they have soaked the soil of Europe and Asia with human blood and made it loathsome with human carrion, until the very ground itself is sick with the stench and the filth of the corpses which only a little while ago were vigorous young men and women in the youth of life.
They have covered Europe and Asia with the emaciated corpses of old and feeble men, of mothers and wives and sisters, of young children and of tiny helpless babies; millions have been destroyed in the wombs of mothers who have lost the ability to know right from wrong and who are thoroughly devoid of love of the child they are carrying; and destroy it because they, in truth, hate it because is a visible sign of their immorality and perversion; they have tortured with the frightful agonies and torments of hunger until they finally died in their misery and their despair, not by thousands of hundreds of thousands, but literally by the hundreds of millions.
The hordes of Attila, the savages who swept from the earth the splendid civilization of the older world, never inflicted upon humanity a tenth of the agonies, the destruction and the slaughter which the Jews and their lap dogs, the traitors of all the races have inflicted during the past 100 years, through the government they control from behind the scenes.
Never mind what they say is their motives; we are speaking of facts, of conditions which one can see with their own eyes. There are the devastated lands, there are the broken and miserable people, there are the millions of the dead and the millions of the crippled and maimed, which are partially shown on the televisions every night in the United States. But, of course, those who actually cause these things to happen to mankind are never pointed out or shown because of their economic and political power.
There they are; plain for every one to see, it is a horrible sight, it makes the heart sick. And this frightful spectacle of ruin and slaughter is the best that the governments and the ruling classes of the world have to offer after thousands of years of their rule and supremacy! Under the accusations of these horrid ruins and these millions of dead and the millions of broken and miserable people, we say that those who run the governments of the world are the most evil of men; and are equaled only by the killers in the animal world for their love of blood and slaughter.
They murder their citizens as easily and as thoughtlessly as a fox in a hen house, who kills every hen in the house, for the sheer pleasure of watching their fear and the blood to flow. These men and women are totally evil. Christ said in John 8:44 they were the children of the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning and the lust of their father they will do.
And since all this misery and destruction and slaughter and hatred which we now see filling the entire world is the best that the systems of government under mans control which the world has lived for so many thousands of years can do, we may be sure that the coming generations, perhaps this generation itself, will see just such another terrible spectacle of destruction and slaughter if we and our American brothers and sisters continue to live and to condone the conduct of our national and state leaders, under the same governmental systems and control which have proven to be such a ghastly failure.
A Great Conspiracy
What is the actual objective of the Zionists? It is certainly not benevolent and peaceful for their utterances and actions prove otherwise. What is their goal? The Scriptures are clear concerning a diabolical conspiracy to destroy the way of peace and enslave mankind.
This entire program of evil would have been clearly recognized by Christian men and women long ago but for the skillfully prepared, deceptive teachings of the Clergy of Organized Religion, the Prostitutes of Zionism, as are the TV Clergy of today, who had everything to gain and so have falsified the facts regarding the identity of the race of the Bible and assigned to the Jews the promises and blessings which belong to the House of Israel. The result has been to give the Jew an entirely false position of supposed pre‑eminence in the light of the prophetic word which actually he will never be able to occupy.
The so‑called Theologians have completely failed to examine the evidence to see whether the Jews are really entitled to the position the modern Organized Religions has assigned to them. The assumption that the Jews are all of Israel today has closed much of the Bible to Christian understanding. Furthermore, it has had far‑reaching results in blinding men to the meaning of current world developments and it has materially assisted those who are endeavoring to acquire world rulership by furthering their subversive activities.
This Christian leniency in regard to Jewish aspirations have been based upon the expectation that the Jews are to eventually come into world rulership. Thus, the Zionists, unsupported by any Scriptural evidence whatever to substantiate their claims, are moving toward the consummation of their plans for world rulership. And in so doing they are making world revolution and war inevitable which will climax in a reign of violence and bloodshed bringing the present age to its close.
The pity of it all is that the Christian World is responsible for much of this planned chaos, at least to the extent that they have extolled the Jews as God's People who are chosen to rule the world. Actually, the Zionists are seducing the nations of the world and they have deceived Christian people everywhere into believing they are the Israel of God so that no active protest is made while they boldly pursue their aim to gain world control.
The fallacy of assigning to the Jews the prophecies and blessings pronounced upon the House of Israel is not in conformity with the great prophecies of the restoration of the House of Israel. The Zionists, however, are fulfilling ominous prophecies which foreshadow the coming of evil, not the coming of peace. Their move toward Palestine was a harbinger that the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord is very near.
Gullible Americans
It is almost impossible for men to frankly discuss the import of what is taking place because of the powerful propaganda machine of the Anti‑Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith, as well as many other active agencies of the Zionists; who will immediately set their well‑oiled machine in motion to smear those who have the intrepidity to set forth the truth.
Then too they are aided by those so‑called Judeo-Christian clergy who would rather serve mammon than God and refuse to admit to the errors they have been teaching for so long. If exposure becomes even a remote possibility, the cry of anti‑Semitism is promptly raised. The result is that gullible Americans allow their eyes to be closed to the truth in an misguided assumption that in so doing they are being tolerant, when actually they are playing the part of stupid asses. As they slumber and sleep the enemy is moving forward to consummate his well‑laid plans to destroy freedom and enslave those over whom he will rule. The threat of being labeled anti‑Semitic has become, in itself, a singularly powerful weapon in the hands of the plotters to prevent the public exposure of their sinister aims.
If Christian men and women continue to fear to hear or speak the truth, and refuse to investigate the facts or raise their voices in warning against evil and devilish intrigue, the day will come when freedom of speech and the press, as well as of conscience, will pass away in our own land just as it passed away in all countries behind the Iron Curtain. To those who know and understand what is taking place, this assertion does not presage an idle threat, for they know that unless America awakens soon the enemy within will destroy our freedom and seize openly our government. "Very odd things are happening in Israel. Our observers were struck with the peculiar attitude of those traveling to Zion after the war. They seemed to see some strange sign which they could not help following at whatever cost. We heard this over and over again. These strange people saw something." [98]
It is clearly evident to any observant person that the Politicians and governments of the world are under the control of the Zionist forces and even American Presidents yield to them, rather than to expose their activities and risk losing an election or their lives. "It seems to me, when I consider the power of that entombed gold and the pattern of events...that there are great, organized forces in the world, which are spread over many countries but work in unison to achieve power over mankind through chaos. They seem to me to seek, first and foremost, the destruction of Christianity, nationhood and liberty...that was 'the design' which Lord Acton perceived behind the first of the tumults, the French Revolution, and it has become clearer with later tumults and growing success. This process does not appear to me a natural or inevitable one, but a man‑ made one which follows definite rules of conspiratorial action. I believe there is an organization behind it of long standing, and that the great successes which have been achieved are mainly due to the efficiency with which this has been kept concealed." [99]
Time will shortly demonstrate to even the most skeptical the identity of these conspirators who are endeavoring through chaos to enslave mankind. The center of this great world‑wide conspiracy to destroy Christendom, are those who crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Their plans are carefully laid for the seizure of His inheritance, the first steps in the fulfillment of such a program evidenced in the Zionist claims to a right to Palestine which they have undertaken to possess through acts of violence (which began when Esau sold his birthright to Jacob).
Furthermore, in their arrogance they have assumed a messianic mission for their race and in so doing are undertaking to usurp the kingly prerogatives of Christ, or Lord and King. The verdict of our Lord is therefore just in its condemnation of these conspirators and their attempt, through violence, to seize the Kingdom.
The political, economic, industrial, and military apex of America was reached at the end of the Second World War in 1945. At that point, American political and military power dominated the world and dictated the geographical perimeters of the earth. American industrial output exceeded that of the rest of the world. American agriculture out‑produced the rest of the world. American agriculture out‑produced the rest of the nations on earth. The economic fortunes of America were the most coveted on earth, and the standard of living exceeded by far the best of all other nations on this planet.
Beginning at a time in 1914 with the advent of the First World War in Europe, followed by the Bolshevik Revolution in Christian Russia in 1917, a series of events brought about the political, military, social, economic, industrial, and religious transformation of this nation: American recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933, our entry into World War II in 1941 and the subsequent sellout of American politicians to the Soviet Union at the close of the Second World War, the loss of Eastern Europe to the Soviets, the fall of China in 1949, the Korean Police Action, 1950‑1953, the American military and industrial build‑up of the Soviet Union from 1933 through to 1960, followed by the Vietnam War, 1961‑1973.
The birthright nation of America in 1997 is an empty shell of its former glory and grandeur. America is now into the seventieth year of captivity, beginning at the point of our entry into World War I in 1917. From that date forward America has been on steady and gradual political, economic, industrial, military, social, and spiritual decline. The glory cloud has lifted from this land.
The Covenant blessings of Jesus Christ no longer shine upon us. The bountiful outpourings of Divine favor no longer bless this country. The sterling character and Bible‑centered mindset are not longer a part of the American vision. The American dreams of righteousness, peace, and prosperity have turned into a long nightmare of political instability, economic downturns, industrial collapse, military retreat, social chaos, and spiritual decline and death. The glory cloud has lifted from our land, and the clouds of Divine Judgment gather over our national heads, and has increased dramatically since our recognition of the Easu‑Canaanite‑Khazar Jew in Palestine with ever increasing fury and intensity.
The curses now poured upon our land are only the preliminary round of Divine Judgment as the promises of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 visit our people. These curses are intended to turn us in repentance to God, who commands obedience to His Law. The judgments upon us are legion, and no pen can describe them all. We are presently under an alien invasion, and the millions of non‑white, non‑Israelite people pouring into this country from Asia, Africa, India, Mexico, and the far corners of the non‑white third world stagger the mind.
In fulfillment of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, our white native birthright population of Israelite people is being swallowed up in a sea of third world aliens. Soon, we native Americans will be living in our enemies land as foreign, alien swarms buy up our country. The curse of heathen gods, heathen temples, and alien religions are rampant in America. Witchcraft, the occult, and the religions of demons and darkness are captivating the minds of our people.
The curses of diseases and plagues cover our land. Millions are dying from the degenerative diseases promised in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. One out of four Americans will contract cancer of some kind. The plague of Aids (Acquired Immoral Deadly Sin) threatens the very existence of the American people. Up to two million people may already be infected, and millions may die within five years.
Economically, our fortunes are tumbling into oblivion. America is the largest debtor nation in the world. We have lost our economic footing and are plunging into the depths of debt, recession, depression, inflation, and ultimately, total economic collapse! The standard of living in America is plunging, and millions face poverty.
The rust belt from the great lakes all the way through the industrial north‑eastern United States bears testimony to the closed factories, the empty shipping yards, and the millions of unemployed people now dependent upon welfare doles. Timber, mining, and ranching in the Pacific Northwest are in decline, as is the textile industry of the Southeast.
The Agricultural farm belt in the Midwest is now in its seventh year of economic stagnation. The homeless, helpless, unemployed, and mistrained people are growing by the millions in mainstream America. We are under the curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The morality of the American people is sinking into the spiritual abyss. Sodomites (QUEERS) stalk our land by the millions, seeking the prey of our children. Sexual promiscuity is a way of life for the unmarried, and adultery is the standard for the married of our land. Miscegenation is a growing fad as tens of thousands of white girls become the proud wives of non‑white males and millions of mongrel children are born across the hinterland of America.
We openly sanction the murder of the unborn in infanticide murder mills throughout our nation: murder is now legalized in America as abortion clinics put innocent unborn babies to death every hour. Crimes of violence, rape, murder, kidnaping, and sodomy are skyrocketing in our land. We have become an immoral people, and our thirst for sin is taking us to the bottomless pit of every vile perversion known to mankind. Our civil servants are scrambling night and day to destroy our country, while all the while pretending to be trying to hold it together. Our political future is so unsettled that no one seems to know what to do. In a nation of 240 million people, we cannot find any men of character and moral strength to run for public office.
We seek more and more to increase taxation to the working population to fund the ever increasing needs of the millions who are now dependent upon public welfare doles, and to support the anti‑Christ countries such as Russia and Israel. The red tape of government grows ever more as small business is strangled and chocked by regulations, paperwork, and higher and higher taxes. People are lined up for minimum wage jobs, and tens of thousands of college graduates are begging for jobs in this land.
Right-Wing Extremists
The Right‑wing Extremists didn't save the Communist regime in the Soviet Union by extending to it diplomatic immunity, nor save the economy of the Soviets with $11 billion in lend‑lease and uncounted billions in low or on interest loans, nor gave the Red Communist the secrets of the atomic bomb, nor force refugees from Communism back under the Iron Curtain, nor made a deal to sell Poland and Eastern Europe to the Communist Empire.
The Right‑wing Extremist didn't arrange for the victory of the Communist over the Nationalist Government of China, nor deny aid to the Freedom Fighters in Poznan, East Berlin and Hungary, nor support the Communists in driving the Dutch out of Indonesia, nor protect Communist agents holding high offices in the United States Government, nor denied victory to our American troops in Korea, nor gave aid and comfort to the enemy by publicly entertaining the Communist Boss Kruschev, nor attacked Patriotic Americans.
But those who did all of these things and more, tell the American people they should beware of the Right‑wing Extremists. Why? What have they ever done to hurt or subvert America??? "The Rise of the Republic of the United States," which stated: "The ministry thought it a wise scheme to take off so much duty on tea as was paid in England, as this would allow the East‑ India Company to sell tea cheaper in America than foreigners could supply it; and to confine the duty here, to keep up the exercise of the right of taxation."
You see why they did this ‑‑ they wanted to maintain the right of taxation. "Benjamin Franklin wrote: 'They have no idea that any people can act from any other principle but that of self interest; and they believe that three pence on a pound of tea, of which one does not perhaps drink ten pounds in a year, is sufficient to over‑come all the patriotism of an American.'"
They thought that such a small tax would go unnoticed and that Americans would say "that's OK, we'll put up with that." But the Americans, these patriots knew that if England could tax them three pence, they could tax them whatever they wanted to tax. As long as they (England) maintained the power and the right to tax unlawfully in that way then the amount was negotiable; right. It is the principle that the Americans thought of. Compare that to what happened in 1913, here in America. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was declared passed and part of our constitution. This was the so‑called income tax amendment; and this was the first stage in carrying out a cunning strategy to get Americans to accept slavery.
1916: Avanti! (Italian Socialist newspaper) publishes "Audacia e Fede" by Antonio Gramsei, in which he remarks: "Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. (Socialism is) Religion in the sense that it too is a faith with its mystics and rituals, religion, because it has substituted for the consciousness of the transcendental God of the Catholics, the faith in man and in his great strengths as a unique spiritual reality." Gramsci was a humanist who wrote L'Ordine Nuovo (New Order) and propose that Socialism would triumph by first capturing the culture (establishing cultural hegemony) via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, the media, and other societal and religious institutions. He believed that a direct assault upon capitalist societies would fail, and therefore like the Fabian Socialists he advocated an education process resulting in evolutionary transition to Socialism by transforming the consciousness of society. This, he believed, would result eventually in a Socialist elite ruling the world like the "philosopher-kings" of the French Revolution an din Plato's "Republic of Philosophers."
1917: Emergency War Powers Act: During World War I (WWI), Congress passed the "Trading With the Enemy Act" [100] This Act was later amended in the Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933.[101] 1917: During WW I President Woodrow Wilson favored a proposed treaty with Czarist Russia, which under Nicholas II was strongly anti‑Semitic. "No sooner was the President's statement made...than a Jewish deputation came down from New York and in two days 'fixed' the two houses (of Congress) so that the President had to renounce the idea." [102] "Wild" claim? Theodore Herzl, founder of modern Zionism, said: "(The world) forgets, in its ignorance and narrowness of heart, that when we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also the terrible power of the purse." [103] What of American government officials, who were well‑informed by a number of intelligence sources about the atrocities being performed in Russia during the revolution?
We have at least one record of a public response by a prominent government official, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States. On April 2, 1917, after learning of these atrocities, went before the Congress of the United States and said: "The autocracy that crowned the summit of her (Russia's) political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, Character or Purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for you a League of Honor."
Yes, "the world forgets," especially when information; current and historical, is filtered and controlled. How many White Americans know, for instance, that 75% of Jews openly admit their devotion to Israel supersedes their allegiance to the United States? [104]
1917/1922: Cuba. Troops were landed, in Cuba, to protect American interests during an insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions. Most of the U.S. armed forces left Cuba by August 1919, but two companies remained at Camaquey until Feb. 1922.
By means of that amendment, the United States has been operating under War and Emergency Powers since March 9, 1933. Under the 1933 "Banking Relief Act" the federal government declared the Bank Holiday of March 6, 1933, and relieved the Banks from their contractual obligation to the American people of redeeming their Federal Reserve Notes in gold. (The Federal Reserve note originally constituted a warehouse receipt for real gold which the people had placed on deposit with the Banks).
The original "Trading With the Enemy Act," of October 6, 1917, was enacted at a time when the United States was at War with Germany (WWI), and is therefore Constitutional under Article 1, Sec. 8, CL 11, U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall have the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures of Land and Water."
The amended version (1933) of the original "Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917) was approved and passed by Congress on March 9, 1933. This amended version was enacted at a time when the United States was Not at War with any foreign foe.
Further the amended version (1933) was radically different from the 1917 versions. In 1917, the jurisdiction of the "Trading With the Enemy Act" Excluded all citizens of the United States. However, the 1933 amendment Included citizens of the United States under its jurisdiction by adding the following language: "By any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Under the amended version (1933) of the 1917 Act and by operation of law, The American became the same as the foreign "Enemy" OF 1917. As such, all Americans were therefore subject to regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of Treasury since March 4, 1933 (12 USC 95b). After the American people were Declared to be "Enemies," all legal and commercial intercourse became illegal, and the only way one could do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from our government by means of a form of license (by law, a "license" is a permit to do that which would otherwise be illegal).
As you might expect, our government normally protects the United States by restricting the activities of "enemies." For example, we wouldn't expect the federal government to allow communist agents to travel freely or open a business in our country. Nevertheless, there are times when the government might allow members of an "enemy" nation to travel from New York to Chicago.
For example, when athletes of the former Soviet Union came to America, our government granted them special permission ("licenses") to do that (travel) which would otherwise be prohibited for Russian agents. That our government might "license" foreigners who might be enemies is unremarkable, but whoever imagined that our own government licensed us for the very same reason?
Today, if one wants to travel, one has to have a Driver's License, if one wants to open up a business, one has to have a business license, if one wants to work, one must obtain a license (Social Security Card). As was predicted in the Bible, one cannot buy, sell, or trade without the Mark (Marque‑‑License of reprisal. Black's Law Dictionary 5th ed.).
By Executive Order 2039 of March 6, 1933 and Executive Order 2040 of March 9, 1933, the belligerent United States (federal government) acting under the War Power seized title to all gold (lawful, constitutional money), took physical possession of all the money, and left the American people penniless, bankrupt, and without means to Lawfully pay their debts. After the United States had seized title and took physical possession of the people's (lawful) money, the government found it necessary to issue a new form of currency in order for the people to carry on normal business transactions. This new currency was in the form of Federal Reserve Bank Notes (War and Emergency currency), and not Federal Reserve Notes (warehouse receipts for the gold). "This new money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the nation." [105]
The people were now prohibited from being able to pay their debts at law (i.e. with lawful money/gold) and were forced to mortgage their goods and services to one of the banks or lending institutions in order to obtain Federal Reserve Bank Notes (a debt) in order to "discharge" (not lawfully "pay") their debts. The people now being classified as the "enemy" also became the captured chattel property of the United States to secure the debt (Federal Reserve Bank Notes ‑ debts). The governors of the states of the Union capitulated to the demands of President Roosevelt [106] on March 6, 1933 (Roosevelt papers 1933). The former states of the Union became nothing more than political subdivisions or occupied territories of the belligerent corporate United States.[107]
The former judicial Courts (Courts of Justice) now took Silent Judicial notice of the Maritime (International) In Rem jurisdiction, and took the role as Executive Officers (not judicial) to enforce the Federal and State statutes in all cases whatsoever (this is why the Flag in the Court rooms of America have a yellow fringe around it ‑ showing that it is an international court under maritime laws and not the former Common Law).
The judges and lawyers in essence became nothing more than Executive Political Hatchet Men of their branch of government to enforce the public policy statute enacted by Congress and to enforce performance on this new commercial paper (Federal Reserve Bank Notes ‑ debts) in order to give it some sort of value. Once the people were declared to be the "Enemy," they lost all their inalienable rights under the (unlawfully suspended) Constitution and Bill of Rights (This is why Congress and the states can pass gun control laws). Since 1933, the American people have had no inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property. It is a matter of law that the Question of Jurisdiction can be raised at any time; Therefore, the only Question before our courts, is one of Jurisdiction. The issue is whether this International Maritime In Rem Jurisdiction was obtained with misrepresentation of material facts, deceit, fraud, coercion, and is outside the guidelines of the Constitution.
1918: The Treaty of Versailles.
The treaty of Versailles was one of the most iniquitous documents ever signed by the representatives of so-called civilized nations. The injustice perpetrated upon the German people by the terms of the Peace Treaty made another world war inevitable.[108]
The circumstances surrounding the signing of the Armistice on November 11, 1918 must be understood. The German High Command did not ask for the Armistice because their armies were in danger of defeat. When the Armistice was singed the German armies had never been defeated on the field of battle. The German High Command asked for an Armistice so that they could devote their efforts towards preventing a Communist Revolution. Rosa Luxemberg, and her Jewish dominated Spartacus Bund, had planned to duplicate in Germany what Lenin had achieved in Russia exactly one year previously.
The Armistice was signed as a prelude to a negotiated Peace. It is of the utmost importance to remember this fact because an Armistice entered into under those conditions is far different from unconditional surrender. The events which caused the German High Command to realize their danger on the home front were as follows:
1). Rosa Luxemberg's revolutionaries infiltrated into the German High Seas fleet. They became very active in 1918. They spread rumors that the ships, and their crews, were to be sacrificed in an all out battle with the combined British and American navies. The rumor-mongers stated that the purpose of the battle was to cripple the combined allied fleets to such an extent they would be unable to defend the British coasts against a military invasion planned to bring the German Warlards victory.
The Communist "Cells" exhorted the German seamen to mutiny because they claimed that the planned invasion of Britain was doomed to failure, due to the fact that British Scientists had developed a secret weapon. According to the rumor-mongers invading craft could, by the use of chemicals fired from guns ashore or dropped from planes, be surrounded by a sea of flames. Fire, heat, and lack of oxygen would create conditions in which nothing human could survive. The subversives argued that the only way to avoid such a fate was to bring about a revolution to end the war. The German seamen mutinied November 3, 1918. On November 7th, a large body of marines deserted while on their way to the Western Front. They had been told that they were going to be used to "Spear-head" the rumored invasion of Britain. Meantime, uprisings had caused shut-downs in many German industrial centers. Subversives talked defeatism, conditions deteriorated until, on November 9th, the Kaiser abdicated.
The Social Democratic Party immediately formed a Republican Government. The Armistice was signed November 11, 1918. The Communist leaders of the Spartacus Bund had placed their "Cells" in key positions within the new government and throughout the armed forces. Their combined efforts created chaotic conditions everywhere. Rosa Luxemberg then played her trump card. She forced the Socialist government t order the immediate demobilization of the German armed forces. This action prevented the German High Command from using their well disciplined troops to prevent the pending revolution which broke out in January, 1919. Before she usurped power in Germany, Rosa Luxemberg was promised the same financial assistance and military aid the International Bankers had given to Lenin and Trotsky a year before. The initial stages of her revolutionary effort were financed by the fund they made available through the Soviet Ambassador Joffe. The revolutionary effort only failed to accomplish what Lenin had achieved in Russia when the promised aid failed to materialize after Rosa had launched her initial onslaught. Then she realized her Jewish Spartacus Bund had been betrayed by the very men she considered her friends. This incident alone should prove that "The Secret Power" behind the World Revolutionary Movement is not concerned about the welfare of the Jews any more than the Gentiles. The majority of the Directors of the W.R.M. are men who descended from the Khazars, Tartars, and other Mongol-Asiatic non-Semitic races. They adopted the Jewish religion to suit their own selfish purposes between the 7th and 8th centuries.[109]
The purpose of the double-cross was two-fold. The men who plot and plan the World Revolutionary Movement did not want Germany Sovietized until AFTER they had used the German people to fight another war against Britain. They calculated a second World War would render both Empires so utterly exhausted that they could then be easily subjugated by the resources of the U.S.S.R. they controlled under Lenin's dictatorship.
In order to start a Second World War, they considered it was necessary to build up within Germany and intense anti-Semitic hatred for the purpose of dividing Europe into two opposing camps: Fascist and anti-Fascist. The plan required all communized countries to remain neutral, in a military sense, while their agents did everything possible to aggravate the adverse conditions the master-minds created.
After the Jewish-dominated revolution collapsed for want of aid, the German Aryan people took a full measure of revenge on the Jews. Rosa Luxemberg and her right hand man, Karl Liebknecht, were captured and shot in the head like the mad dogs they were by a German lieutenant. To prolong and intensify the hatred of the German people for the Jews, propaganda (and rightly so) blamed the Jews for bringing about the military defeat of Germany's armed forces and the unjust and humiliating terms enforced by the Treaty of Versailles. Propaganda strengthened the trend towards National-Socialism in Germany by representing Britain, France and the United States as selfish capitalistic countries influenced and controlled by the International Jewish Bankers. Thus the way was prepared for the advent of Hitler.
Soon after the Armistice was signed the International Bankers instructed Lenin to consolidate the Communis gain and to prepare to defend the Soviet States against capitalistic aggression. Lenin announced this as his policy. Trotsky disagreed bitterly. He advocated immediate revolution in all European countries which remained to be subjugated. He wanted to help Germany's Spartacus Bund in order to keep the revolutionary spirit alive.
Lenin warned the Third International that it was the duty of the revolutionary leaders in all those countries to organize their parties so as to be ready to take over their governments when outside forces created favorable conditions to revolt. Rosa Luxemberg's failure was cited as an example of what would happen if revolutionary action was taken independently.
Lenin's strategic plan is known in military circles as "The Musk Ox Plan" because these northern animals have been able to survive against the attacks of all their enemies by the simple expedient of forming a circle with their heads pointing out and their tails in. Calves are placed inside the circle. Wolves and bears could not attack the herd from flank or rear; and if they attacked head-on they were gored to death, or cut to ribbons, by the razor-like hoofs of the oxen. Having settled internal conditions in Germany to suit their Long Range Plans, the international gangsters next turned their attention to Palestine. Palestine occupied a central geographical position in their overall plans for world conquest. They therefore decided to sponsor Political Zionism to further their two-fold purpose.
One: To force the nations of the world to make Palestine a National Home for the Jews so they would have a sovereign state which they would control by reason of their wealth and power. If their long-range plans matured to the extent of a third world war they could use their sovereign state to extend the control they exercised over the communized nations throughout the whole world. When this was accomplished they would be able to crown the head of the group "King of the Universe," and "God upon the Earth."
Two: They had to secure control of what they believed was five trillion dollars worth of mineral wealth they believed was hidden in and around the shores of the Dead Sea. After Britain, France, and the United States, had been committed to form a national home for the Jews in Palestine by the Balfour Declaration in April 1917, Lord Allenby was ordered to drive the Turks out of Asia-Minor and occupy the Holy Land. The fact that Palestine was to be turned over to the Jews was not made known until AFTER the Arabs had helped Allenby accomplish this task.
The general impression was that Palestine would be a British Protectorate. Immediately after Lord Allenby's triumphant entry into Jerusalem the International Bankers "persuaded" the allied governments to appoint their political emissaries as a Zionist Commission. Officially, the members of this commission were sent to Palestine to act as liaison between the military Administration and the Jews. Their real purpose was to "advise" General Clayton so his military administration would further their secret plans. The Zionist Commission went into effect in March 1918.
Members of the Zionist Commission included Major Ormsby-Gore. He afterwards became Lord Harlich. He was a director of the Midland Bank, the Standard Bank of South Africa, and the Union Corporation.[110] Major James de Rothschild, the son of Edmund de Rothschild of Paris, who had formerly owned the Rothschild Colonies in Palestine. Major de Rothschild afterwards became a Liberal member of the British parliament.
He served in that capacity from 1929 - 1945. He was appointed parliamentary secretary in the Churchill-Labor Coalition Government. Lieutenant Edwin Samuel, afterward became Chief Censor for the British government during the Second World War. He was appointed Chief Director of Palestine Broadcasting after the State of Israel was established in 1948.[111]
Mr. Israel Schief, He was a director of Marks and Spencers, the huge British department stores. He was a close associate of all the international bankers. He was appointed Chairman of the Political and Economic Planning Committee. He was a permanent member of the "Brain Trust" which "advised" successive British governments. His standing in Great Britain was very similar to that of Bernard Baruch in the United States from 1918 10 1948.
Mr. Sieff rendered the International Bankers such outstanding service that he was made a commander of the Order of Maccabees. Leon Simon, He was knighted, and placed in charge of the British General Post Office. He controlled all telegraph, telephone and cable facilities. The remaining members of the commission were Dr. Elder, Mr. Joseph Cowen, and Mr. Chaim Weizmann; all close friends of wealthy Zionists in America.[112]
Sir R. Storrs says the Zionist Commission was sent to Palestine BEFORE the Peace Conference started, in order to create an atmosphere favorable to establishing a national home for the Jews and also to stimulate its financial supporters. The International Bankers dominated the conference which culminated in the Treaty of Versailles. This is proven by the fact that in January 1919 Mr. Paul Warburg (who drafted the Federal Reserve System), arrived in Paris to head the American delegation. His brother Max arrived to head the German delegation. Comte de St. Aulaire said "Those who look for the truth elsewhere than in the official documents know that President Wilson, whose election had been financed by the Great Bank of New York (Kuhn-Loeb & Co.), rendered almost complete obedience to its beck and call."
Dr. Dillon states: "The sequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by the Jews, (representatives of the International Bankers) assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought out programs which they succeeded in having substantially executed."
The Mandate of Palestine was drafted by Professor Felix Frankfurter, the eminent American Zionist, who afterward became Chief Adviser in the White House to President Roosevelt. He was assisted by the Right Honorable Sir Herbert Samuel, Dr. Jacobson, Dr. Fiewel, Mr. Sacher, Mr. Landman, Mr. Ben Cohen, and Mr. Lucien Wolfe, who exercised tremendous influence over Mr. David Lloyd George. He was said to possess all the secrets of the British Foreign Office.
At the preliminary conferences M. Mandel (whose real name was Rothschild) was private secretary to Mr. Clemenceau of France. Mr. Henry Morgenthau was on the U.S. delegation in a general supervisory capacity. He was the father of the man who afterward became President Roosevelt's Financial Secretary. Another man affiliated with the International Bankers was Mr. Oscar Strause who took a leading part in forming the League of Nations and molding its policies so that they fitted in with the International Gangsters' Long Range Plan for ultimate world domination.
Mr. Lucien Wolfe says on page 408 of his "Essays in Jewish History," "A small group of other distinguished Jews appear as signatories of the Peace Treaty. The Treaty of Versailles is signed for France by Louis Klotz. (He was later implicated in shady financial transactions and retired from public life). Baron Somino for Italy, and Edwin Montague for India."
Mr. Harold Nicolson, author of "Peace Making 1919 - 1944" p. 243, states that Wolfe suggested to him that all Jews should have international protection while retaining all national rights of exploitation. M. Georges Batault says in "Le Probleme Juif," p. 38, "The Jews who surrounded Lloyd George, Wilson and Clemenceau are to blame for creating a 'Jewish Peace.'"
In the spring of 1919 Bela Kun usurped power in Hungary. He tried to put Lucien Wolfe's ideas into practice, but his dictatorship lasted only three months, but during that time tens of thousands of Christians were dispossess and ruthlessly murdered. The victims included working men, army officers, merchants, land-owners, professional men and women, priests and laymen.
The "New International Year Book of 1919" says in part: "The government of Bela Kun was composed almost exclusively of Jews, who held also the administrative offices. The Communists had united first with the Socialists, who were not of the extremely radical party, but resembled somewhat the Labor Parties, or Trade Union groups, in other countries. Bela Kun did not however select his personnel from among them, but turned to the Jews and constituted virtually a Jewish bureaucracy."
History records that after three months of systematic pillage, rape, and wholesale murder, Bela Kun was deposed. Instead of being executed he was interned in a lunatic asylum. His release was arranged by agents of the powerful group he had served so well. He returned to Russia and was put in charge of the Cheka which terrorized the Ukrainians into subjection when Stalin was ordered to collectivize agriculture in the Soviets. Five million peasants were starved to death for refusing to obey the edicts. Over five million more were sent to forced labor in Siberia.
When Stalin tried to turn Spain into a Communist Dictatorship in 1936, Bela Kun was chosen to organize the "Reign of Terror" in Spain. The power of the International Bankers is well illustrated by an incident that happened during the preliminary conferences held in Paris in 1919. The negotiations tended to stray away from the policy set by the International Bankers. Thereupon, Jacob Schiff, sent President Wilson, who was attending the Paris conference, a two thousand word cable. He "instructed" the president of the United States what to do in regard to the Palestine Mandate, German Reparations, Upper Silesia, The Sarre, The Danzing Corridor, and Fiume. The cablegram was dated May 28, 1919. Schiff sent it in the name of the Association of the League of Free Nations.[113]
Upon receipt of the cablegram President Wilson immediately changed the direction of the negotiations. Of this incident Comte de St. Aulaire said: "The Treaty of Versailles on these five questions was dictated by Jacob Schiff and his co-religionists." As soon as the allied governments had been "persuaded" to make Palestine a British Protectorate, (as demanded in the cable), the international bankers instructed their agents that the terms of the Peace Treaty were to be made so severe that it would be impossible for the German people to tolerate them very long. This was part of the plan to keep the German people hating the British, French, and Americans so they would be ready to fight again to regain their legal rights.
Immediately the Treaty of Versailles was signed, the phony Capitalist-Bolshevik war was started. This war enabled Lenin to justify his policy, by which he abandoned the German revolutionaries to their fate in order to consolidate the gains he had already made in Russia. The war against Bolshevism was never permitted to endanger Lenin's dictatorship. It was ended in 1921. The net result was that the Bolsheviks gained a tremendous amount of prestige, while the Capitalist countries lost a similar amount. This paved the way for the agents of the International Bankers to suggest, in the interests of permanent Peace, that the Soviet States be admitted to membership in the League of Nations.
The British government, always obedient to the "wishes" of the International Bankers, was the first to comply with the new "request." France followed suit on October 28, 1924. After the infamous Litvinov had worked on Henry Morgenthau and Dean Acheson (who were both dominated by Felix Frankfurter and Louis D. Brandeis), President Roosevelt recognized the Soviets on November 16, 1933. The League of Nations accepted the Soviet States as members.
From that day on, the League of Nations was nothing more or less than an instrument in the hands of Stalin. His agents molded its policy and activities, to suit the Long Range Plans of those who direct the World Revolutionary Movement. Once the Communist countries had been admitted into the League of Nations, Grand Orient Masons, who were delegates, or on the staff, took charge.
Wickham Steed, former editor of the "Times," London, was one of the best informed men in the world. On more than one occasion he discussed the fact that the International Bankers dominated international affairs. He made this definite statement just after the Treaty of Versailles was signed: "I insist that the prime movers (to make the Allied Powers acknowledge the Bolshevik dictatorship) were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other International financiers who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolsheviks in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia."
Leo Maxse, writing in the August issue of the "National Review" 1919 stated: "Whoever is in power in Downing Street, whether Conservative, Radicals, Coalitionist, or Pseudo-Bolshevik, the international Jews rule the roost. Here is the mystery of the 'Hidden Hand' of which there has been no intelligent explanation."
When Mr. Winston Churchill visited Palestine in March 1921, he was asked to meet a delegation of Moslem leaders. They protested that the ultimate objective of political Zionism was to give the natural resources of Palestine to the Jews. They pointed out that the Arabs had occupied Palestine for over a thousand years. They asked Churchill to use his influence to correct what they considered a great injustice. Churchill is recorded as saying in reply: "You ask me to repudiate the Balfour Declaration and to stop (Jewish) immigration. This is not in my power...and it is not my wish...We think it is good for the world, good for the Jews, good for the British Empire, and good for the Arabs also...and we (Jews - because Churchill was, himself, a half Jew) intend it to be so." When Churchill gave the Arabs his reply was in all probability thinking of the threat issued by Chaim Weizmann who had been an agent of the International Bankers for many years. Just a year before Churchill's visit to Palestine, Weizmann had made an official statement of policy which was published in "Judische Rundschau," No. 4, 1920: "We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not...You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world." [114]
Weizmann's statement must be studied in conjunction with another declaration made by an International Banker to a gathering of Zionists in Budapest in 1919. When discussing the probabilities of a super-government he was quoted by Comte de St. Aulaire as saying: "In the management of the New World we give proof of our organization both for revolution and for construction by the creation of the League of Nations, which is our (Jews) work. Bolshevism is the accelerator, and the League of Nations is the brake on the mechanism of which we supply both the motive force and the guiding power...What is the end? That is already determined by our mission."
Unknown to most Americans, under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 the International Bankers obtained control over Germany's military rearmament and her economic recovery. This accomplished, they entered into the "Abmachungen" (agreements) with the German High Command. They agreed to have the Soviets secretly supply the German generals with all the arms and munitions they required for a modern army of several million. they also undertook to have the Soviet dictator place complete training facilities at the disposal of the Germans to enable them to train the number of commissioned and non-commissioned officers they would require to officer the new army they planned to bring into being what they considered the time was ripe.
The vast building projects required to put the terms of the "Abmachungen" into effect were financed by the International Bankers off the backs of American Taxpayers. they thus enabled both Communist and Fascist countries to build up their economy and war potentials. The International Bankers enabled the German High Command to evade all the military restrictions placed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles.[115]
The vast Krupp Monition and Armaments Plants built in the Soviet Union behind the Ural mountains were named "Manych." The German armament firms were granted every concession they asked for. International intrigue on such a lavish scale could mean only one thing. Those involved were preparing for World War II.
The governments of the so-called allied nations were kept fully informed regarding what was going on behind the scenes; this is only another proof that Disraeli spoke the truth when he said "The governments elected do not govern." Thus history reveals that from 1920 to 1924 the Secret Power directed international intrigue in such a manner that the leaders of Jewish dominated Communism in Russia were working hand in glove with the leaders of Allegedly Aryan dominated Naziism in Germany; both Communism and Naziism are Jewish inventions. This phase of history is very complicated and is difficult for the aver citizen to understand, because they cannot believe anyone could be so totally evil and far sighted.
Communism and Naziism have several things in common; both are atheistic creeds which deny the existence of Almighty God. They both advocate war, hatred and force; as opposed to Christ's policy of peace, love, and teaching. The leaders of both atheistic-materialistic ideologies must therefore be agents of the Devil. They further the diabolical conspiracy to win the souls of men away from loyalty and obedience to Almighty God.
They both use a form of Grand Orient Masonry for proselytizing purposes.[116] The head of the Council of Thirty-Three is the president of the top executives council of Thirteen, previously referred to. Because the initiating ceremonies of all Grand Orient Lodges require the candidate to swear he will acknowledge no other mortal as above the head of the organization; which makes that head automatically god on Earth.
The International Bankers have always been the top executives of the Grand Orient Masonry since 1770. Aryan War Lords have always been the top executive of the German Lodges. They select their own successors. A review of history, 1914 - 1934, indicates:
1). That the International Bankers fomented World War I to bring about conditions favorable for revolutionary action and thus enable them to obtain undisputed control of the Russian Empire.
2). To remove the crowned Heads of Europe. These rulers had to be removed before either group could achieve their totalitarian ambitions.
3). To force the British and French governments to agree to establish "A National Home for the Jews in Palestine."
4). The government of Britain was forced to aid the International Bankers' plan for the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 in order to obtain their promise that they would bring America into war on the side of the allies. It can be assumed that the S.S. Lusitania was sunk to provide the necessary incident to justify the change of American policy, just as Pearl Harbor was used as an excuse for America to enter World War II.
5). The original draft of the mandate on Palestine reads: "To turn Palestine into a National Home for the Jews." It was altered at the last minute to read "to establish a National Home for the Jew In Palestine." This was done to conceal the secret ambitions of the Zionists.
6). The International Bankers deliberately concealed the truth regarding the vast mineral deposits geologists had discovered in Palestine until AFTER the governments of Britain, France and the United States had agreed to their Mandate of Palestine.[117]
7). The International Bankers used Zionism to obtain control of a centrally located Sovereign State from which they could extend the control they now exert over the U.S.S.R. to cover the entire World.
8). The conspirators managed international affairs between 1921 and 1934 so that Europe was divided into two camps, Fascist and anti-Fascist, in preparation for World War II.
1918: The treasonable Communist Institute of Pacific Relations was organized shortly after WW I. The Institute of Pacific Relations known as the I.P.R. is a powerful international organization working in 12 countries towards the establishment of a communist one‑world dictatorship. The Senate Internal Security Committee said that the I.P.R. is a communist vehicle used to orientate American Foreign policies towards the implementation of communist objectives. They said that the entire I.P.R. staff are either communists or pro‑communists.
According to the Congressional Record and documented records, the Rockefeller Foundation money enabled and directed the I.P.R. to give 600‑million Chinese people to the bondage, slavery, torture, and slaughter of communism, and untold millions more in Europe, Africa, Cuba and elsewhere.
The Rockefeller I.P.R. was directly and integrally connected with the highest officials of the Communist Conspiracy in Russia. They treasonably brainwashed the President, the State Department, the American People, and above all, the schools. They poured their un‑American, atheistic, antichrist, anti‑God, Communist lies and propaganda into the schools by millions of pamphlets, slides, films, and books.
1918: A Free Press and informed Senate rejected the Devil's Illuminati, Communist Trojan Horse League of Nations deathtrap. A widely known French Journal, "L'Illustration," of September 14, 1918, commented: "When one lives in contact with the functionaries who are serving the Bolshevik Government, one feature strikes the attention, which, is almost all of them are Jews. I am not at all anti‑Semitic; but I must state what strikes the eye: everywhere in Petrograd, Moscow, in the provincial districts; the commissariats; the district offices; in Smolny, in the Soviets, I have met nothing but Jews and again Jews...The more one studies the revolution the more one is convinced that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement which can be explained by the special conditions in which the Jewish people were placed in Russia."
1918: About the Jewish Russian revolution, Alexander Solzhenitsyn related that some sixty‑six million "real Russians" have been murdered since the Bolshevik Revolution at the hand of the Yiddish revolutionaries; and that now two hundred million citizens of the United States await their turn in the abettors of the bloodthirsty Zionist terrorists. "We are living in a highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is only his as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and his possessions at the call of the state." [118]
Rev. Denis Fahey, in his book, "The Rulers of Russia," exposed the real names of many of the Jewish terrorists who operated the Soviet murder machine in Russia. Trotsky was Bronstein, Martoff was Zederbaum, Zinovieff was Apfelbaum, Kameneff was Rosenfeld, Parvus was Helphand, Bohrin was Nathanson, and so on.
1918/1919: Mexico. After withdrawal of the Pershing expedition, our troops entered Mexico in pursuit of bandits at least three times in 1918 and six times in 1919. In August 1918 American and Mexican troops fought at Nogales.
1918/1920: Panama. For police duty according to treaty stipulations, at Chiriqual during election disturbances and subsequent unrest.
1918/1920: Soviet Russia. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American Consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the Western Front.
A joint proclamation of emergency government a neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French and Czech Commanders in July and our party remained until late August. In August the project expanded, when 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force.
In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel, in support of the Bolshevik Forces, suffered 500 casualties and remained until June 1919. A handful of Marines took part earlier in a British landing on the Murman Coast (Near Norway) but only incidentally.
All these operations were in support of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Bolshevik elements who participated at times with us, but no war was declared, and ALL operations were under the personal direction of then President Woodrow Wilson (A Marrano Jew. When the family lived in Germany and were openly Jewish, they spelled the name Wolfson.
Then when they moved to England they followed the Jewish custom of altering their name occasionally, to make it sound more Western, and it became Wohlson. And, then, when they moved to the United States, they changed it again, and this time it became Wilson) and Bernard Baruch,[119] who had been appointed Head of the War Industrials Board.
Baruch spent $10‑Billion dollars of American money, and giving his own companies the choicest contracts, on which he also could fix the prices, and made himself a multi‑ millionaire by fleecing the People of the United States; in typical Jewish fashion. Bernard Baruch pretended to be a patriot, while he was spending thousands to bring the Communist Church burners back from Spain where they had burned Christian Religious Leaders alive by covering them with Kerosene.[120]
1919: Dalmatia. U.S. Forces were landed at Trav at the request of Italian authorities to police order between the Italians and Serbs. Honduras. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was established to promote Communism and implementation of the evil objectives of the original Illuminati.
The supreme desire of the Synagogue of Satan, the Illuminati, CFR, and the Jewish International Bankers and gangsters is to turn the United States into a full fledged communist state in which the government owns everything and they, the bankers, own the government.
The bombings, burnings, police murdering, guerrilla warfare and Black Panther atrocities and bloody revolution were all planned by the CFR and receive financial support and backing from the wealthy CFR controlled foundations. The establishment of a one‑world totalitarian government has always been the main objective of the Jewish Talmudists since their return from Babylon three thousand years ago. In order to do this, they must first destroy Christianity, patriotism, nationalism, individualism and every traditional concept of right and wrong.
They must depersonalize, de‑Christianize, integrate, homogenize, and mongrelize the White Race. They must destroy marriage, family, home, Biblical Standards and faith in a Supreme Being. The majority of the legislation enacted by the Congress of the United States since 1921 has directly or indirectly contributed to the realization of their servants, the CFR, and its objectives. The Federal Reserve Act, Federal Income Tax, Civil Rights, Gun Laws, and Foreign Aid illustrate the trend towards internationalism, socialism, communism, and atheism.
Since the Rockefellers gave over a billion dollars to the notorious CFR and untold millions more to its subsidiaries, and since they largely determine its pro‑communist, one‑worldism policies, it seems entirely appropriate that the CFR should be called "The Rockefeller Foreign Office."
Not only have the Rockefellers financed and promoted and helped to determine the policies of the un‑American, pro‑communist, one‑world, Secret CFR organization which is nothing but an old Illuminati, Satanist front, but they have also willfully and knowingly financed Soviet factories that made the military supplies that were used to kill untold thousands of our American soldiers in Korea and Vietnam. The Rockefellers, through the CFR and other agencies, have worked unceasingly to promote and finance the enemy that is determined to destroy us.
1919: The Overman Committee in 1919, published a report of its findings, titled, "Bolshevik Propaganda Hearing Before the Congress," it recorded the testimony of Dr. George A. Simons, former superintendent of the Methodist Missions in Russia, from which we briefly quote: "We were told that hundreds of agitators had followed in the trail of Trotsky‑ Bronstein, these men having come over the lower east side of New York. Some of them when they learned that I was the American Pastor in Petrograd, stepped up to me and seemed very pleased that there was somebody who could speak English, and their broken English showed that they had not qualified as being Americans. A number of these men called on me and were impressed with the strange Yiddish element in this thing right from the beginning, and it soon became evident that more than half the agitators in the so‑called Bolshevik movement were Jews..."
The principles of World War I were not lofty. It was not a "War to end War," as proclaimed. For with just a little study it becomes clear there was no issue of freedom or world conquest as suggested by the Jewish Propagandists. The issue was World Trade, and the Establishment of A Jewish Communist State in Russia.
And Germany was a threat to the existing monopoly of the hierarchy of finance and of Communism. Which was the Jewish intention of extending the Communist occupation into Western Asia (See the enslavement of 7 additional countries immediately after the end of the war, and three more just four years later further significant steps toward the drive for world rule). Who won World War I? "It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains; War will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our International Agentur..." [121]
|
Only Communism and The International Jewish Bankers benefitted from it! It is by war that the International Bankers gleefully fill their coffers to over-flowing with the blood of millions of Christians and with billions in Gold! |
America did not win the war in reality, nor Britain, nor France nor any people from any nation, of those who fought and suffered and died. The Jews boast in the Protocols: "...think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinish (Atheism), Marxism (Communism), Nazism (Socialism)..."
1919: "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with many of the highest ideals of Judaism." [122]
1919: The New World Order by Samuel Zane Batten is published by the American Baptist Publication Society. Founding of Thule Society in Germany; Hitler recruited. League of Nations founded at Paris Peace Conference. Meeting at the Majestic Hotel, Paris, between Wilsonian intellectuals (House, Dulles and Dulles, etc.) and "like‑minded Englishmen" to discuss forming an organization "for the study of international affairs." Royal Institute of International Affairs founded. Freud draws attention to Austrian neurologist Poetzl's experiments with the tachistroscope, an early device for studying subliminal perception. Charles Fort's The Book of the Damned published. Hitler joins the German Workers' Party.
In this book, Batten declares: "The old order passes from view; the new world ruses upon our vision...We have vindicated the right of social control...There must be developed a national spirit of service...Society must break the strangle-hold of capitalism...the natural resources of the nation must be socialized...The state must socialize every group...Men must learn to have world patriotism. World patriotism must be a faith...There is no more justice for the claim of absolute sovereignty on the part of a nation than on the part of an individual...The only alternative is World Federation...with a world parliament, an international court, and an international police force...Men must have an international mind before there can be a world federation. They must see an affirm that above the nation is humanity. Internationalism must first be a religion before it can be a reality and a system."
The Political Scene: An Essay on the Victory of 1918 by Walter Lippmann is published. Lippmann had joined the British Fabian Society and the Intercollegiate Socialist Society before becoming a founding member of the CFR, having served on Colonel House's "Inquiry" group which helped construct the League of Nations.
In this book, Lippmann expresses his delight that the First World War "is dissolving into a stupendous revolution" in April 1917, and says that the forces causing this to happen "must be turned to a great end and offered a great hope. That great end and that great hope is nothing less than the federation of the world," which would be based on socialism.
1920: The New World Order by Frederick Charles Hicks, law librarian of Columbia University, is published in which he suggests that among the most power few of the Great Powers, the example must be set to "cooperate, here and there, piece by piece, in limiting the exercise of their sovereign rights." Assassination of estimated 400 German public figures begins. U.S. entry into League of Nations blocked in Senate. Development of modern advertising techniques emphasizing manipulation rather than information. GWP becomes the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Assassination of estimated 400 German public figures begins. U.S. entry into League of Nations blocked in Senate. Development of modern advertising techniques emphasizing manipulation rather than information.
He quotes A.L. Howell regarding the League of Nations as saying: "Vigorous objection has been made in the United States to partnership in a league that would have authority to order this country what to do in case of an attack against another member of the League. The objection is not without cogency..." Hicks also says: "It is contended, with very cogent arguments, that in the present, the League not only has the Council, and to a lesser degree the assembly, legislative and executive power, but judicial power also...We find in Article 8 what appears to be a statement of a new rule. 'The members of the League recognize that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.'"
1922: March 26: New York City Mayor John Hylan speaking in Chicago states: "The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation.
Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self-created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. It squirms in the jaws of darkness and thus is the better able to clutch the reins of government, secure enactment of the legislation favorable to corrupt business, violate the law with impunity, smother the press and reach into the courts.
To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international (Jewish) bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.
They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.
They connive at centralization of government on the theory that a small group of hand-picked, privately controlled individuals in power can be more easily handled than a larger group among whom there will most likely be men sincerely interested in public welfare. These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government."
These remarks were quoted in the March 27, 1922 New York Times and are reminiscent of the comments of a former chief of The New York Times editorial page, John Swinton, who before the turn of the last century wrote in his book, A Momentous Question: The Respective Attitudes of labor and Capital, that: "We know the powers that are defying the people...Our Government is in the hands of pirates. All the power of politics, and of Congress, and of the administration is under the control of the moneyed interests...The adversary has the force of capital, thousands of millions of which are in his hand...
He will grasp the knife of law, which he has so often wielded in his interest. He will lay hold of his forces in the legislature. He will make use of his forces in the press, which are always waiting for the wink, which is as good as a nod to a blind horse...Political rings are managed by skillful and unscrupulous political gamblers, who possess the 'machine' by which the populace are at once controlled and crushed."
May 1, 1920: In The New York Times, Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, is quoted as saying: "W.Z. Foster (head of the American Communist Party), who had no money, went to Moscow and came back and announced that he was building a great secret machine to undermine the American labor movement and turn it over to the Red International, owned by Lenin. He began publication of an expensive magazine and proclaimed 'a thousand secret agents in a thousand communities.'"
1920/1922: Russia (Siberia). An American Marine guard to protect the United States radio station and property on Russian Island, Bay of Vladivostok. Thus prohibiting the use of the Radio Station from being used by anti‑Bolshevik elements.
1921: Council on Foreign Relations incorporated; founded by Wilsonians House, Dulles and company upon their return from Paris, with the help of the Round Table Group. Marconi states he believes mysterious V code on pre‑WWI radio came from space; Tesla recalls seeing lights, vivid images, when he was a boy. Hitler takes over the NSGWP.
1921: Panama/Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.
1922: Mussolini, alleged British Intelligence agent, comes to power in Italy, begins attempt to eliminate Mafia in Sicily. Cheka reorganized as GPU, Russian secret police. CFR journal Foreign Affairs founded. King Tutankhamen's tomb opened in Egypt, thus invoking "King Tut's Curse"; 14 violent deaths in as many years linked to the curse.
1922: Turkey. A landing force was sent ashore with the consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities, to protect American lives and property when the Turkish Nationalists entered Smyrna.
Do you see the pattern yet? Every time, since 1913, someone threatened the Jewish conspiracy, the international banking, or international oil interests American troops were sent in; no matter what the consequences in lost respect or American lives.
1922/1923: China. Between April 1922 and Nov. 1923, marines were landed five times to protect Americans during periods of unrest.
1923: Assassination of Pancho Villa in Mexico. Founding of Hitler's National‑Socialist (Nazi) Party in Germany. International Police (Interpol) founded in Vienna. In the face of the Teapot Dome and other scandals, President Harding visits Alaska and receives a "long ciphered message" which visibly upsets him, causing him to ask what a president could do when friends betrayed him; he died soon after among conflicting rumors about the cause of his death. Fort's New Lands published.
1924: J. Edgar Hoover takes over FBI. During Mars' closest approach radios around the world went off the air in order to allow interception of any possible messages from space; when translated onto photographic tape, signals received produced crudely drawn faces. Lovecraft ghostwrites for Houdini.
1924: Uzbe, Turkmen and Outer Mongolia added to the Communist Block. Honduras. To protect American lives and interests during election hostilities. China. Marines were landed to protect Americans and other foreigners in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities. "We intend to remake the Gentiles ‑‑ what the Communists are doing in Russia." [123] The power of the Bank of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers. In January, 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915‑16, as Chairman of the Board of the Midland Bank, told its stockholders: "I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people." One must ask the question: "Who creates credit out of thin air, and is receiving the interest on the national debt of every debt ridden country in the world?" Most individuals believe the Governments create money; if this were true, there would be no national debt!!!
1925: China. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai necessitated landing American forces to protect lives and property in the International Settlement. Honduras. To protect foreigners at La Celba during a political upheaval. Panama. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests. Lionel Curtis organizes the Institutes of Pacific Relations in at least ten countries for the Round Table Group.
1926: China. The nationalist attack on Hankow necessitated the landing of American naval forces to protect American Citizens. A small guard was maintained at the disposal of the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nationalist (anti‑Communist) forces captured Klukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners.
1926: "It is often said that Judaism is the driving force of Communism; but this does not prove anything beyond that which is expected and only natural...Is it surprising that Judaism should be come the fermenting and destructive element in countries which have always despised and persecuted it? That peculiar facility for intrigue, stratagem, conspiracies, and that patient, almost uncanny waiting for the hour of never‑failing revenge, are all characteristics of the chosen people." [124]
"Let us recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shake of belief, is necessarily a member. Organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be counted with us, or prove himself wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people." [125]
1926: Suicide of synchronicity researcher Paul Krammerer, biologist, freemason. Holism and Evolution by Jan Christian Smuts is published describing "the foundations of a new world order of the universe."
Smuts' holism is a synthesis or unity of parts, and he emphasizes "self-determination" and "self-fulfillment" along with "an ideal of harmonious co-operation, of unselfish mutual service." Smuuts' holism is like that of noted psychologist Alfred Adler (whose granddaughter has had experience as a priestess of a Wiccan coven).
Smuts drafted many of the Clauses of the League of Nations Covenant (his plan for the League of Nations was published December 16, 1918), and he said, "Europe is being liquidated and the League of Nations must be heir to this great estate."
Smuts would also be one of the drafters of the preamble for the United Nations, and his holistic approach was adopted by Alger Hiss, who persuaded the World Health Organization to define health as not simply including physical and mental well-being, but so broadly as to include social well-being as well. This holistic approach would later be the basis for humanistic education in schools, and for the distinction between "human being" and "person" in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade abortion decision, as well as the high court's accompanying 1973 Doe V. Bolton ruling defining "health" as including emotional well-being.
Perhaps also relevant is the fact that Smuts and Alfred Adler conducted a correspondence, and among Adler's fourteen basic assumptions, one finds "the freedom to choose," "self-determination, self-realization and self-actualization" (which Abraham Maslow, the founder of Humanistic or Third Force Psychology, would adopt), and that man should be "socially contributive and interested in the common welfare" and whose "tasks" are those of "society, work and sex." Smuts also influenced Frederic (Fritz) Perls, the principal founder of Gestalt therapy, which is a holistic, self-actualizing approach emphasizing the here-and-now. Perls would become important to the Esalen Institute, which would later hose Russian leader Boris Yeltsin a number of times. At Esalen, Perls was known for conducting "guided daydreams," which New York psychiatrist Dr. Milton Kline (a specialist in hypnotherapy) said sounded exactly like hypnosis.
1926-1933: Nicaragua. The coup d'etat of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American Marines to protect the INTERESTS of the United States. U.S. Forces came and went, but seem not to have left the country entirely until January 3, 1933. Their work included activity against the outlaw leader Sandino in 1928.
1927: China. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and marines to be increased there. In March a naval guard was stationed at the American Consulate at Nanking after Nationalist (anti‑Communist) forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire to protect Americans and other foreigners. Following this incident additional forces of marines and naval vessels were ordered to China and stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientain.
1927: "The two Internationales of Finance and Revolution work with ardor, they are the two fronts of the Jewish Internationale. There is a Jewish conspiracy against all nations." [126]
1928: "The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order the Children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come the Jews will have all the property of he whole world in their hands." [127]
1928: Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw's "The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism," is published, in which he reveals that "...under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner..." Gladbeck, Germany:
This occurred at the time of Purim; a twenty-year-old Christian lad called Helmuth Daube was found dead in front of his home, with his throat cut, his genital organs missing, while there were wounds on the hands and stabs in the abdomen. There was no blood about where the body was found and it was bloodless. Experts said in Court that the throat showed the Jewish ritual cut. The Jews set to work and eventually a young Gentile called Huszmann was accused of the murder, unnatural lust being alleged as a feature in the crime.
The case was conducted against Huszmann by a Jew called Rosenbaum, and special police had been sent from Berlin to enquire about the circumstances; the President of the Police at Berlin was the Jew Bernhard Weiss. These special police did what they could to convince the Court that it was a "lust-murder," but Huszmann was acquitted. The Bochumer Abendblatt and Der Sturmer both gave their opinion that it was a Ritual Murder by Jews, and the latter paper was suppressed for a time, and its editor imprisoned.
1929: The Federal Reserve manipulations produced the greatest depression in American History for political purposes. And to enable the International Bankers to consolidate their control over all the banks in America and to make millions upon millions by buying up real estate, farms and ranches for pennies on the dollar as the original owners were forced out or off their lands, homes, stores or factories.
Winston Churchill's change of attitude toward Zionism between WW I and WW II was purchased. Bernard Baruch (Jew) and Henry Strakosch (Jew) saved him from bankruptcy in the crash of 1929. He was America's quasi‑official dictator in WW I. He later told Congress: "I probably had more power during the war than any other man in the war; doubtless that is true." [128]
1929: "Only recently our race has given the world a new prophet, but he has two faces and bears two names; on the one side, his name is Rothschild, leader of all capitalists, and on the other Karl Marx, the apostle of those who want to destroy the other." [129]
1929: Mr. Ettinger, a Zionist lawyer, in May 1929 submitted a report to the Zionist Conference at Sydney, Australia, from which the following is extracted: "The Zionist Organization is a body unique in character, with practically all the functions and duties of a government, but deriving its strength and resources not from one territory but from some seventy‑two different countries...The supreme government is in the hands of the Zionist Congress, composed of over 200 delegates, representing shekel‑payers of all countries. Congress meets once every two years. Its (supreme government) powers between sessions are then delegated to the Committee (Sanhedrin)."
The Sanhedrin (the Zionist Legislative Ruling Committee) is defined in the Zionist Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Judaica) as a group of scholars which functions as a supreme court and as a legislature. The resources of the Zionist government come from several sources, but mainly consist of grants to the country of Israel from taxpaying citizens worldwide or tax deductible contributions from wealthy Jews made to the Jewish National Relief Fund or the Ma'aser.
The common Jewish people are encouraged by their own Kehillah to pay their fair share for the preservation and improvement of the Jewish race. Ettinger went on to say: "Ma'aser is the tenth part or tithe of his capital and income which every Jew has naturally been obligated over the generations of their history to give for the benefit of Jewish movements...The tithe principle has been accepted in its most stringent form. The Zionist Congress declared it as the absolute duty of every Zionist to pay tithes to the Ma'aser. It added that those Zionists who failed to do so, should be deprived of their offices and honorary positions."
1929: Manau, Germany: A five-year-old Christian boy named Kessler disappeared on March 17th. The body was found in the woods, with his throat cut from ear to ear superficially, while there was a deep stab in the neck cutting the main vessels. The body was bloodless and there was no blood found near it. It was just before Passover and the local Jewish butcher had suddenly disappeared. Dr. Burgel, the Court doctor, said it was a case of Ritual Murder. The Jewish Money Power got to work to influence the authorities and public opinion. Before the official inquiry, the Public Prosecutor announced that it was not a case of Ritual Murder. The Judge decided the boy had met with an accidental stab from the branch of a tree or from an animal's horn, and the case was dropped. No one was ever arrested for the crime.
1932: Panderborn, Germany: Martha Kaspar was the Gentile servant in the household of a Jewish butcher named Meyer. This man had a son Kurt, and this Kurt had sexual relations with the servant who became pregnant. She demanded that he should marry her, and the father and son promised that this should happen, but secretly decided to murder her.
On March 18th, near Purim, she disappeared. Two days later some human flesh was found on the road, and the Jewish Press began to spread the idea that there had been a "lust-murder." Investigation revealed blood on Kurt's clothes and in a hayloft of Meyer's, and both the Myers were arrested.
Dr. Frank, a Jewish lawyer, succeeded in getting the father certified as a lunatic and sent to an asylum, but he was soon freed and fled the country. The son, Kurt, said he had attempted to procure an abortion, and that he had cut the girl's body up and distributed it in various places; a doctor told the Court that some litres of blood must have been taken.
Later, Kurt said he had killed the girl in a fit of temper. The Court brought in a verdict of man-slaughter, and sentenced Kurt Meyer to 15 years' imprisonment. The general newspapers did not report the case; Der Sturmer said it was Ritual Murder, and was suppressed for a time.
It should be noted that these cases occurred at a time when the Jews were supreme in Germany just before the Hitler revolution, when it was easy to suppress all expression of opinion as to the true nature of the murders. Since we are going to leave off most of the presentation of Jewish Ritual Murder at this point, we should perhaps present what the churches have had to say about it.
The Attitude of The Catholic Church
Towards Jewish Ritual Murder
The Jews say Pope Innocent IV, Gregory X, Martin V, Nicholas V, Paul III, Clement XII and Clement XIV have all expressed disbelief in the Ritual Murder practice of the Jews.
First take the case of Innocent IV, who issued Bulls about the matter on May 28th and July 5th, 1247, and again on September, 25th, 1253. The first of these simply demanded that no action should be taken against the Jews on a Ritual Murder charge unless they have been tried and found guilty; the Bull of 1253 defended the Jews against the charge of Ritual Murder because the Old Testament did not sanction that practice. But the views of Innocent IV are dealt with in the Catholic Bulletin, Dublin, August, 1916, pp. 435-438, from which we will quote.
The late Lord Rothschild was greatly perturbed about a Ritual Murder trial which was going on at Kiev in 1913, and which has been described above. He wrote a letter to Cardinal Merry del Val, asking him to state whether the Bull of Innocent IV dated July 5, 1247, was authentic; Lord Rothschild said that this Bull declared that Ritual Murder was "an unfounded and perfidious invention." When the Cardinal replied that the letter was authentic, this was taken to mean that Innocent IV had denied the existence of ritual murder by the Jews. But note that no such statement as Baron Rothschild imputed to Innocent IV was contained in the Bull. Let the Catholic Bulletin deal with the matter in its own words: "The document (the Bull) consists of two parts, one part sums up the case as presented by the Jews themselves. The Pope states that he has received a complaint that the Jews are being oppressed and pillaged by both ecclesiastical and secular princes, that they are being cast into prison, and even put to death, without trial or confession of guilt, that they are being falsely accused of ritual crime which they assert is manifestly opposed to their law, namely the Divine Scriptures. The second part, which alone expresses the Pope's mind, is as follows: 'not wishing, therefore, that the said Jews be unjustly harassed, whose conversion God expects in his mercy...we wish that you should show yourselves benign and favorable toward them. Restore to their proper state those of the mentioned matters that you find to have been rashly attempted by the said Nobles against the Jews, and do not permit that in the future they should be for those or similar pretexts unjustly molested by anyone.'
Jews must consider Christians to be very uncritical and gullible if they think they can be induced to accept this document as a papal declaration that ritual crime does not exist. It is obvious that the Sovereign Pontiff merely gives instructions according to general principles, ordering that the Jews should not be unjustly oppressed or molested. He makes no pronouncement whatever regarding the truth or falsehood of the specific charges. Naturally, he must leave the decision regarding this point to the judgment of the bishops to whom he writes. Least of all was he likely to be impressed by the sophistry that ritual crime could not exist among the Jews because it was forbidden in the sacred Scriptures. None could know better than he that it was not the teaching of the Scriptures, but the infamous teachings of the Talmud that caused people to look upon Jews as a grave danger to society. Only three years before the appearance of his letter, namely in 1244, he showed plainly what he thought of the Talmud by pressing Louis IX to collect from his subjects all the copies he could obtain and consign them to the flames."
Before leaving Innocent IV, we must realize the typical Jewish cunning exhibited by Rothschild in exploiting the answer of Cardinal del Val regarding the authenticity of the letter as confirming an interpretation of that letter's contents by Rothschild. Gregory X in a Bull of October 7th, 1272, is a little more explicit than Innocent IV; the same exhortation is made for legal trial of all cases, but he says that they should "not be arrested again on such groundless charges unless (which we think impossible) they are captured in flagrant crime." Gregory thus does not deny that the crime exists; he says he thinks it is impossible.
Pope Martin V, Nicholas V, Paul III and Clement XIII issued statements which show to anyones satisfaction, although not apparently to that of some anti-Jew writers, that they did not wish to support the opinion that the Ritual Murder charge was a true one against the Jews. Then we come to Clement XIV. Before he became Pope, he was Cardinal Ganganelli. He was despatched by the Inquisition in 1759 to investigate Ritual Murder charges against the Jews in Poland, and he wrote a long report about it.
This report is quoted in full in Roth's Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew and is, in deed, the only "evidence" brought forward by Roth in that book, published in 1935.
From beginning to the end of Ganganelli's report, there is nothing that a scientific investigator would regard as evidence that Ritual Murder was not practiced by the Jews. The Polish case he admits were juridically decided; and he brings forward examples of definitely false charges of Ritual Murder which as everyone knows have arisen, but which do not in the least affect the question as to whether Ritual Murder happens or not. He merely opposes his opinion to those of the men in authority on the spot.
But there is more. Definitely, and far from being able to refute the charge of Ritual Murder against the Jews, Ganganelli admitted the Ritual Murder of St. Simon of Trent and of St. Andreas of Rinn in these words: "I admit then, as true, the fact of the Blessed Simon, a boy three years old, killed by the Jews in Trent in the year 1475 in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ;" and "I also admit the truth of another fact, which happened in the year 1462 in the village of Rinn, in the Diocese of Brixen, in the person of the Blessed Andreas, a boy barbarously murdered by the Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ."
One thing concerning Ganganelli's report seems to have escaped the notice of other anti-Jewish workers, and to our mind damns the report from the beginning; in undertaking an investigation such as that with which Ganganelli was confronted, one should surely start with an unbiased outlook? Read Gangaelli's admission about his own outlook when he went to Poland to investigate: "With my weak faculties, I endeavored to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime which was imputed to the Jewish nation in Poland."
The Cardinal set forth, not to find out whether Ritual Murder existed in Poland or not, but "to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime" And yet, he had to admit the crimes of Trent and of Rinn. Thus, the book Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, by the Jewish author Roth, which relies entirely upon Ganganelli for its material, is valueless except to the anti-Jewish worker to whom it is a God-send. Yet, what a good "press" this book had when it was published in 1935.
The Morning Post greeted it (January 14, 1935) with headlines "Ritual Murder: Jewish people absolved: striking denunciation," and called the book "a final and incontrovertible refutation of the hideous Ritual Murder accusation." It is clear that the critic had either never taken the trouble to read the book or was deliberately misleading the public as to its contents; it is no "incontrovertible refutation;" it is an unscientific conglomeration of irrelevant matter, with a confession of bias and of the truth of the Ritual Murder accusation itself. The Catholic Times (February 15, 1935) says: "The learned Cardinal completely refutes the persecutors of the Jews and conclusively shows the flimsiness of the charges against them and their inherent absurdity." Ganganelli "completely refutes" nothing, and all that he "conclusively shows" is that Ritual Murders were a Jewish practice. The Birmingham Mail, September 22, 1936, is typical of the attitude of the "British" critics of the book: "It is symptomatic of the unhealthy state of the Continental mind that credence can be given in certain parts of Europe to the atrocious libel in which it is alleged that Christian blood is a necessary concomitant of the Jewish Passover celebrations." Although the book was widely advertised when it came out, the Jews seem to have realized that it merely gives evidence in favor of Ritual Murder, for it is no longer possible to get a copy. Thus Clement XIV, far from being a witness for the defense of the Jews, is an unwilling witness of the truth of the anti-Jewish accusation. But, what of the Popes who have supported the Ritual Murder accusation by their acts?
There are many. Sixtus IV approved in his Bull XII Kal. July 1478, of the conduct of the Bishop who dealt with the Jews in the St. Simon case at Trent. The Jews endeavored to enlist Sixtus IV on their side by pointing out that he had suspended the cult of St. Simon of Trent; this was done by Sixtus IV solely as a disciplinary measure, for Simon had not yet been beatified by papal authority, but was being made the center of a local cult. Gregory XIII recognized Simon as a martyr and himself visited the shrine. Sixtus V ratified the cult of St. Simon in 1588, allowing the celebration of mass in his name. This is confirmed as a fact by Benedict XIV. Benedict XIV himself in a Bull Beatus Andreas (1778, Venice, IV, p. 101 seq.), beatified both Simon and Andreas, two Christian boys murdered by the Jews "in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ;" "the Jews," he said, "used every means to escape the just anger of the Christians." How significant of the methods of the advocates for the Jews, to note that in Strack's book, no mention whatever is made of Benedict XIV's Bull, although the actions of Sixtus IV are wilfully misinterpreted.
Pius VII, November 24, 1805, confirmed a decree of the Congregation of Rites of August 31 according to the Church at Saragossa the right to honor Dominiculus, killed by the Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ. He also authorized for the church at Toledo the same privilege in respect to St. Christopher, the boy crucified by the Jews near that place in 1490.
In 1867, the Congregation of Rites authorized the cult of Lorenzino, at Vicenza, Padua, ritually murdered by the Jews. Gregory XVI, also, gave his support to the anti-Jewish accusers when he honored Gougenot des Mousseaux by making him a Chevailer of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, in reward for writing his book, Le Juif, le Judaisme et la Judaisation des Peuples Chrétiéns, in which Gougenot des Mousseaux devoted a chapter charging the Jews with Ritual Murder of Christians for the sake of their blood.
Pius IX refused to see the Jew Montefiore when the latter was returning from his visits to Egypt and to Constantinople, where he had bribed the Khedive and the sultan so that the Jews at Damascus could escape the consequences of their guilt of the Ritual Murder of Father Thomas and his servant; this, in spite of a shameless Jewish persistence which has been fully described in Sir Moses Montefiore's biography. That showed what Pius IX thought about it, and he himself was of Jewish blood. Pope Leo XIII bestowed distinctions on Edouard Drumont, author of La France Juive, who accused the Jews of Ritual Murder therein.[130]
In summary: The Popes who have appeared to disbelieve the existence of the Ritual Murder crime have, with the exception of Clement XIII, been those who lived in the least enlightened times; many later Popes have given very clear evidence that they hold the opposite opinion. You will just have to judge for yourself, as we are not trying to convince you of anything, just to present the facts of history.
Remember that although other martyred boys, victims of Jewish Ritual Murder, have been regarded in many places as saints without papal authority, there is no record of papal disapproval of these cults except in the case of Sixtus IV, already mentioned, whose action was purely disciplinary, and who himself specifically approved of the conduct of the Ritual Murder Case to which the matter referred. Such locally beatified "saints" or martyrs were St. William of Norwich (1144), St. Richard of Pontoise (1179), St. Hugh of Lincoln (1255), St. Werner of Oberwesel (1286) and St. Rudolph of Berne (1287). In every such case it is quite obvious that the cult had the full approval at least of the episcopal authorities over the places mentioned.
Those who condemn the Blood Accusation as a wicked invention for the purpose of persecuting Jews and robbing them, must at the same time condemn wholesale some of the highest dignitaries of the Catholic Church, men against whom nothing is known beyond that they had excellent characters, like William Turbe, Bishop of Norwick, to give an English example. When one peruses the details of the cases cited they will realize that Episcopal Courts have dealt with many of them; in other words, the Jews were condemned by the existing religious authority of the day. Father Creagh, Redemptorist, publicly accused the Jews of the practice of Ritual Murder, on January 11, 1904, in a speech in Limerick. [131]
The Attitude of The Protestant Churches
The Protestant Church appears to have allied itself to Jewry, if one may judge from the principal views expressed by those on television and radio today. These views are almost invariably similar to those expressed by Masons, and are almost always pernicious. However, there was a time when Protestants were Protestants, unaffected by Masonry or by the powerful propaganda of which Jewish money is the source. Martin Luther seems to have had an inkling of the true nature of the Jews when he said: "How the Jews love the Book of Esther, which is so suitable to their bloodthirsty, revengeful, murderous appetite and hopes. The sun has never shone on such a bloodthirsty and revengeful people, who fancy themselves to be the chosen people so that they can murder and strangle the heathen." [132]
This seems plain speaking enough; but we find the Jewish author, C. Roth, [133], citing Martin Luther as having condemned the "libel" of Ritual Murder "in unqualified terms." However, the Jewish Encyclopedia definitely states that Luther charged the Jews with Ritual Murders. [134]
At Magdeburg in 1562, a Protestant History of the Christian Church was compiled, called the Magdenburg Centuries; it was compiled by a number of Lutheran theologians headed by M. Flacius, and was first published at Basle as the Historia Ecclesia Christi. This work records the Ritual Murders of Blois, Pontoise (Paris), Braisne, Fulda, Berne and Oberwesel.
John Foxe in his Acts and Monuments of the Church (1563) says: "For every year commonly their (the Jews') custom was to get some Christian man's child from his parents and on Good Friday to crucify him in despite of our religion."
He describes the ritual crucifixion of British children by Jews at Norwich and Lincoln, before the expulsion. The learned and distinguished Puritan, William Prynne, a fearless fighter against evil, in his Short Demurrer to the Jews long discontinued Remitter into England, 1656, gave details and references of the Ritual Murders at Norwich, Glouchester, and Bury St. Edmunds in England, and those of Blois, Braisne, Richard "of Paris," Fulda, Prague, Werner of Oberwesel, Rudolph of Berne, Simon of Trent and others. In Book I, p. 67, he says: "The Jews...have ofttimes...maliciously acted it (crucifixion) over and again in representation...by crucifying sundry Christian children on Good Friday or near Easter, on a Crosse, in a most barbarous manner, in derision of our Saviour's death and passion." On p. 68 he quotes several authorities "that the Jews in Paris did every year steal some Christian child, or another brought up in the King's Court, and carrying him to a secret house or vault, did, on Good Friday or Easter-Day, in contempt and derision of Christ and Christian religion, crucify him on a Crosse...and that they have been frequently apprehended, persevering in this wickedness; for which, upon Direction, they were usually murdered, stoned, burned, destroyed, hanged, by the furious multitude's violence, or executed, imprisoned, banished by Christian Kings and Magistrates, yet such was their malice to Christ, that they would still persevere therein, and act it over again upon every opportunity." This book of Prynne's, which ran into two editions, is in the British Museum and Guildhall Libraries, but is unobtainable, though stated by booksellers to be of no great rarity or value; in the London Library there is no copy, but there is a Jewish refutation of it. America has been so carefully schooled by the Jewish Money Power, that it has been able to destroy or rarefy almost all sources of information on Ritual Murder, that the Protestant Church has come to believe that the thing is a mere relic of medieval superstition.
1934: China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate. In January 1934, Vladimir Jabotinsky continued his hateful agitation and politics against Germany from East Europe. He published the following in Mascha Rjetsch: "The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a Great Nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany..."
1934: Again we find the Jewish Declaration of War: "Judea declares War on Germany." [135]; "Germany must be turned into a Waste Land, as happened there during the 30‑year War." [136]
In summarizing the machinations of such a ruling elite. The late Carroll Quigley, a former professor at Georgetown University, who spent more than twenty years researching and writing a 1360‑page Baedeker, Tragedy and Hope, said: "The history of the last century shows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they have given to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally."
Professor Quigley identified the international banking families without fanfare. They include Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan. Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry through the emergence of financial capitalism, they remained different from the ordinary baker on the corner of Main Street in these distinctive ways: They
1). Were cosmopolitan and international.
2). Were close to governments.
3). Were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life.
"J.P. Morgan and Company" gives the connotation of a non‑Jewish enterprise. It was, however, quite the opposite. This firm, like others of the International Banking Fraternity, constantly operated through corporations and governments yet remained an obscure private partnership. It was originally founded in London as George Peabody and Company in 1838, was not incorporated until March 21, 1940, and went out of existence as a separate entity on April 24, 1959, when it merged with its most important commercial bank subsidiary, the Guaranty Trust Company. The London affiliate, Morgan Grenfell, was incorporated in 1934.
George Peabody had established his business in England through his connection with Brown Brothers. He had become an unidentified agent for Lord Rothschild as early as 1835. As George Peabody had no son to take over his firm, he took on Junius Morgan as partner; Junius's son, John Pierpont Morgan, became known as "the most powerful banker in the world," although his principal role was to secretly carry out commissions for the House of Rothschild. "Marxism is the modern form of Jewish prophecy." [137]
1934: Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's "Baby Code" would have permitted only the "fit" to procreate, but it wasn't only Sanger who wanted the New World Order of the future to be a eugenic one.
In 1904, the Carnegie Institution had financed the establishment of a biological experimental station related to eugenics at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson as governor of New Jersey had signed into law a brutal sterilization bill, and in that same year the First International Congress on Eugenics was held with vice-presidents, Winston Churchill, Alexaner Graham Bell, and Charles Eliot (president of Harvard University).
On January 14 of the next year, Theodore Roosevelt wrote that we should be "frowning on the fecundity of unworthy types," and in 1921 vice-president-elect Calvin Coolidge wrote that "Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend." Later, in British historian Christopher Thorne's Allies of a Kind, one reads that President Franklin Roosevelt, "felt in order to talk, jokingly, of dealing with Puerto Rico's excessive birth rate by employing, in his own words, 'the methods which Hitler used effectively.'"
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commission on Social Studies of the American Historical Association is published. The work of the commission was financed ($340,000) by the Carnegie Corporation, and Professor Harld Laski (philosopher of British socialism) would later say of the Commission's report: "At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the report is an educational program for a Socialist America." [138]
In the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Yearbook for this year, one reads that the Endowment, "is becoming an unofficial instrument of international policy, taking up here and there the ends and threads of international problems and questions which the governments find it difficult to handle, and through private initiative reaching conclusions which are not of a formal nature but which unofficially find their way into the policies of government."
1935: April 21: "Nine Groups Instead of the 48 States" is published in the New York Times Magazine. Using the same rationales as those used near the end of the 20th century by proponents of world government, Delbert Clark describes how certain members of Congress (including Sen. Robert Wagner, NY) would organize the nation into nine departments rather than 48 states (President Nixon broke the nation up into ten regions instead of nine). Assassination of Senator Huey Long. First lobotomy performed by Egas Moniz in Lisbon.
1935: The Russian Communist Government, under Stalin's rule, was so shaky that the Russian Army was on the verge of being defeated by tiny Finland; one of America's most staunch friends. And with the diversion of just a tiny fraction of the millions of tons of war equipment being shipped to Europe daily, America could have saved Finland and dealt a death blow to Stalin and to Communism. Then just two years later, when Hitler and the Germany Army had cleared Eastern Europe of the Bolshevik plague; and had accepted the eager surrender of millions of Russian soldiers; was knocking at the door of Moscow Russia's Communist rule was once again on the verge of collapse. Thus, America, at the cost of thousands of dead and wounded American Troops, through orders of the Great TRAITOR Roosevelt, in an unheard of frenzy, rushed billions in military aid to Russia. Saving Stalin and with one monstrous Satanic Act, saved the entire Jewish‑ Communist‑Zionist World offensive from extinction.
1935: Prior to WW II the Jewish Zionists enjoyed a visibly protected political status in Germany: "In fact, about 600 newspapers were officially banned during 1933. Others were unofficially silenced by street methods. The exceptions included (The Jewish) Judische Rundschau, the ZVfD's Weekly and several other Jewish publications. German Zionism's weekly was hawked on street corners and displayed at newsstands. When Chaim Arlosoroff visited Zionist headquarters in London on June 1, he emphasized, 'The Rundschau is of crucial importance today for the Zionists. Every day it gets fifty to sixty new subscribers.' By the end of 1933 Judische Rundschau circulation had in fact jumped to more than 38,000; four to five times its 1932 circulation.
Although many influential Aryan publications were forced to restrict their page size to conserve newsprint, Judische Rundschau was not affected until mandatory newsprint rationing in 1937. And while stringent censorship of all German publications was enforced from the outset, Judische Rundschau was allowed relative press freedoms. Although two issues of it were suppressed when they published Chaim Arlosoroff's outline for a capital transfer, such seizures were rare. Other than the ban on anti‑Nazi boycott references, printing atrocity stories, and criticizing the Reich, Judische Rundschau was essentially exempt from the so‑called Gleichschaltung or 'uniformity' demanded by the Nazi party of all facets of German society. Juedische Rundschau was free to preach Zionism as a wholly separate political philosophy ‑‑ indeed, the only separate political philosophy sanction by the Third Reich. In 1933, Hebrew became an encouraged course in all Jewish schools. By 1935, uniforms for Zionist youth corps were permitted ‑‑ the only non‑Nazi uniform allowed in Germany. When the Nuremburg Laws in late 1935 stripped German Jewry of their citizenship, it became illegal for Jews to raise the German flag; The same Law, however, stipulated: German Jewry could raise the Star of David-Emblazoned Zionist Flag..."
The Prayer Room of the U.S. Capitol has two Jewish menorahs, but no Cross.
"There is only one Power which really counts: The Power of Political Pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on Earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." [139]; "How do you account for the fact that so many young Jews may be found in the radical movements of all the lands?" [140]
1936: "Marxism, you say, is the bitterest opponent of capitalism, which is sacred to us. For the simple reason that they are opposite poles, they deliver over to us the two poles of the earth and permit us to be its axis. These two opposites, Bolshevism and ourselves, find ourselves identified in the Internationale. And these two opposites, the doctrine of the two poles of society, meet in their unity of purpose, the renewal of the world from above by the control of wealth, and from below by revolution." [141] Beginning of Moscow Purge trials in which numerous communist leaders were brainwashed into false confessions and then executed.
1937: Spanish Civil War begins. First of 48 "Lost Colony" stones found in North Carolina; stones supposedly tell the story of lost Roanoke Island colony. Amelia Earhart Putnam, aviator, disappears.
1937: The Jews leave no stone unturned in their hate campaign against the German people. Why did the German people detest the Jews? Answer: they realized their land had been Occupied, just as so many other nations have been since before the Age of Rome: "In (pre‑WW II) Berlin, for example, when the Nazis came to power, 50.2% of the lawyers were Jews...48% of the doctors were Jews. The Jews owned the largest and most important Berlin newspapers, and made great inroads on the educational system." [142]
Rather than simply milling around like bleating sheep, German patriots tried to save their people by pressuring aliens and parasites to immigrate (The True "Final Solution"). Jewish reaction? Like bloodsuckers being plucked off an artery. Afterwards Germany's economy flourished without inflation, an achievement that: "...had rarely been praised, and not much remarked." [143]; "If the tide of history does not turn toward Communist Internationalism then the Jewish race is doomed." [144]; "The present program of palliative relief must give way to a program of fundamental reconstruction. American democracy must be socialized by subjecting industrial production and distribution to the will of the People's Congress. The first step is to abolish the federal veto and to enlarge the express powers of the national government through immediate constitutional amendment. A gradual march in the direction of socialization will follow." [145]; "The modern Socialist movement is in great part the work of the Jews, who impress on it the mark of their brains; it was they who took a preponderant part in the directing of the first Socialist Republic...The present world Socialism forms the first step of the accomplishment of Mosaism, the start of the realization of the future state of the world announced by our prophets. It is not till there shall be a League of Nations; it is not till its Allied Armies shall be employed in an effective manner for the protection of the feeble that we can hope that the Jews will be able to develop, without impediment in Palestine, their national State; and equally it is only a League of nations penetrated with the Socialist spirit that will render possible for us the enjoyment of our international necessities, as well as our national ones..." [146]
1937: On July 8, 1937, the New York Times noted that Professor Wilheim, a German historian, had said: "The Rothschilds introduced the rule of money into European politics. The Rothschilds were the servants of money who undertook the reconstruction of the world as an image of money and its functions. Money and the employment of wealth have become the law of European life; we no longer have nations, but economic provinces."
During the nineteenth century, the Rothschilds and other Jewish families amassed a fortune financing governments at war with one another. According to economist Stuart Crane: "If you will look back at every war in Europe during the nineteenth century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a 'balance of power.' With every reshuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line, a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished."
The nineteenth century saw two major defeats for the Rothschilds in the United States, however. The United States was the only country in the modern financial world to have resisted successfully, for over a hundred years, the formation of a private central bank. This resistance can be attributed to its early financial success in becoming a prosperous nation.
In 1836, President Andrew Jackson abolished the Central Bank through which the Rothschilds had been exerting their control, according to Gustavus Myers in History of the Great American Fortunes.
Then, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln refused to pay the Rothschilds the exorbitant rate of interest they wanted to finance the Union cause. President Lincoln ordered the printing of a total of $450‑million "greenbacks," deciding that America would only owe the money to herself. Meanwhile, the Rothschilds were financing the South through the Erlangers, their relatives, August Belmont having been their agent for the North!
During the period between the two world wars, the International Jewish Bankers solidified their gains, took complete control of bankrupt Germany and thoroughly infested American Economics. The contrived depression of the 1930's further enriched them through the thousands of bankruptcies forced upon the American people. "...But as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact that they are self-sufficing in the resources upon which they live. It is essential therefore for us at whatever cost to deprive them of their land. This object will be best attained by increasing the burdens upon landed property ‑ in loading lands with debts. These measures will check land holding and keep it in a state of humble and unconditional submission...What we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labor and capital...and thereby throw all the Goyim into the ranks of the proletariat. Then the Goyim will bow down before us, if for no other reason than to get the right to exist...we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessaries of life, alleging that it arises from the decline of agriculture and cattle-breeding...To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinctions of classes and qualifications (Now you know why the poll‑tax was done away with), in order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be got from the educated properties classes..." [147]
Confiscations and monopoly extension introduced America to Socialism through Franklin D. Roosevelt. Such was/is the power and propaganda skill of the Jewish Bankers that Americans all but worshiped their "great leader" and gave him a free hand to appoint the worst group of Communists, subversive, fellow travelers and opportunists ever to disgrace the American scene to that time; and our leaders in government through their complicity in the grandiose scheme for subversion and world conquest became obvious to thoughtful Americans. True Patriots such as Rev. Gerold Winrod, Elizabeth Dilling, Col. E.N. Sanctuary, Lawrence Dennis, R.E. Edmondson, David Baxter and Joseph McWilliams tried their best to warn America, but were put on trial for sedition for their efforts. "...For a time...responsible posts...we shall put them in the hands of persons whose past and reputation are such that between them and the people lies an abyss, persons who, in case of disobedience to our instructions, Must face criminal charges or disappear ‑‑ this in order to make them defend our interests to their last gasp." [148]
Remember: Watergate‑Abscam ‑‑ And the Plight of the Farmers in the 70's and 80's, Irangate, Iran‑Contra Hearings; just to name a few of many. Toward that end, systematic undermining of our Republic has continued and accelerated without interruption through each administration and each congress since 1913 and the entrance of the Jew Woodrow Wilson and his Administration. "For many centuries the Russians have lived in groups. That pioneer spirit which is a fundamental characteristic of the Nordic‑Teuton is absent in the Russian. When the Slavs spread out through the vast expanse of Russia this colonization of tremendous areas was motivated chiefly by a desire to get as far away as possible from the government. For more than a thousand years that government, with only brief intervals, represented oppression and terror. Following the rivers, penetrating great forests and wide swamps the Russians attempted to hide themselves from their despots, but without success. The church and the chinovnik (official) followed them everywhere...Bolshevism succeeded in imposing its rule upon Russia by taking over espionage network of the Okhrana, the political police of the Czarist regimes. The leading officials of this organization were eliminated and the Okhrana was converted into the Cheka (Extraordinary commissions) by Felix Djerjinski, a maniac Pole whose chief assistants were two Jews, Menshinski and Jagoda.
Djerjinski died suddenly and mysteriously at a meeting of the presidium of the supreme executive committee in Moscow when he was attempting to help Leon Trotsky obtain control of the communist party after the death of Lenin. He is said to have been poisoned by Stalin. In any event his death arrived at a convenient moment for Stalin who then seized power.
Since then the Cheda has changed its name twice. It became the GPU (KGB ‑‑ State Political Administration) and later the Nar. Kom. Vnu. Del. (People's Commissariat for International Affairs). These changes in name were to delude people abroad into thinking this agency for terror had been abolished. The second change of name was ignored abroad which continued to call the terrorists the GPU (KGB). Since the death of Djerjinski, the GPU (KGB) has had five leaders Menshinski, Jagoda, Akulov, Yezhov and Berija. All were Jews. Under their administration millions of Russians perished...It was this organization which systematically massacred all members men, women and children, of the upper and middle classes in Russia. The Jews applied terror to all classes of the population. It was used to enable them to obtain complete control over the people living within Russia. The system of terror and treachery which the Russians had themselves devised was used against them by the Jews who exploited this fatal weakness in the Russian character. Mankind has evolved many different forms of government. In modern times civilized forms of government have only limited power against individuals whom they can fine, imprison and execute. In Russia the Jews expanded terror into a science.
The Soviet form of government, under their (Jews) direction, not only can fine, imprison and execute, but it can also discharge a man from his position, prevent him from obtaining further employment, confiscate his food and clothing cards, seize his living quarters, expel his children from schools, evict his wife and children into the street, and destroy an entire family by sending its different members to different places of exile. The terror of the Czarist regimes of olden days has been made complete. Every man knows that should he commit an offense against the Jewish regime, not only himself, but also his entire family, including his parents and relatives, may suffer; that even his friends may be included in the purge.
In Soviet cities where the chief concern is obtaining more food or better living quarters, everybody was at the mercy of his neighbors. It was sufficient ‑‑ to ruin a man and his family ‑‑ to report to the nearest GPU (KGB) office that he was the son of a wealthy farmer (A farmer with two horses is classified as wealthy by the communists) or that his father occupied a good position before the revolution.
Life became hell on earth everywhere Jewish authority expanded. This system of espionage and terror was just as strongly organized in the village as in the city. The local GPU (KGB) man has almost unlimited authority. He can dispossess any peasant he wishes and compel him and his family to move at least fourteen miles away before he can settle again in some abandoned shack. Or worse, he can order them to be deported to the far North or Siberia. Long before the world war the average American had only a dim idea about Russia. Very few knew anything about Russian history or literature. Their knowledge of Russia was based on the contents of occasional newspaper articles and stories told by Russian emigrants. These were almost entirely Jews. And the stories making the most lasting impression upon the minds of the average American were those tales of pogroms in Ruthenian and Ukrainian villages, of exiles sent to Siberia and of the allegedly cruel and despotic regime of the Czars.
In his book Innocents Abroad, Mark Twain devoted a few scathing paragraphs to the Czar and his regime. Twain exemplified the attitude of the average American who is little different from the average human being and is prone to form opinions upon hearing one‑sided or insufficient evidence.
The extremely bad reputation which the Czarist regime had abroad for cruelty and despotism was largely manufactured by the Jews. The old ruling class in Russia was mostly of Nordic‑Teutonic origin. This class learned to know the Jew through centuries of contact. And the better they can know them, the more adamant they were against allowing them more privileges. The Jews were largely segregated in the provinces of Ruthenia, White Russia and Poland. Those few who were permitted to live in Petersburg, Moscow and other large Russian cities were required before the war to have a higher education. Because of these restrictions against their rapacity the Jews hated the Czarist regime virulent.
This world‑wide Jewish campaign against the Czarist government of Russia, which developed towards the close of the last century, so undermined the prestige of Russia abroad that the world welcomed the revolution in Russia and hailed the downfall of the Czarist regime as a sign of progress. From all over the world Jewish Revolutionaries poured into Russia to take vengeance upon the Russian people and to help the erection of a New Imperialist Jewish Power, one of whose first decrees was to make Anti-Semitism a crime punishable by death...The Bolsheviks pretend to be on the side of progress. They set out to form a heaven on earth by completely exterminating all classes of the population who defend property, that is to say, security.
They murdered millions of Russians and starved and exiled millions more. The liberals of the world applauded. Occasionally one of their number was shocked into protest. But he was howled down by the Jewish inspired-and-led liberal clique. In their own lands and under their own governments, the liberals oppose bitterly all attempts to curb individual freedom, which includes: freedom of press, speech and religion. In Russia, where Bolshevism abolished these varieties of freedom, the liberals found this justifiable and excusable. In their own countries they have enthusiastically defended the most horrible atrocities of Bolshevism while at the same time they have held protest meetings, collected funds, employed attorneys and used every possible form of agitation against their own governments when these have placed communists and revolutionaries under arrest, or sentenced them to prison for violations of the law. In doing this they proved the liberal movement is no longer liberal. It has aged quickly and become senile. It has acquired, not the harmless childlike manner of an old man but the violent ravings of a lunatic. Defenders of Bolsheviks are mentally degenerate. They are the enemies of the better elements of Society.
This unintelligentsia...was one of the first classes to be thoroughly and systematically liquidated in Russia by the Jewish Terror. All Russian liberal leaders, and this included the Social Democratic party, were exterminated. The portent of this action was never grasped by the unintelligentsia abroad. That is, if with the assistance of their efforts a communist regime should be established in their own country they would be one of the first classes to be purged from the ranks of society. This seemingly has never entered their thoughts. This is because the unintelligentsia in their secret hearts are also revolutionaries. They are dissatisfied with the makeup of the society in which they live and wish to change it. So long as they support the Bolsheviks they are anti‑social. And as long as they follow the banners raised by the Jews they are a dangerous element..." [149]
1937: The Spanish Revolution. The Long Range Plan for the ultimate subjugation of Spain started, as in other countries, soon after the death of Christ. In an attempt to crush the power of the Christian Church in Spain, the money-lenders ordered their agents to infiltrate into the congregations and pose as Christians.[150]
This placed them in positions to destroy the church organizations from within. This conspiracy became obvious, and in the 13th century Pope Innocent III instituted the Inquisition. The purpose of the Inquisition was to ferret out and question infidels suspected of masquerading as Christians. Spain had been exceptionally kind to the Jews. They were allowed to hold office and acted as tax-collectors.
Between 1475 and 1504, during the reign of Isabella and Ferdinand, the Inquisition was used extensively to locate and destroy all traitors who plotted to overthrow the power of the Church and State. The Inquisitors under the Jewish Torquemada discovered the subversive underground to be so widespread and well organized that in 1492 Spain followed the example of other European countries and expelled all the Jews. This task provided the opportunity for some extremists to organize mob violence against the Jews and several extensive massacres took place. These illegal killings were condemned publicly by the Church authorities in Rome.
After the International Bankers re-organized during the 1600s, their agents infiltrated into the Spanish Treasury Department. They were exceptionally active during both the English and French revolutions, trying to destroy the Spanish economy in order to prepare the way for revolutionary efforts in that country also. It is worth while to study the political intrigue that went on in Spain from 1839 to 1939 because it gives a clear picture of the pattern of revolutionary technique used to bring about the ultimate subjugation of all countries. There are three steps in all revolutionary efforts.
First: Infiltration by the agents of the revolutionary party into the government, civil services, armed forces, and labor organizations in order to be in position to destroy the government from within when the order to revolt is given.
Second: The affiliation of the revolutionary party with the socialist or liberal party left of center in order to overthrow the established government regardless of whether it is a monarchy or a republic.
Third: Subversive activities to bring about anarchy in order to discredit the Popular Front Government and provide the excuse for forming a proletarian dictatorship. Once this is established purges turn it into a totalitarian dictatorship as it happened in Russia in 1917.
Karl Marx's agents organized Spain's first General Political Strike in 1865. In 1868 the Directors of the W.R.M. sent Senor Fanelli to Spain to affiliate the Anarchists with the Marxist revolutionaries. Fanelli was a close friend of Bakhunin who was a close associate of Marx and Engels. In 1870 Bakhuin fell out with Marx over policy. He was expelled from the First International of the W.R.M.
In 1872 Bakhunin influenced the Spanish revolutionary leaders into forming the Socialist-Democratic Alliance. The Spanish government decreed Bakhunin's extremist organizations illegal, but they continued to exist underground. The Grand Orient Lodges formed convenient headquarters.
At a congress held in Zaragoza the Spanish section, the Marxist International agreed to ally themselves with the Anarchist International. After its affiliation, both groups concentrated in organizing the various Labor Groups into a vast "Camorra." They crowned their combined efforts with a revolution which produced the first Spanish Republic in 1873.
The effort on the part of the revolutionary leaders was accompanied with the usual Reign of Terror. Anarchy ran wild. All kinds of excesses took place. Finally, General Pavia brought off a "Coup d'Etat" and the revolutionaries went underground again.
In order to emerge into the open once more, the members of the revolutionary underground supported the leaders of a mild "liberal" movement to obtain political power. The revolutionary leaders used the quarrel going on between those who claimed the descendants of Don Carlos should occupy the throne, and those who claimed the descendants of Isabella should reign, to start a Civil War. This war ended with the defeat of the Carlist Group in 1876.[151]
The Spanish workers really desired to organize for their own protection, but the majority did not agree with the extreme policy advocated by the Anarchists. The anti-revolutionaries therefore organized the "Workers Association." These moderates were immediately set upon by both revolutionaries and employers of labor alike. [152]
This persecution continued until 1888 when, at the suggestion of Pablo Iglesias, the moderate group adopted the name "The Workers General Union," which became known in Spain as the U.G.T. The members of this organization did not get much support until after the government outlawed the Iberian Anarchist Federation.
The syndicalist elements collaborated with the radical republican party until 1908. They then formed the "solidaridad Obrera" and, two years later, in 1910, the founded the Regional Federation of Labor known in Spain as the C.R.T. Immediately afterwards they formed the National Federation of Labor (C.N.T.).
In 1913 both the C.R.T. and the C.N.T. were suspended as the result of a series of strikes. The government did not object to the principles of collective bargaining, but it did object to the extremist policy, and revolutionary actions, of the leaders. So legitimate labor, striving for social justice, found their organizations barred because the radical element always seemed to work its way into executive positions within the unions.
The reaction was what the plotters of World Revolution expected it would be. Their revolutionary syndicalist movement greatly increased in power and acted against all political parties, and against the State itself. The policy of these extremists was "direct action," advocated with the greatest heat and violence. In 1916 the C.R.R. was reorganized by Angel Pestana and Salvador Segui. In 1918 these two labor leaders were able to form in Barcelona the "Sole Syndicate" generally known as "The One Big Syndicate."
During World War I Spain, as a neutral country, made a vast amount of money, but, generally speaking, the laboring classes did not receive anything like a fair share of the national prosperity. This fact was perhaps the deciding factor which drove the majority of the working classes out of moderate labor organizations into the arms of the revolutionary leaders in the extremist labor groups.
However, the more moderate and level-headed labor leaders didn't give up the fight against the radical groups and as a result of their efforts, they brought into being a new labor group known as "The Free Syndicate" in 1920.
During the next three years there was continuous strife going on between the Right and Left labor organizations. Local strikes, general strikes, destruction of property, private assassinations to remove labor leaders, wholesale murders to reduce the strength of opposing organizations. All these crimes were committed in the name of "liberty." By 1923 conditions became chaotic. To prevent the Communist Party bringing about another revolution the King of Spain asked General Primo de Rivera to become military dictator.
One of the first results of Prime de Rivera's dictatorship was the successful termination of the Moroccan War. It was during the final stages of this war that General Franco greatly distinguished himself in the Field. He turned what looked like a complete military defeat into a brilliant victory. By tempering justice with mercy he won the admiration, and the loyalty, of many of the Moroccan natives. It was he who came to the notice of the general public in Spain. Rivera is accused by his enemies of doing everything a man shouldn't do. It is only fair to record that he did restore law and order; he brought about a number of social reforms; he co-operated with Largo Caballero to improve working conditions. He worked so hard that only his breakdown in health in 1929 can explain the errors in judgment he made during 1930.
Tired and worn out, and as if in a hurry to unburden himself of the responsibilities of office, he called in two socialist leaders, Besteiro and Saborit. He charged them with the task of re-organizing the electoral machinery of the nation so the people could decide whether they wanted a monarchy or a republican government. Just why De Rivera appointed Besteiro and Saborit to re-organize the electoral machine of Spain will probably never be known. The two socialists rigged the election machinery so well a Socialist-Republican Government was assured.
In Madrid alone the number of fictitious voters exceeded 40,000. Similar corruption existed in all the larger centers of population. To ensure the end of the monarchy in Spain The Grand Orient Lodges organized a special "Military Brotherly Union" by which they obtained the promise of twenty-one of the twenty-three Spanish generals to support the Republican Cause.
General Mola, who was Chief of the Spanish Internal Security, in his book "Tempestad Calma Intriga Y Crisis" Informs us that the generals were initiated into the Grand Orient and had one and a half million pesetas placed to their credit, to help them escape abroad should the republican movement fail. Franco was one of the two generals who refused to join the "Military Brotherly Union." In support of Mola's statement, Cano Lopez said on the floor of the Spanish Cortes (parliament): "Since 1925 masonry has grouped under the heading 'Military Brotherly Union' most of the high ranking officials of the army. The members include Cabanellas, Sanjurjo, Goded, Mola, Lopez, Ochoa, Queipo de Llana, and others...Of twenty-three divisional generals, twenty-one were masons...All had taken the oath of the Grand Orient. [153] Both in 1929, for the abolition of the dictatorship of de Rivera, and in 1931 for the abolition of the monarchy, the Grand Orient issued the orders and the generals obeyed." [154]
The International Bankers helped finance the revolutionary effort in Spain without becoming involved themselves. In February 1932 Le Journal reports that Stalin promised $200,000 to help finance the Revolutionary Training Schools in Spain. The financial statements submitted to the 1931 congress of the Communist international discloses the fact that £240,000 (English money) had been received to help the Spanish revolutionaries.[155] In addition to the above, two and a half million pesetas were made available for the purchase of arms and ammunition. General Mola says that by 1938 over two hundred revolutionary leaders had arrived in Spain after being trained in the Lenin Institute in Moscow.
From 1930 to the date of the election a campaign of L'Infamie was carried on against the King of Spain and the royal family, exactly as it was against Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. One of the most ridiculous lies ever invented claimed that one Spanish soldier was bled to death every day to keep the Prince of Asturias alive. He was known to be suffering from Hemophilia. Other slanders accused the king of being a libertine, just as the Empress of Russia had falsely been accused of being mistress to Rasputin.
The plugged ballots in the large industrial centers wiped out the strong rural vote in favor of the monarchy. After the election had been declared in favor of a republican form of government, King Alfonso XIII of Spain issued his last public proclamation. It read as follows: "The elections held on Sunday proved to me that I no longer hold the love and affection of my people. My conscience tells me this condition will not be permanent because I have always striven to serve Spain, and my people with all my devotion. A king may make mistakes. Without doubt I have done so on occasion, but I know our country has always shown herself generous towards the faults of others committed without malice.
I am the king of all Spaniards, and I am a Spaniard. I could find ample means to maintain my royal prerogatives in effective resistance to those who assail them, but I prefer to stand resolutely aside rather than to provoke a conflict which might array my countrymen against one another in Civil War and patricidal strife.
I renounce no single one of my rights which, rather than being mine, are an accumulated legacy of history for the guardianship of which I shall one day have to render strict account. I shall wait the true and full expression of the collective conscience and, until the nation speaks I deliberately suspend the exercise of my royal powers and am leaving Spain, thus acknowledging that she is sole mistress of her destinies. Alson now I believe that I am fulfilling the duty which the love of my country dictates. I pray God that all other Spaniards may feel and fulfill their duty as sincerely as I do." [156]
Many of the Socialists who formed the Spanish republican government in 1931 were sincere in their beliefs. They wanted no part of "Red" Communism or "Black" Naziism. But they were proved to be powerless to prevent the Communists and Anarchists from putting the second part of their revolutionary program into effect. The tactics the revolutionary leaders employed were to double-cross the Socialists at every opportunity. Red Cells within the government caused the government to commit some foolish mistakes. The Reds outside then damned the government as a lot of incompetent, corrupt, and inefficient nincompoops. The Communists, and Anarchists, claimed only a dictatorship of the proletariat could establish a stable government. The agents of Moscow committed every conceivable kind of crime to bring those responsible for internal security into disrepute also. General De Rivera had used Largo Caballero a great deal to iron out differences between labor and employers during the years he had been dictator. With the advent of the republican government Largo Caballero showed his true colors. By 1935 Caballero openly boasted that he had placed "Tens of thousands of Communist Cells throughout Spain."
At the Eleventh Plenum of the Executive of the Communist International, the Spanish delegates were showered with congratulations because "The prerequisites of a revolutionary crisis are being created at a rapid rate in Spain."
At the Twelfth Plenum the wording of the congratulations to the Spanish delegates was as follows: "In Spain, in particular, we have been able to observe such revolutionary strike struggles going on uninterruptedly over period of many months as the Spanish proletariat has never experienced before. What is happening in these struggles is, above all, the further development of a Spanish Revolution."
There is an old saying "When thieves disagree the truth will come out." That is exactly what happened in Spain.
The three leaders of Moscow's underground in Spain were Joaquin Maurin, Victor Serges, and Andres Ninn. They were all young men. They had all received special training in revolutionary activities in the Lenin Institute in Moscow before being entrusted with the leadership in Spain. Maurin had been mixed up in the Separatist movement in Catalonia since he was sixteen years of age.
At the mature age of seventeen this intellectual thinker had set out to teach the Spanish people the Soviet solution of the world's economic troubles. At the age of twenty-one he was elected head of the Anarchists. He preached and practiced the religion of hate and violence. In 1914 he was condemned to twenty years' imprisonment but he was not of legal age for such a penalty. Maurin was a delegate to the Third Congress of the Communist International held in Moscow, 1921. He attracted favorable attention.
With the fall of Primo De Rivera, Maurin returned to Spain. He had been hiding out in France and Moscow. He had lived a hectic life. He had been in and out of jail; had escaped from prison; been wounded in 1925; confined in Citadel Montjuich, etc. It is said the only period of peace enjoyed in his life was the three years he and his young wife spent in Paris, 1927-30. Maurin wrote a book in 1936. Victor Serges wrote the preface to it. In this book "Hacia la Segunda Revolucion" he exposed the fact that Stalin had departed from the Marxian ideology and charged he was using the forces of Communism to forward his own secret totalitarian imperialistic ambitions.[157]
Even after Maurin, Serges, and Ninn broke openly with Stalin in 1936, their power and influence amongst the working classes was so great that Stalin ordered that they should be allowed to live until they had served their purpose. Stalin used them right up to the beginning of the Civil War in Spain. Then he ordered them liquidated. He directed that "Their deaths shall be accomplished in such a manner as to make it appear to the public that all three had died as martyrs to the Communist Cause."
Maurin was betrayed to Franco's forces and after trial was executed. Serges is reported to have been shot by Loyalists while fighting, and Ninn was also disposed of. Their deaths were loudly attributed to acts of violence by the enemies of Communism.
Victor Serges wrote "The evolution of Soviet Communism was completed in 1936...from revolutionary internationalism to the nationalism of great military power served, in various countries, by parties which it subsidized. After July 1936 the Stalinites formed the unified Socialist Party affiliated with the Third International...and the object of Stalinism is to establish the new power of a Fascist nature to encircle France, the probable ally of Russia, IN THE WAR THAT IS BEING PREPARED."
Then again Maurin says: "The traditional policy of England is to ruin its adversaries, so as then to pose as the Protector and to render impossible the renaissance of the conquered vassal. Spain is primarily the victim of England and, next in order, of France. When Spain hesitates, England and France attack her strongly. If she inclines towards England, France increases the persecution. So long as France and England are capitalistic countries they will not have to be the natural ally to Spain.[158] The Logical line would be the curve through Portugal, Germany, Italy and Russia. A bloc of this nature would neutralize France and England." [159]
Serges explained how so much Loyalist propaganda found its way into the universal press, while so little space was given to Franco's releases. Serges wrote: "Never has there been brought into play, the one against the other, such low and demoralizing methods as those used by Stalin and his instrument, the Third International, in a continuous stream of propaganda at long range and without heed for the truth. The method of repetition and cynicism have become almost mechanical...The Soviet bureaucracy is plotting this procedure on an international scale. Every infamy given out by a correspondent of "Izvestia" at Valentia is at once taken up in a chorus by the special papers in Paris, Stockholm, Oslo, Brussels, London, New York, Melbourne and Buenos Aires...
Millions of copies of infamous lies are circulated, they are the only information millions of Soviet workers receive. English, American, Chinese, and Hew Zealand papers reproduce these lies (by order). Advanced intellectuals, who think they are anti-Fascist, will appear to believe them. One sees that a formidable enterprise of demoralization is functioning in the universe, and I find pitilessly just, the words of Trotsky, that the Stalinite Comintern propaganda is a Syphilis of the Workers Movement." [160]
What Maurin and Serges wrote in 1936 only confirms what Pope Pius XI said in his encyclical "Divine Redemptori" issued in March 1937. One chapter of this famous document reads: "There is another explanation for the rapid diffusion of Communistic ideas...A propaganda so truly diabolical that the world has perhaps never witnessed its like before. It is directed from one common center; it is shrewdly adapted to the varying conditions of diverse peoples; it has at its disposal vast financial resources, innumerable organizations, international congresses; and countless trained workers; it makes use of newspapers, and pamphlets, of cinema, theater, radio, and schools and even universities. Little by little it penetrates into the minds of all classes of the people. Another powerful factor is the suppression and silence on the part of a large section...of the press of the world...we suppression because it is impossible otherwise to explain how a press, usually so eager to exploit even the little daily incidents of life, has been able to remain silent for so long about the horrors perpetrated in Russia, in Mexico, and even in a great part of Spain; and that it should have so little to say concerning a world organization as vas as Russian Communism. The silence is due in part to short-sighted political policy and is favored by various occult forces which for a long time have been working for the overthrow of the Christian social order.
The sorry effects of this propaganda is before our eyes. Communism has striven, as its champions openly boast, to destroy Christian civilization and the Christian religion by banishing every remembrance of them from the hearts of men, especially of the young...
In Spain, as far as possible, every church and monastery was destroyed and every vestige of the Christian religion eradicated. The theory has not confined itself to the indiscriminate slaughter of bishops, and thousands of priests and religions of both sexes; it searches out above all those who have been devoting their lives to the working classes and the poor. The majority of victims have been laymen of all conditions and classes...with a hatred and a savage barbarity one would not have believed possible in our age. No man of good sense, nor statesman conscious of his responsibility, can fail to shudder at the thought that what is happening today in Spain may be repeated tomorrow in other civilized countries. For man some restraint is necessary, as an individual or in society...But tear the idea of God from the hearts of men, and they are urged by their passions to commit the most atrocious barbarities."
The Civil War in Spain
General Mola said: "Following the election of the Socialist government in Spain, and the king's withdrawal from the country, there was an absolute avalanche of public officials who rushed to the Grand Orient Lodges to request entry. They thought they could thus be free of the persecution which had been practiced by the majority of Masons in the government. Their purpose was to give evidence of their republicanism and to prevent the certainty of having their careers ruined."
Immediately after the king had left, Franco told the Military Academy, of which he was then in charge, "The republic has been proclaimed in Spain. It is the duty of all at the present time to co-operate with their discipline and allegiance so that peace may reign and the nation be permitted to direct itself through the natural judicial channels. Hitherto, at the Academy, there has always been discipline and exact fulfillment of duty. Today these qualities are even more necessary; the Army needs serenely, and with a united spirit, to sacrifice every thought of ideology to the good of the nation and the tranquillity of the fatherland."
The wording of this proclamation shows Franco to be anything but a "Black" Nazi which the Communist propaganda would have the public believe him to be. But the "Secret Powers" were not willing to give the republican government a chance to operate in an efficient and democratic way. Churchill wrote: "The Communists helped set it up so they could knock it down again and create more political and economic chaos, until they had the country, and the people, in such a state that the leaders could advocate with reason, that only a proletarian dictatorship could restore law and order and save the day."
Having overthrown the monarchy in Spain, the next logical move was to attack the religion of the people. Secularism was introduced into the schools. A campaign was launched to destroy parental authority and that of the Church. Having created thousands of anti-religious and anti-social young Bolsheviks, it was only necessary to await the opportunity to turn the masses loose against the forces of law and order in a well-planned revolt. On May 14, 1931, a meeting was held in the Ateneo Club, in Madrid, to discuss the new political program.
1). Creation of a republican dictatorship.
2). Immediate punishment of all responsible for illegal acts under the dictatorship.
3). Disbanding the Civil Guard, Army, and the police, etc., and the substitution of armed republicans chosen from the laboring classes and Republican Clubs.
4). Confiscation of property of religious orders.
5). Nationalization of land.
6). Suppression of all press agencies hostile to the Republican cause.
7). Utilization of technical schools and other buildings for the public good.
8). Postponement of the Cortes until this program had been carried out.
In due course the "Cortes Constituyentes" was elected. Under the excuse of "Law for the defense of the Republic," a ruthless dictatorship was set up. The only democratic feature about it was its name "the Republic of the Workers." A Moscow trained revolutionary, Jiminez Asua drafted the new Constitution. [161] Azana now concentrated his entire efforts on destruction of the churches and persecution of religious orders.
In December 1932, he set up the "League of Atheism." He financed its periodical "Sin Dios" (The Godless) out of public funds. All these moves were made in the name of democracy. The leaders told the people they were being liberated from the control of the religious orders, and the clergy who, they said, were allied to feudalism and tyrannical monarchs.
In Catalonia the revolutionary activities which General Primo de Rivera had subdued broke out again. By January 1933, the London "Morning Post" correspondent reported, "Huge stocks of bombs, rifles and ammunition are being found by the police all over Spain. An enormous amount of money is being spent to foster the revolutionary cause. Many of those arrested, through to all appearances not well paid, carried note-cases full of bank-notes." [162]
Next an uprising in Asturia was organized, and on September 14, 1934, a report was issued which implicated war officials and army officers in the sale of Arms. General Franco made a desperate effort to try to re-organize the Spanish Army and put an end to Anarchy, but he obtained little support from government authorities. To indicate how well the Communist underground was organized, over three hundred churches were set afire at exactly the same time in a hundred different cities and towns.
The assassination of individuals the revolutionaries wanted removed became so common that "Professional Pistoleros became competitive. It was possible to have an enemy liquidated for 50 pesetas (a little more than $5.00, 1934 American dollars). The Moscow agents used the confused conditions existing in Spain to carry out Lenin's mandate: 'The Communist legal Code is to base terrorism on fundamental principles.'"
Torture, mutilation, rape, burnings, bloodshed, and death, were the methods by which Communism tried to obtain power. Conditions deteriorated from bad to worse. By the beginning of 1936 the whole country was in a state of turmoil. President Alcala Zamora dissolved the Cortes. February 16th was set as the date for a general election. Gil Robles and Calvo Sotelo stumped the country on a straight anti-communist ticket. Bolshevik election propaganda was issued by "The Friends of Russia." The Stalinites created so much chaos that hellish conditions broke out all over Spain. Previous to the February elections in 1936 the governmental record in Spain was as follows:
From the end of the Primo de Rovera dictatorship in 1931 there had been one revolution with 2,500 persons killed, seven revolts, 9,000 strikes, five prorogations of the budget, two billion pesetas increase in charges, 1,000 municipalities suspended, 114 newspapers forbidden, two and a half years of "States of Exception" (equivalent to our state of martial law). After six weeks of popular front government under Azana, Caballero, and Prieto the record read:
Assaults and robberies: At Political headquarters, 58; At public and private establishments, 105; At churches, 36. Fires: At political headquarters, 12; Public and private establishments, 60; Churches, 106. Disturbances: General strikes, 11; Risings and revolts, 169; Persons killed, 76; wounded, 346. Caballero, speaking at Zaragoza, said: "Spain must be destroyed in order to remake it ours. On the day of vengeance we will leave not a stone upon a stone."
Caballero also declared: "Before the elections we ask for what we want. After the elections we will take what we want by any means. 'The Right' must not expect mercy from the workers. We shall not again spare the lives of our enemies."
Azana declared happily, "Spain has ceased to be Catholic." Communist leader, Marguerita Nelken, announced: "We demand a revolution. But even the Russian kind will not serve us. We need flames that will be seen throughout the planet, and waves of blood that will redden the seas."
The Times correspondent reported conditions in Barcelona. In February 1936, he said: "A vigilance committee warned a number of high officials on February 20th to relinquish their posts. The committee was obeyed." A month later he wrote: "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is now the open aim of all the Reds." A little later he wrote: "Spanish Socialism had been drifting towards Communism. It is among the younger generation that Marx and Lenin have gained most of their disciples. These young people believe that the conquest of power is the immediate requirement of Spanish Socialism; violence the ultimate means of getting it; and a dictatorship of the proletariat the only way to retain it. The subversive doctrine is preached untiringly."
In March 1936 he reported: "Deputies in the cortes (Spanish Parliament) with clenched fists, in Communist salute, sang the Soviet national anthem, L'Internationale, in the House itself."
Why did the youth of Spain turn in great numbers to Communism? If the technique used by those who direct the W.R.M. is to be understood the answer must be found, because it is from the laboring classes and the youth of the nation that the revolutionary draw their shock troops. Investigation reveals that Azana represented himself as an intellectual with a sincere belief in Socialism.
He was openly anti-religious. He protested, however, that he was not in agreement with the terrorism advocated and carried out by the Anarchists and the Communists. Once he obtained the necessary political power, however, he used it to have the republican government abolish religious teaching orders from the schools. He engaged Francisco Ferrer to establish secularism in the schools. Instead of opening the school day with a prayer to Almighty God, the new secular teachers opened the classes by having the pupils sing:
"We are the sons of the revolution
We are the sons of liberty.
With us comes the dawning
Of a new humanity."
A translation of another "Hymn" sung at the beginning and end of class periods in Varcelona schools was as follows:
"Sling the bomb; place well the mine; grasp firm the pistol,
Pass on the word of revolution...Help for the Anarchists.
Stand to arms till death; with petrol and dynamite destroy the government."
The News Editors of British and American papers, because of Jewish control, refused to publish the truth because it sounded so fantastic. Very similar "Hymns" were broadcast in English from Moscow for the instruction of English Communists during 1937-38.
The most damming evidence, proving the systematic method used to subvert, and pervert, youth into becoming revolutionaries, was supplied by Francisco Ferrer himself. In a letter to a revolutionary comrade he wrote: "In order not to scare people and give the government a pretext for closing down my establishments I call them 'Modern Schools,' and not school for Anarchists. My wish is to bring about the revolution. For the time being, however, one must be content to implant the idea of violent upheaval in the minds of the young. They must learn that against the police, and the clergy, there is only one means of action...Bombs and poison." [163]
When Ferrer was captured by Franco's forces during the Civil War he was tried as a traitor to Spain. The above letter was used as evidence. He was found guilty and executed. The High Council of the Grand Orient of Paris protested to Masonic Lodges all over the world claiming that Ferrer had been murdered because of his Anti-Catholic activities youth training program revealed the methods used to corrupt the morals of the youth of a nation also. Lenin had said: "The best revolutionary is a youth devoid of morals." His word being law in Communist organizations, all members work secretly to make young people of both sexes anti-social and immoral.
Children up to teenage are taught to rebel against the discipline of the home. Parents are represented to their children as old-fashioned. Parental authority is scoffed at. The subverters argue that parents have lied to their children since they were old enough to listen, regarding Santa Claus and where babies come from. The subversives claim parents are the victims of reactionary teachings and capitalistic exploitation. The child is encouraged to educate the parents in regard to modern and progressive ideas.
They are warned that, for their own good, they must refuse to be dominated or disciplined by their parents. The purpose of this subversive campaign is to destroy the sanctity, and unity, of the home which is the foundation upon which our civilization is founded.
To rob children of their respect for the ministers of religion, the subversives first represent them as being chosen from the less intelligent or physically retarded members of families. They are ridiculed as spineless "holy joes," "womanish do-gooders," and servants of the ruling classes. Quoting from Marx, children are told: "Religion is the opium of the people, because it teaches acceptance of poverty, sickness, and hard work as good for the soul."
The Christian child is poisoned against the ministers of his religion by being told the most fantastic slanders against them in connection with their private lives. They are presented as "sheep in wolves clothing;" as "black crows" feeding upon the guillibity of their parishioners. If, as often happens, a minister or priest does become involved in a scandal it is played up for all it is worth.
The Christian religion is ridiculed in a most nauseating manner. Christ is represented as the illegitimate son of Mary, a young Jewess, who, in order to save her face, hoaxed Joseph into believing she had been conceived by the Holy Ghost. Christ as an adult is depicted as a faker. His miracles are said to be illusions cleverly performed as magicians perform them today. The twelve Apostles are said to have been his accomplices. The so-called comic "Mandrake The Magician" is often used to illustrate how a hypnotist and magician can fool the public.
One favorite story told Christian children is that Christ was a boot-legger at a very early age. Subversives claim he pretended to work a miracle at the marriage feast of Cana in order to sell his bootleg wine. They even accused Christ, and all Roman Catholics, of being cannibals. They support their arguments with the biblical quotation that Christ admonished his followers that unless they ate his flesh, and drank his blood, they could not have eternal life.[164]
Teen-aged youths are introduced to companions who teach them liberalism which is soon turned to licentiousness. They are taught the Anarchist conception of life. The less laws, the better. Do as you like. According to subversive teachers, there is only one sin and that is disobedience to orders given by authorized leaders. There are only two crimes, neglect of duty and betrayal of party secrets.
The next step is to lead anti-social youth into actual conflict with the police. They start them off by linking them up with some "gang." Young Communist leaders egg the other members on. They dare them to do things outside the law; they force them into petty crime and then lead them deeper into the jungle of the Communist organized underworld.[165] The publication of Crime and Sex Comics is part of the Communist psychological warfare. These Comics are calculated to awaken in children hidden and suppressed sadistic tendencies and to weaken the moral armor of children who are otherwise normal. Any "professor" who claims Crime and Sex Comics do not influence children in the way the Illuminati and the Learned Elders of Zion wish them to go is either a fool or a knave.
Toy guns, soldiers, revolvers, movies, with plenty of crime and shooting, are all calculated to break down the finer feelings of normal Christian children and acclimatize them to the use of weapons, scenes of violence, and sudden death. Pornographic books and magazines are circulated profusely at low prices, because such literature is calculated to destroy the thin veneer of virtue and respectability which civilized Christian moral codes have caused us to develop.
Few people realize the important part modern movies play in subverting youths away from their homes, families, country, and their religion. Many movies show an hour or two of film in which the criminals and bad men and women do everything that is forbidden by our laws and moral code and devote one minute during which the law catches up with them, or they die because of their sins. Films taken of actual fighting during the Mexican revolution in 1913 were shown in Galveston, Texas.
The sight of seeing men killed in battle, or being dragged from their homes and slaughtered by revolutionaries caused women to scream and faint, and men to vomit. Public opinion caused the showings to be prohibited. Today these scenes are shown on films advertised as "Children's Special" for Saturday afternoon performances. That is just one illustration of how the general public, and particularly the children, have been systematically hardened to accept the sight of violence and bloody death as normal. It supports the revolutionary motto that "Much needed reforms can only be brought about speedily by revolutionary action."
In every country not subjugated to date the directors of the World Revolutionary Movement (W.R.M.) have set up private Film Agencies which supply the most obscene pictures imaginable for presentation to private parties. They are used for the purpose of demoralizing youth so they can be recruited into revolutionary organizations.
This statement is proved by the fact that the laws barring them in the USSR is strictly enforced. Youth who prove themselves to be anti-social, anti-religious, hardened, and brutalized, are sent to Moscow and taught "Revolutionary Warfare, and the Art of Street Fighting." This is a different course from that given prospective labor leaders and intellectuals.
Revolutionary psychological warfare is accomplishing its purpose in the Western World as it did in Spain. This is proven by the fact that no person loses any sleep nowadays when the last thing they hear before going to bed is a recital of the details of air disasters, automobile accidents, crimes, and brutal slayings. A night-cap of that kind would have been too strong to induce sleep fifty years ago.
Public opinions no longer aroused to action when the newspapers blandly report that several thousand Christians were martyred because of their anti-Communist convictions by Bela Kun or Chinese sadists. Such horrors are now accepted as every day occurrences. We are being rendered immune to the reactions we once experienced when violence of any kind came to our attention.
We no longer are disturbed by the overthrow of established governments by force. If we were, we would have done something to stop what has been going on. People listen to those who continually cry, as they did in Spain, "Communism can never cause a revolution here." They listen to those who give them a sense of false security. The majority of citizens are like children, who hide their heads under the blankets when they fear danger. It should be remembered that pulling the bedclothes over one's head never saved a single person from an assassin, a rapist, or an exploding bomb.
A few illustrations will show how psychological warfare worked in Spain. We must remember always that Lenin said: "Part of the training of all revolutionary youths must consist of robbing a bank, blowing up a police station and the liquidation of a traitor or a spy."
Not until a youth has been drained dry of the milk of human kindness, and all feelings of sympathy, is he considered qualified for party membership. This is a very different status from that of a "Fellow Travelers." As the day chosen for the revolt drew near in Spain, the purveyors of pornographic literature and obscene pictures became so bold that they took their stand at the entrances to churches and offered their wares to the congregations going in and coming out. The outside covers of these publications usually showed a picture of priests and nuns engaged in sexual high-jinks.
Mr. Edward Knoblaugh, who is recognized as an authority on the Civil War in Spain, was so struck by this anti-clerical campaign that he wrote: "Occasionally delegates of Protestant clergymen came to Loyalist Spain to investigate stories they had read of anti-clerical activities. These delegations were warmly received. Great pains were taken to convince them they had been badly misled. Special guides were detailed to show them around. They saw only what the Communist authorities wanted them to see. After a day or two they were hustled home, suitably impressed."
But one day there was a slip up; a delegation of clergymen stopped at a book-stall to admire some rare old volumes. Before the guide could prevent it they saw also copies of "La Traca" and "Bicharracos Clericales." The covers portrayed priestly orgies with semi-naked nuns. Both magazines were profusely illustrated with obscene pictures. Mr. Knoblaugh commented: "The delegates left in a huff."
F.J. Olondriz wrote the foreword to the book "The Red Persecution in the Basque Country," written by José Echeandia. He said: "When the day arrived the Basque separatists, blind with passion, many of them forgetting their faith, and their Catholic sentiments, felt closely and firmly united to the Communists, to the Atheists, and to the Anarchists...and they launched into a war, and made themselves responsible for slaughter, and believed all means were licit, rebelliously ignoring the peremptory words of their religious leaders, Pope Pius XI, as contained in his encyclical 'Davini Redemptoris' - Judaism is intrinsically perverse, and it cannot be admitted that those who wish to serve the Christian civilization may in any way co-operate with it."
How well some of our top-level statesmen should have remembered those words of wisdom when they tried to co-operate with Stalin during World War II. Another truth Government leaders must never forget is the fact that Communists, and ALL other Jewish international groups, are used by the Illuminati and the Learned Elders of Zion to further their own secret plans and ambitions.
Franco
To understand what happened in Spain in 1936, one must have at least a general idea of the type of man Franco really was. Franco entered the Spanish army seriously intending to make it his career. His life in the army reads like a romance. He distinguished himself after he was appointed to the Spanish Legion. He turned defeat inflicted on General Sylvestre by the Moors into final victory. Not only did he lead his troops fearlessly, but he inspired in them great confidence because of his genius regarding strategy. He also earned the respect of his foes, because of his military progress, and his sound administrative policies in Morocco. The Moors finally looked upon him as almost divine. They came to call him "The Victorious," "Chief of Chiefs," "Brave as a Lion." The above facts explain why they rallied around him when he asked for their loyalty in July 1936.
Franco is not spoken of as being popular with his brother generals. He did, however, have the respect of most of them. It was this fact that prevented the Popular Front Government being turned into a totalitarian dictatorship. Azana, Caballero, and Carlos Prieto dominated the Popular Front Government. Senor Gil Robles and Calvo Sotelo led the Rightist opposition.
When Sotelo revealed in the "Cortes" that between February and June 1936 there had been 113 general strikes, 218 partial strikes; 284 buildings, 171 churches, 69 clubs and 10 newspapers offices burned; and over 3,300 assassinations committed, Casares Quiroga, Premier at the time, jumped to his feet and angrily retorted: "You will be held personally responsible for the emotion your speech will cause."
Dolores Ibarruri, a Communist, named "Pasionaria" because of her inflammatory speeches and fanatical actions, was a member of the Spanish Cortes. She jumped to her feet and, pointing her finger at Sotelo, literally screamed: "That man has made his last speech." She proved to be right; on July 13, 1936, Senor Calvo Sotelo was dragged from his home by fifteen Assault Guards under command of Captain Don Angel Moreno. He was taken to a nearby churchyard and murdered.
It was this event that caused many of the Spanish general to break their oath to the Grand Orient and ask Franco to take over leadership in Spain. Dolores Ibarruri was a Stalinist agent in Spain, and had been entrusted with the task of corrupting army officials, organizing and directing raids on government armories, and arming the revolutionary forces in Spain. She performed her various tasks very efficiently. Assault Guards raided the houses of many other prominent anti-communists following Sotelo's murder, but most of them had been warned and made their escape.
On the day of the elections in February 1936, General Franco telephoned General Pozas, who was then in charge of the Civil Guard. He warned him that the Communists elected to the Cortes planned to stir up mob violence in the hope that they could develop a revolutionary effort for the purpose of over-throwing the republican government. Beneral Pozas informed General Franco that he thought his fears were exaggerated. General Franco next telephoned General Molero, the Minister for War, informing him of the threatening danger.
Franco suggested that he be allowed to declare Martial Law. Franco drew up the necessary orders which would give him the authority to prevent excesses and mob violence. Only the signature of the Council of Ministers were necessary to enable him to preserve law and order, and protect the republican government from revolutionary action. But Portela, who was then acting as premier, pleaded that he was too old to put the Cabinet's decision into practice. Franco retorted, "You have brought Spain to this sorry pass. It is your duty now to try and save her."
General Franco was given orders to proceed to the Canary Islands. The order actually meant his virtual exile from Spain. Before he left, General Franco had a conference with Generals Mola and Varela. They assured him they felt certain, that once the other generals who had joined the Grand Orient Military Lodges knew the truth, most of them would break with the Grand Orient and accept his leadership. Before the meeting broke up a secret means of communication between Mola and Franco had been arranged. Immediately Franco departed for the Canary Island, Stalin's agents renewed their activities.
On June 23rd, 1936, Franco wrote a long letter to the Minister for War in which he once again pointed out specific dangers. But these warnings were ignored as the others had been. It was obvious that the Communist members of the government were able to dominate its policy and actions. The murder of Calvo Sotelo on July 13th decided Franco, he set a coded message to the generals who were sworn to fight to save Spain from becoming a Russian satellite state. Among those Franco contacted were Mola, Goded, Fanjul, Sanjurjo, Saliquet, some officers of the Spanish Navy, and Queipo de Llano. After the message was sent Franco flew from the Canaries to Tetuan where he knew he could rely upon the loyalty of the Moroccan troops.
On July 21, 1936, Franco issued his proclamation which defined the issue at stake in the least possible number of words. It read: "It is the duty of every man to enter this definite struggle between Russia and Spain."
Thus started the Civil War. Professor Unamuno explained the issue in even fewer words. He said: "It is a struggle of Christianity against barbarism." He should have said "Against Judaism."
Other evidence was obtained to prove that Stalin's Comintern plotted to subjugate Spain to bring about a total war between Britain and her allies, on the one side, and Germany and her allies on the other. There is the report of the meeting of the Political Secretariat of the Comintern which took place January 26, 1938. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways and means to develop the revolutionary effort in Spain and North Africa.
Attending the meeting were representatives of the Profintern, and the Foreign branches of the G.P.U. (The Secret Police - later known as the K.G.B.) All of Moscow's most experienced revolutionary leaders were present; Iejov, head of the secret section of the Comintern; Georges Dimitrov of the Reichstag Fire infamy; head of the League of the Godless, and the Free Thinkers League; the then Secretary of the Communist International; Schick, Manuilsky, and Lozovsky of the Profintern; Popescu, Weintrauben, Gourovitch, Liemann, Turrini, Adami, and Valdez, who represented the Soviet of Foreign Affairs in the political bureau of the Comintern. These are the names of men who all took an active part in spreading the sphere of Communist influence around the world in later years. After the meeting opened Dimitrov gave a fiery speech.
He denounced the lack of missionary vigor among the special military envoys who had been sent to Spain to help corrupt the Popular Front Government and direct the military operation of the Loyalist armies. Their action, he said: "Has not had sufficient stimulus, and revolutionary elan on the general European masses. The results obtained have not justified the heavy risks taken. The principal struggle, which is to bring about an armed conflict between two groups of capitalistic states, has not been reached." Then he went on to advocate "The Soviet military commandant in Spain should pass under the control of the Comintern emissaries, like the ambassadors, who know how to impregnate him with the necessary revolutionary feeling."
During the Civil War in Spain the propaganda issued at the time convinced the average person that a small group of general in Spain had organized a revolt to overthrow the Republican Popular Front Government and establish a military dictatorship. The Popular Front Forces named themselves Loyalists. Franco Forces called themselves Nationalists. The Loyalists were comprised of all political factions Left of center. The Nationalists contained all political factions Right of center.
The Communists were divided into two groups, whose who intended to turn the Proletarian Dictatorship into a Stalinist Totalitarian State, and those who wished to make the Spanish Soviet a unit in the International of Soviet Republics as advocated by the Marxian theory.
The National Forces included men who had sponsored the Carrliest movement which, ever since 1837, had had as its cause the restoration of the Spanish Throne to the descendants of Don Carlos. The Carlists were located in the Navarre province and they supported Franco's Nationalist Army simply because they didn't intend to tolerate Communism in Spain.
On the Right also were the Falangists, the extreme Rightists among whom there were undoubtedly quite a number of the German type, of Nazi who believed in using Total War to subdue their Leftist enemies. With a situation of this kind it is understandable that those on the Right accused all those on the Left of being Communists, while all those on the Left accused all those Right of center of being Fascist. Horrible atrocities, including torture, mutilation, rape, and the execution of thousands of innocent victims, were committed by the Communists as part of the accepted pattern of the Reign of Terror. A few extremists on the Franco side committed atrocities also. All civil wars seem to turn a great number of men into inhuman brutes who descend below the level of brute beasts once the blood lust has been aroused in them. Civil War cannot be justified. Those who advocate revolutionary wars should be executed. The evidence goes to show that the King of Spain in 1931, and General Franco in 1936, did everything in their power to avoid fighting a civil war.
Franco did not call upon the citizens of Spain to rally around him until he had exhausted every other means of preventing the Communist coup taking place. On July 26, 1936 the professional Army in Spain had been reduced greatly in numbers; it had been replaced by a National Police Force controlled by the Leftist government. It is extraordinary that Franco's bid to defeat the Communist plot did not fail, because post-war investigations revealed that in 1936 the armed fores were riddled with traitor, both officers and men, who had been placed in key positions by the agents of Moscow working within the Popular Front Government in Spain, and on July 21, 1936, the Moscow directed organization for taking over the government in Spain was complete.
Franco knew that in one day Julio Alvarez del Vayo, who was Foreign Minister in the government and Commissar-General, appointed hundreds of political commissars to the republican army. The majority of these men were Communists; Vayo did this without consulting the Premier. The commissars compelled soldiers to join the Communist Party, offering them advantages and promotion if they did, and they threatened persecution by every means in their power if they did not. Louis Araquistain, ex-ambassador of the Spanish Republic in Paris, published this fact in the New York Times May 19, 1939. It was proven to be true.
Indalecio Prieto was Spanish Socialist deputy and minister of National Defense, during the Spanish Civil War. He helped direct the war against Franco. In a report published in Paris in 1936 entitled: "How and Why I left the Ministry of National Defense," he said: "It is difficult to be on guard because there are Communists occupying confidential positions who, so as to avoid suspicion, are ordered to hide their affiliation, and sometimes ordered to conceal it by joining other parties. Dr. Juan Negrin was one of these, he was one of the most powerful men in Spain during the Civil War."
Prieto wrote of him: "Because I refused to obey orders from Moscow, Juan Negrin expelled me from the government over which he presided on April 5, 1938. I occupied the post of Minister of National Defense in his government. Two simultaneous actions were initiated against me; one was entrusted to the Russian secret police and military men who operated in our country, and the other to the Spanish Communists...The Russians ordered and the Spanish Communists obeyed."
Dr. Juan Negrin claims he was not a Communist, but it was he who ordered that 7,000 boxes of Spanish gold be delivered to Stalin. The boxes were loaded in the ships "Kine," "Neve," and "Volgiles." All three displayed the Soviet Flag. José Velasco, and Arturo Candela, accompanied the shipments as persons of trust to Odessa.
Everything was done undercover and other members of the Popular Front Government were not cognizant of the situation. During Negrin's term of office three Communists were appointed as under-secretaries of defense, and thus were the true masters of the republican army, navy, and air force.[166] Largo Caballero was a Communist but, when he refused to obey the order given him by Moscow's emissaries they overruled his orders even when he was serving his presidential term. When he tried to rectify his own mistakes, he found it was too late. How Moscow's agents in foreign lands obtain such an absolute control of Leftist leaders is explained by Prieto. He wrote: "The majority of the military commands of the Popular Front Government were finally occupied by Communists, and in their hands were the most important reins of power. How could that phenomenon happen? Through a system of coercion graduated between personal advancement for those who bowed their heads, and the murder of those who rebelled."
Theo Rogers in his "Spain; a Tragic Journey" makes reference to the capture of documents which proved beyond doubt that a full scale revolution had been planned to break out in July 1936. Rogers wrote: "Discovery amongst militant Communists and Anarchists of documents and plans, showed that a carefully schemed plot had been prepared for an outbreak which would upset even the central government in Madrid and establish a Soviet Dictatorship." The work of the Illuminati.
The whole world should have known of the Moscow directed plot against Spain because the final orders were intercepted while being passed by the Comintern to the leaders of the revolutionary movement in Spain. The documents were given to the "Echo de Paris," which published them in April 1936. The "Echo de Paris" article reads: "Text of Instructions for the Red Militia": "These instructions to the heads of the Spanish Red Militia...do not emanate from a Spanish Central Organization, but from the Technical Services in Paris, which sent them to Spain at that date.
These in close co-operation with the Comintern, and it delegates in France. The document, which we are publishing, is in the hands of the government; we were not the parties who communicated it to them. We are convinced that M. Daladier, Minister of War and Defense, has given orders for preventive measures of defense, and protection, to be taken."
The abbreviated text is as follows:
1). Reinforce shock troops and guards in barracks, and supply them with automatic pistols. These shock troops and guards are members of the Communist party serving in the permanent forces and reserves.
2). These troops will be placed in communication with the Groups who are to break into the barracks. The latter will be in uniform, and under the orders of our officers in whom we have complete confidence.
3). When the fight starts our officers will be given admittance with their groups secretly. They will contact the respective committees and carry out the pre-arranged plan of attack inside the barracks.
4). The provisional committees, in the barracks, shall renew every two days their lists of enemies, neutrals, sympathizers, and experts. When the barracks have been taken over, those classed as enemies, including in particular all commanders and officers, shall be rapidly eliminated, and without hesitation.
5). Each member of the committees shall be provided with a list of the names of individuals who are to be murdered by himself personally.
6). After the enemies have been disposed of, neutrals shall be subjected to serve tests in order to kill in them any hesitation habitual in such undecided characters.
7). The committees handling the neutrals will make the necessary arrangements for the vigilance groups outside to enter the barracks on the pretext of assisting to put down the rebellion.
8). This has little importance.
9). Those detailed to liquidate generals on the active list shall consist of ten men with revolvers. The generals have two adjutants, and a secretary, who must be murdered in their own homes. Those detailed to perform these killings shall not withdraw in face of any obstacle or opposition, and they shall eliminate anyone who opposes them regardless of sex or age.
10). Those detailed to eliminate generals not holding command shall consist of three men groups and shall consist of three men groups and shall carry out their duties as outlined in preceding paragraph.
11). and 12). Details how houses and sites, in strategic positions, must be procured by Communist militants, and secretly armed and fortified in order to ambush troops who may succeed in escaping from barracks. The instructions read: "As military officers have protected cars, groups of our militants must proceed to strategic points such as cross-roads, in cars and trucks; armed with machine guns so as to prevent help reaching those inside the cities. Lorries shall carry supplies of grenades."
13). Our militants shall quickly put on the uniform previously obtained and they shall be served with rifles.
14). When the rebellion breaks out our militant groups, wearing uniforms of the Civil Guards and of the Assault Guard, and equipment already prepared for them, shall arrest all heads of all political parties under pretext of the necessity of doing so for their personal protection. Once in custody the procedure for the elimination of generals not holding command shall be carried out. Uniformed groups shall also arrest and detain important capitalists whose names appear in appendix "B" of Circular No. 32.
15). Violence shall not be used against these capitalists except if they resist; they shall however be forced to hand over the balance of the current accounts at the banks, and their securities. In the event of concealment they shall be completely eliminated, including their families, without exception. It is desirable that Cells shall be worked in on their staffs as domestics, or mechanics, as they can be very useful. [167]
16). Can be skipped.
17). With regard to members of the armed forces who claim to be sympathizers, the same tactics shall be followed as was done in Russia. First use their services and then eliminate them as enemies. For our effort to be successful, and permanent, a neutral officer or man is better than one who has betrayed his uniform because his life was in danger. It is likely he would betray us also if provided with the opportunity.
18). Instructions to our militia regarding mobilization, movements of transportation, use of arms, and marksmanship, must be intensified.
19). Militia posted at cross roads must eliminate all defeated troops trying to escape.
20). Machine gun posts shall be located in premises which cover the front and rear of all armories, police stations, and fire halls and all approaches to, and exits from, the cities, and if, in spite of this, the enemy are able to get out, they shall be attacked with hand-grenades.
21). Other militia shall be placed in armored lorries in strategical positions within the cities not more than one kilometer apart, they also shall be armed with machine guns.
22). Liaison shall be by light cars, and cyclists, who shall be armed with revolvers.
23). Is of no special importance.
24). The most intimate details concerning the lives and characters of all neutrals and sympathizers must be obtained and carefully recorded, including their family requirements, and the influence which love of their children, and desire for these necessary requirements, may exercise over them. If any of our militia, or any of the neutrals and sympathizers show any kind of weakness, or resistance to orders, they must be denounced to the highest committee of the organization as being guilty of complicity and/or reaction.
25). Our Militia must be organized to work away from their own homes and localities because experience has taught us that at the last moment, through sentimentalism, men working in their own localities, and among their families and friends, have failed to carry out our plan with proper enthusiasm.
26). All owners of depots of goods and merchandise shall be regarded as important capitalists. These depots must be organized to serve the proletariat through the administrative groups. [168]
27). Deals with the question of using Starvation as a means of reducing opposition quickly, and confirms what has been said regarding the use of this weapon in national disputes, and international warfare. It reads: "During the first week and until the constitution becomes normal, the supply of food and drink to the bourgeois is prohibited."
28). Reads - Stock of foods in barracks and in the hands of our enemies, which cannot be captured, must be rendered useless by mixing paraffin or other substances with them.
Since these orders were issued the revolutionary leaders in all countries have been given special instruction to make careful plans to deal with the members of the police and fire-departments because experience has shown that the majority of these civic employees "remain loyal to their bourgeois bosses." The action recommended is to:
A). Infiltrate into the two forces.
B). Corrupt the rank and file.
C). Party members are urged to purchase or rent properties covering the approaches to both back and front of police stations, and fire halls, so the members can be eliminated as they change shifts. The hour to revolt is to coincide with the time the police change shifts. The orders which were given to the leaders of the Communist party in Spain detailed how they were to take over all public utilities and public services as well as civic administration. The objective was to obtain, in the shortest possible time, full and absolute control of all food supplies and communication systems.
1938: Assassination of Leon Sedov, Trotsky's son; first assassination attempt against Trotsky. Nazi invasion of Austria; Interpol exiled ‑‑ or taken over by Nazis; German expedition to Antarctica stakes out 600,000 square kilometers, lands near the South Pole. Electroshock treatment discovered. Orson Welles' dramatization of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds scares American radio listeners.
1939: Both Russia and Germany invaded Poland but England and France only declared war on Germany, and not on Russia, Why? This has been a question asked by thousands and no acceptable answer has ever been brought forth.
When war began in 1939, Chaim Weizmann had a conversation with Winston Churchill: "He received me not only cordially, but he was also full of confidence with respect to the war. His first words, after he had welcomed me, were as follows: 'Well, Dr. Weizmann, we have as good as beaten them already.' I...thanked him for his constant support for the Zionist course. 'You were standing at the cradle of this enterprise,' I said to him, 'and hopefully you will live to see that we have succeeded.' Adding that after the war we would build up a state of three to four million Jews in Palestine, whereupon he replied: 'Yes, go ahead, I am full in agreement with this idea.'"
1939: Attorney Leon Cooke, friend of Jack Ruby and financial secretary of the union which employed Ruby, killed by union president Jack Martin; union subsequently taken over by Mafia. League of Nations suspended. Germany invades Poland; World War II begins. CFR offers it services to U.S. State Dept. Interpol grouped with Gestapo. Amateur radio astronomer Grote Reber receives dot‑dash signal from space. Attempted assassination of Hitler.
1940: Assassination of Leon Trotsky in Mexico. British secret police renamed MI‑5 and MI‑6 for duration of war. Interpol moved to near Berlin., with Reinhard Heydrich in charge. Nazis allegedly begin building Hitler's secret hideout in Antarctica. Roosevelt sends Gen. "Wild Bill" Donovan on info‑gathering mission to Europe; Donovan recommends a central intelligence organization. U.S. State Dept. creates Division of Special Research headed by CFR member Pasbolsky. New-Age Sociology by Edward Alsworth Ross ('father of American sociology') is published. In this book, Ross writes of "the sterilization of mental defective," and declares that, "If the agencies which for ages have been sifting out of the population the less hardy and resistant have largely been put out of action in the last half-century, then other means must be devised to give the fitter an advantage of the less fit in reproducing themselves."
Note: Please note carefully Edward Alsworth Ross's words: "If the agencies which for ages have been sifting out of the population the less hardy and resistant..." Here, he is saying that the wars, plagues and etc., for ages past have been introduced into society to rid the world of the less fit! Concerning church-state relations, he pronounces that; "In matters political or civic, one's religious convictions or church affiliations ought not to figure at all." Regarding, "the radiant points of social control," he believes that, "the State may render its citizens so many vital services that it...becomes a center of social power." He claims that. "Under the guidance of its elite, society develops an apparatus of control designed to repress harmful conduct and to encourage desired conduct." He further states: "So today the recourse of those aiming to control the machinery of government for their own ends is to sway mass opinion by means of elaborate veiled propaganda and cunningly to suppress whatever may run counter to their design...New methods of winning support had to be devised and of these the most promising is Propaganda Plus Censorship."
1941: The City of Man: A Declaration on World Democracy by social philosopher Lewis Mumford and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, et al is published, in which one reads: "There is, indeed, no liberty but one: the right, which is a duty, of making oneself and others free through absolute allegiance to the final goal of man...Democracy must be redefined (as) a harmony subordinated to a plan...a positive organism. It is the plentitude of heart-service to a highest religion embodying the essence of all higher religions. Democracy is nothing more and nothing less than humanism in theocracy and irrational theocracy in universal humanism."
Japan attacks U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor, allegedly through the maneuvering of Roosevelt and his advisors to provide an excuse to enter the war. Donovan made head of new Office of Coordinator of Information. The Books of Charles Fort published. Remember here that the founders of our Constitutional republic deliberately rejected "democracy" (many calling it "mobocracy"), and Lenin would later claim that democracy was a necessary step on the road to communism.
America Goes to War
The method by which the United States was drawn into World War I, started on October 25, 1911, when Winston Churchill was appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty in England. Winston Churchill is an interesting individual, as he later came to the conclusion that there was indeed a master conspiracy at work in the major events of the world, when he wrote the following in 1920: "From the days of Spartacus ‑‑ Weishaup to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia)...this world‑wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization...has been steadily growing." [169]
The second key appointment made during the pre‑war period was the appointment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt is also on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: "...the real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government (United States Government) ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson). The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States ‑‑ only on a far bigger and broader basis." [170]
The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when the Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English Government. The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan and Co., to be sold to England an France to aid in their war against Germany.
It was known that the very wealthy were interested in involving the American Government in that war, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was one who made note of this. "As Secretary (Bryan) had anticipated, the large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of wide opportunities for large profits. On August 3, 1914, even before the actual clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan and Co., in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100,000,000, a substantial part of which was to be left in the United States, to pay for French purchases of American goods." [171] England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, so that: "By the end of January, 1915, (British Intelligence was) able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U‑boat as it left for patrol..." [172]
This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U‑boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France. The ocean liner was set to sail to England already at war with Germany. The German Government had placed advertisements in the New York Newspapers warning the American people considering whether or not to sail with the ship to England that they would be sailing into a war zone, and that the liner could be sunk. Secretary Bryan promised: "...he would endeavor to persuade the President (Woodrow Wilson) publicly to warn the Americans not to travel (aboard the Lusitania). But no such warning was issued by the President, but there can be no doubt that President Wilson was told of the character of the cargo destined for the Lusitania. He did nothing..." [173]
Even though Wilson proclaimed America's neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:
Grey: What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?
House: I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.[174]
On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk in the English Channel by a U‑boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania stay alone in the channel.
Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U‑boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was. 1201 people lost their lives in the sinking, thanks to the International Jewish Bankers and their cohorts. The sinking has been described by Colin Simpson, the author of a book entitled The Lusitania, as; "...the foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas." [175]
But the event was not enough to enable President Wilson to declare war against the German Government, and the conspirators changed tactics. They would use other means to get the American people involved in the war, as the "flame of indignation" did not sweep the United States as had been planned. Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating: "We must educate the public gradually ‑‑ draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war." [176]
After the sinking of the Lusitania, two inquiries were held, one by the English government, in June, 1915, and one by the American Government in 1918. Mr. Simpson has written: "Both sets of archives...contain meager information. There are substantial differences of fact in the two sets of papers and in many cases it is difficult to accept that the files relate to the same vessel." [177]
But in both inquiries, the conclusions were the same: torpedoes and not exploding ammunition sank the Lusitania, because there was no ammunition aboard. The Cover-up was now official. However, there have been critics of these inquiries. One was, of course, the book written by Colin Simpson, who did the research necessary to write his book in the original minutes of the two inquiries.
The Los Angeles Time reviewed Mr. Simpson's book and concluded: "The Lusitania proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the British Government connived at the sinking of the passenger ship in order to lure America into World War I. The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill." [178]
Of Woodrow Wilson the famous Dr. H.J. Boldt wrote as follows: "Woodrow Wilson was a Sephardic Jew...The name of his parents was Wohlson ‑‑ a German‑Jewish name; they came from Germany, and went to England where they were known as Mr. and Mrs. Wolfson and when they landed here in America they called themselves Wilson."
His second wife, the former Mrs. Galt is also Jewish. On the death of Dr. Boldt the HERALD TRIBUNE, on January 14, 1943, said: "...an internationally known gynecologist and professor emeritus of gynecology at the Post‑ Graduate Medical School of Columbia University."
He may be found in Who is Who in America, in Who's Who Among Physicians and Surgeons; in Who is Who in the Western Hemisphere; in the Blue Book of England. Thus it is clear that the Jews were responsible for what happened in Russia where the gentiles are in serfdom under Jewish control. President Wilson was seeking re‑election in 1916. He campaigned on his record of "keeping us out of the War" during his first term of office from 1912 to 1916. However, behind the scenes, Wilson; himself a Marrano Jew, with his Jewish advisors Bernard Baruch, Col. Edward Mandell House and Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, were secretly plotting America's entry into the War, mainly through the machinations of Wilson's major advisor, Col. House. House had already committed America to a participation in the war: "The House‑Grey memorandum...pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany did not come promptly to the peace table. This agreement was approved by Wilson eight months before the 1916 election." [179]
But the real reason the War was being fought was slowly emerging. One of the first revelations occurred on May 27, 1916, when President Wilson proposed the League of Nations in a speech before the League to Enforce Peace. Wilson argued that what the world needed to prevent the recurrence of a similar war was a world government. Some were not happy with the slowness of America's entry into the war. One of these was another Marrano Jew, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who; "In the early months of 1917 (Before the official declaration of war by the United States Government) he had been in constant conflict with his chief, Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, over the same issues."
For Daniels, who resisted every move that might carry the United States into the war, those four months (January through April) of 1917 were the "agony of Gethsemane." He opposed convoying (The intentional sending of American ships into the war zone in the hope that one would be sunk by the Germany Navy). He opposed the arming of merchant ships (Intentionally provoking the German Navy into believing that the ship was a ship of war). Roosevelt Favored Both.
And when a filibuster prevented congressional authorization of the arming of merchantmen, Roosevelt was impatient with Wilson for not immediately using his executive power to arm (The ships). He dined at the Metropolitan Club with a group of Republican "warhawks" (Roosevelt was a Democrat). It included Theodore Roosevelt, General Wood, J.P. Morgan, and Elihu Root (One of the founders of the CFR).
The primary topic of discussion was, according to Roosevelt's diary, "...how to make Administration steer a clear course to uphold rights. This was an euphemism for an aggressive policy on the high seas that would result in incidents and involve the United States in the war." [180]
Roosevelt's badgering apparently paid off, for on April 2, 1917, President Wilson asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and it was granted on April 6. The United States was now in a Jews war, "to end all wars," and "to make the world safe for democracy." America went to war "to make the world safe for Democracy."
The result was Lenin, a Communist Russia and Partial Chaos. Only twenty‑five years passed and America was again brought into a foreign war, this for "for freedom." The new result was a Soviet Russia covering all of Eastern Europe, with Chaos over all the world. Out of this the Cabalist Jews ruled by the program of the Learned Elders brought forth the U.N., The Jewish World State.
This is the "Ordo ab Chao" (Jewish Order out of Chaos), a new order, the incarnation of the basic principle of Universality, i.e., "World Republic by World Revolution," with the deceiving pronouncement of "human rights," with the slogan "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity," and with the fate of unfortunate France, which that country suffered in 1789, in store for all the countries that succumb to the voice of this siren, i.e., total destruction of all Native White Christian Countries, States, the White Race and its Nations.
Lenin
The invasion of Russia in 1812 by Napoleon shook the Russian people to the core. Tzar Alexander I set about the task of organizing a recovery program. In the hope that he could bring about a united effort throughout the Russian Empire, he relaxed many of the restrictions which had been imposed on the Jews when they were confined to the Pale of Settlement in 1772. Special concession were made to the established Jews in agriculture. Under Alexander I they were given every encouragement to assimilate themselves into the Russian way of life.
Nicholas I succeeded Alexander I in 1825. He was less inclined to favor the Jews, because he viewed their rapid inroads into the Russian economy with alarm. His government viewed with great displeasure the determination of the Jews to maintain their separate culture, language, mode of dress, etc.
In order to try to assimilate the Jews into the Russian society Nicholas I, in 1804, make it compulsory for all Jewish children to attend Public School. Nicholas thought that if the young Jews could be convinced that they would be welcomed into Russian society it would go a long way to eliminate misunderstandings. His avowed purpose was to offset the one-sided story of religious persecution which was drilled into their minds from early infancy. he net results of the Russian experiment didn't turn out as expected. Education for non-Jewish children was not compulsory.
The Jews became the best educated segment in Russia. [181] Alexander II followed Nicholas I to the throne of Russia in 1855. Benjamin Disraeli referred to Alexander II as "The most benevolent prince that ever ruled over Russia." Alexander devoted his life to improving the conditions of the peasants, poorer classes, and the Jews.
In 1861 he emancipated 23,000,000 serfs. This unfortunate class had been Forced to work on the land. They were Literally slaves. They could be transferred from one owner to another in all sales, or leases, of landed estates. Many Jews, who had taken advantage of the compulsory education, entered universities. They found themselves severely handicapped after graduation when seeking employment. To correct this injustice Alexander II ruled that all Jewish graduates be allowed to settle and hold government positions in Greater Russia. In 1879 Jewish apothecaries, nurses, mid-wives, dentists, distillers and skilled craftsmen were permitted to work and reside, anywhere in Russia. But the Jewish revolutionary leaders were determined to continue their movement for Popular World Revolution. Their terrorist groups committed one outrage after another. They worked to enlist the support of disgruntled Russian intellectuals and to plant the general idea of violent revolution in the minds of the industrial working population. In 1866 they made their first attempt on the life of Alexander Ii [182] They tried to murder him a second time in 1879. In some miraculous manner both attempts failed. It was then decided a very special effort had to be made to remove Alexander. His benevolent rule was completely upsetting their claim "That much needed reforms can only be brought about speedily by revolutionary action." The conspirators hatched their next plot against the life of Alexander II in the home of the Jewess Hesia Helfman. The Tzar was murdered in 1881.
While the Revolutionary Forces within Russia were trying to embarrass the government in every way possible, and committing all kinds of outrages, including assassination, the "Secret Powers" behind the W.R.M. from their headquarters in England, Switzerland and the United States were trying once again to involve Britain in war with Russia. In such a war neither Empire could make any appreciable gains. The final outcome of such a war would be to weaken both Empires materially and leave them easier prey for revolutionary action afterwards.
In the "Nineteenth Century," October issue, 1881, Goldwyn Smith, professor of modern history at Oxford University wrote: "When I was las in England we were on the brink of war with Russia, which would have involved the whole Empire, the Jewish interests throughout Europe, with the Jewish Press of Vienna as its chief organ, was doing its utmost to push us in." [183]
The assassination of the Russians' "Little Father" in 1881 caused wide-spread resentment which was expressed by a spontaneous outbreak of violence against the Jewish population in many parts of Russia. The Russian Government passed "The May Laws." These were harsh laws passed because the Russian officials who sponsored them argued "That if the Jews could not be satisfied and reconciled by the benevolent policy of Alexander II then it was obvious that they would be satisfied with nothing less than the absolute domination of Russia."
Once again the whole Jewish people were being punished for the sins of a few self-appointed revolutionary leaders. But then the ordinary Jew would not do anything to stop his leaders, nor oppose them in any way, but would applaud their successes as if they were their own. On May 23, 1882 a Jewish delegation, headed by Baron Ginzberg [184], called on -the new Tzar Alexander III and officially protested the May Laws. The Tzar promised a thorough investigation into the whole matter concerning the conflict between the Jewish and non-Jewish factions of the Empire's population.
On September 3rd he issued the follow statement: "For some time the government has given its attention to the Jews, and their problems and their relations to the rest of the inhabitants of the Empire with a view to ascertaining the sad conditions of the Christian population brought about by the conduct of the Jews in business matters. During the last twenty years the Jews have not only possessed themselves of every trade and business in all its branches but also of a great part of the land by buying or farming it. With few exceptions they have, as a body, devoted their attention not to enriching or benefitting the country, but to defrauding the Russian people by their wiles. Particularly have the poor inhabitants suffered, and this conduct has called forth protests from the people as manifested in acts of violence against the Jews. The government, while on one hand doing its best to put down these disturbances, and to deliver the Jews from oppression and slaughter; on the other hand thought it a matter of urgency, and justice, to adopt the stringent measures to put an end to the oppression as practiced by the Jews on the other inhabitants, and to rid the country of their malpractice, which were, as is well known, the original cause of the anti-Jewish agitations."
The May Laws had been passed by the Government not only as an act of resentment because of the assassination of Tzar Alexander II, but also because Russian economists had been urgently warning the Government that the national economy was in danger of being ruined if measures were not taken to curb the illegal activities of the Jews. The economists pointed out that while the Jews only represented 4.2 percent of the whole population they had been able to entrench themselves so well in the Russian economy that the nation was faced with economic disaster. How correct the economists proved to be shown by the action taken after Baron Ginzberg's deputation failed to have the May Laws rescinded. The International Bankers imposed economic sanctions against the Russian Empire. They almost reduced the nation to bankruptcy. They exercised an embargo on Russian trade and commerce. In 1904, after they involved the Russian Empire in a disastrous war with Japan, the English Banking House of Rothschild repudiated its promise of financial aid and tried to render the Russian Empire bankrupt, while Kuhn-Loeb and Co., of New York extended to Japan all the credit asked for.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, page 76, Vol. 2 (1947): "The Russian May Laws were the most conspicuous legislative monument achieved by modern anti-Semitism...Their immediate results were a ruinous commercial depression which was felt all over the empire and which profoundly affected the national credit. The Russian Minister was at his wit's end for money. Negotiations for a large loan were entered into with the House of Rothschild and a preliminary contract was signed when the Finance Minister was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were stopped, the great banking house would be compelled to withdraw from the contract...In this way anti-Semitism, which had already so profoundly influenced the domestic policies of Europe, set its mark on the International relations of the Powers, for it was the urgent need of the Russian Treasury, quite as much as the termination of Prince Bismarck's secret treaty of mutual neutrality, which brought bout the Franco-Russian Alliance." Many orthodox Jews were worried because of the ruthless terrorism being practiced by their compatriots. They knew that a similar policy was being carried out in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. The less radical Jews worried because they feared a continuation of such terrorism would result in such a wave of anti-Semitism that it could possibly end with the extermination of the Jews. Their worst fears were confirmed by a German Jew, Theodore Herzl, who informed them of Karl Ritter's anti-Semitic policy and warned them that it was rapidly being spread throughout Germany. He suggested the organization of a Jewish Back to Israel Movement on the part of orthodox Jews. This was the beginning of the Zionist movement.[185]
After Tzar Alexander III had issued his verdict blaming Avaricious Jews as the cause of the Empire's unrest, and economic ruin, the leaders of the revolutionaries organized "The Social Revolutionary Party." An utterly ruthless man named Gershuni was appointed organizer of the Terrorist Groups. A tailor named Yevno Azev was appointed to organized the "Fighting Sections." The leaders of the Social Revolutionary Party also emphasized the importance of enlisting Gentiles in the movement. Gentiles, who passed the tests to which they were submitted, became full members. It was this decision that brought Alexander Ulyanov into the party.
Before the revolutionary leaders would admit him into full membership he was ordered to take part in the plot to assassinate Tzar Alexander III. The attempt on the Tzar's life failed. Alexander Ulyanov was arrested; tried and condemned to death. His execution caused his younger brother, Vlasimir to dedicate himself to the revolutionary cause. Vlasimir rose in power until he became leader of the Bolshevik Party. He assumed the name of Lenin, and ultimately became the first Dictator of the U.S.S.R.
Between 1900 and 1906, in addition to causing serious labor trouble, and creating terrible misunderstanding between all levels of Russian society, the Revolutionary Party rubbed the sore of religious bigotry until it developed into a festering boil. This boil was brought to a head by the hot applications of wholesale murders and assassinations. The boil burst in the form of the revolution of 1905.
The officials assassinated by the Social Revolutionaries Terrorist Section were Bogolepov, Minister of Education in 1901. This assassination was perpetrated to register Jewish resentment against the educational clause in the previously referred to May Laws. This clause limited the number of Jews attending state-supported schools and universities, to a number in ratio to the Jewish population as compared to the whole Russian population. This measure was passed because the State financed schools had become flooded with Jewish students. A group of young Jews who had "suffered" when boys, because of the murdering the Minister of Education. They had to prove their courage and ability to qualify them for duty with the Terrorist section of the Social Revolutionary Party.
Next year (1902) Sipyagin, Minister of the Interior, was assassinated to emphasize Jewish resentment against the May Law which had reversed the policy of Alexander II, and prohibited Jews from living outside the Pale of Settlement. Jews who had been evicted from their homes in Greater Russia as children under the May Law were chosen to carry out this "Execution." They made no mistake.
In 1903 Bogdanovich, Governor of UFA was assassinated; in 1904 Vischelev von Plehve, the Russian Premier was killed; in 1905 the first full scale Russian Revolution broke out. The Grand Duke Sergius, uncle of the Tzar, was assassinated on February 17th. In December, 1905, General Dubrassov suppressed the revolutionaries, but in 1906 he was assassinated by the Terrorist Section.
After the Tzar had blamed the Jews for the unsatisfactory state of affairs in Russia, Baron Ginzberg was instructed to work to bring about the destruction of the Russian Empire. It was agreed that to start the Russo-Japanese War the Rothschild interests in Europe would pretend to be friendly with Russia. They would finance the war on Russia's behalf while secretly the Rothschild's partners, Kuhn-Loeb and Co., of New York, would finance the Japanese government.
The defeat of Russia was to be made certain by the Rothschilds withdrawing financial aid when it was most needed. Chaos and confusion was to be created within the Russian armed forces in the far East by sabotaging the lines of transport and communication crossing Siberia. This caused both the Russian Army and Navy to run short of supplies and reinforcements.[186]
The Japanese government was financed by international loans raised by Jacob Schiff (New York); a senior partner in Kuhn-Loeb and Co. He co-operated with Sir Ernest Cassels (England) and the Warburgs (Hamburg, Germany). Jacob Schiff justified his action of financing the Japanese in the war against Russia in a letter he wrote to Count Witte, the Tzar's emissary who attended the Peace negotiations held at Portsmouth, Ohio in 1905. "Can it be expected that the influence of the American Jew upon public opinion will be exerted to the advantage of the country which systematically degraded his brethren-in-race?...If the Government now being formed, should not succeed in assuring safety, and equal opportunity throughout the Empire, to the Jewish population, then indeed the time will have come for the Jews in Russia to quit their inhospitable fatherland. While the problem with which the civilized world will then be faced will be enormous, it will be solved, and you, who are not only a far-seeing statesman, but also a great economist know best that the fate of Russia, and its doom, will then be sealed."
The hypocrisy of Jacob Schiff can be better appreciated when it is explained that from 1897 he had financed the Terrorists in Russia. In 1904 he helped finance the revolution which broke out in Russia in 1905. He also helped to organize on an international basis the financing of the Russian Revolution which broke out early in 1917, and gave him and his associates their first opportunity to put their Totalitarian Theories into effect.[187]
The Russo-Japanese War was fomented by the International Bankers in order to create the conditions necessary for the success of a revolutionary effort to overthrow the power of the Tzars. The plans of the International Bankers were upset when the Jewish-led Menshevika started a revolution independently in Russia in 1905. When the International Bankers withheld financial support the revolution failed right at the moment it appeared to have reached the pinnacle of success.
Because the Jewish-dominated Mensheviks acted on their own initiative the International Bankers decided that Lenin would conduct "their" revolutionary program in Russia from that date on. We have the following information about the early life of Lenin from several different authors: "Lenin had taken part in Jewish student meetings in Switzerland thirty-five years before." [188]; "It was my first sight of him (Lenin) - a smooth-headed, oval-faced, narrow-eyed, typical Jew, with a devilish sureness in every line of his powerful magnetic face. Beside him was a different type of Jew, the kind one might see in any Soho shop, strong-nosed, sallow-faced, long-moustached, with a little tuft of beard wagging from his chin and a great shock of wild hair, Leiba Bronstein, afterwards Lev Trotsky." [189]; "Lenin, or Oulianov by adoption, originally Zederbaum, a Kalmuck Jew, married a Jewess, and whose children speak Yiddish." [190]; "Lenin, as a child, was left behind, there, by a company of prisoners passing through, and later his Jewish convict father, Ilko Sroul Goldman, wrote inquiring his whereabouts. Lenin had already been picked up and adopted by Qulianoff." [191]; "Lenin was born on April 10, 1870 in the vicinity of Odessa, South of Russia, as a son of Ilko Sroul Goldmann, a German Jew, and Sofie Goldmann, a German Jewess. Lenin was circumcised as Hiam Goldmann." [192]
In January President Woodrow Wilson, re‑elected president in late 1916 on his promise to "keep us out of the war," and maintain strict "Neutrality," told Congress he earnestly wanted to remain at peace with Germany, But on April 2, 1917 America entered a war that was to cost it 117,000 American lives.
Why? Britain desperately needed help, so the Zionist Jews offered U.S. wealth and manpower in exchange for Britain's promise to give Palestine to the Jews. This promise was engineered by Lord Balfour (a Jew), and thus called the Balfour Declaration. "World War I was our Supreme Revenge on the Christian World." [193]
Chaim Weizmann, Zionist leader: "We told the authorities in London; we shall be in Palestine whether you want us there or not. You may speed up or slow down our coming, but it would be better for you to help us, otherwise our constructive force will turn into a destructive one that will bring about ferment in the entire world." [194]
1920: Armenia, Azerbidjhan, Byelorussia, Georgia, Kazakh, Kirghy and the Ukraine were brought under Communist enslavement.
1920: China. A landing force was sent ashore for a few hours to protect lives during a disturbance at Klukiang.
1920: Guatemala. To protect the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala. "The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world." [195]
1920: "Bolshevism is a religion and a faith. How could those half‑converted believers dream to vanquish the 'Truthful' and the 'Faithful of their own creed, those holy crusaders, who had gathered around the Red standard of the prophet Karl Marx, and who fought under the daring guidance of those experienced officers of all latter‑day revolutions ‑‑ the Jews?" [196]
1920: The American Civil (Communist) Liberties (Lawyers) Union (ACLU) was founded by Roger Baldwin.
No examination of the American Civil Liberties Union can begin without an examination of the group's founder, Roger Nash Baldwin. He was born January 21, 1884, in Wellesley, Mass., a suburb of Boston. The son of wealthy parents, Baldwin was raised in a Unitarian environment and within a family philosophy that stressed the value of helping others. Baldwin went to Harvard where he earned both his bachelor's and master's degrees. Later he became an instructor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. It was in 1909, according to The New York Times that: "...he attended a lecture that he called 'a turning point in my intellectual life." The speaker was Emma Goldman, the anarchist. "What I heard in that crowded working‑ class hall from a woman who spoke with passion and intelligence,' he said, 'was a challenge to society I had never heard before. Here was a vision of the end of poverty and injustice by free association of those who worked, by the abolition of privilege and by the organized power of the exploited. In the years since I met Miss Goldman, I have never departed far from the general philosophy represented in libertarian literature. That is, in the goal of a society with a minimum of compulsion, a maximum of individual freedom and of voluntary association, and the abolition of exploitation and poverty."
In 1917, when America entered World War I, Baldwin took charge of the National Civil Liberties Bureau of the American Union Against Militarism. The Bureau's primary function was to defend draft dodgers and conscientious objectors. The following year, Baldwin himself was convicted for refusing to be drafted and was sent to jail for a year. After his release, he spent the better part of a year wandering the country as a blue collar worker. It was during this period that he joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).
In addition to his membership in the IWW, at one time or another according to the ACLU publication, "Civil Liberties," Baldwin also belonged to such groups as the American League for Peace, Freedom and Democracy, the National Urban League, and the Friends of the Soviet Union. Baldwin founded the American Civil Liberties Union in 1920, served as its executive director for 30 years and was "its most beloved advisor from 1950 until his death" in 1981.
Communist Connections
While Baldwin had strong communist ties and often declared communism to be his ultimate goal, a statement given additional credence by his actions, he himself was never a member of the Communist Party (At least as far as it is known). The same, however, cannot be said about those who joined him in forming this organization.
His first board of directors included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and William Z. Foster, both of whom would later head the Communist Party in America; radical Communist Scott nearing and several other including Socialist party head Norman Thomas. It should also be said that at least Baldwin was more open and honest about his goals and aspirations than the Union's succeeding executive directors have been. ACLU leaders today work hard to have us believe that Baldwin's "flirtation" with Communism was strictly a brief episode during a youthfully naive period of his life.
Yet, at the mature, responsible age of 50, here's what the ACLU's founder and "most beloved advisor" wrote: "I am for Socialism, Disarmament, and Ultimately for Abolishing the State (The United States) itself as an instrument for violence and compulsion. I seek the Social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
So much for the notion of a youthful flirtation.
1920 A Busy Year
The same year Baldwin founded the ACLU, he founded three other groups as well. One of them, the American Fund for Public Service, was a vehicle for giving away his wealth to support radical causes. He founded the International committee for Political Prisoners to help deported aliens. Then there was the Mutual Aid Society, founded to lend support to the "radical fringe," to help them with loans, arrest bail, jobs, counseling, and more. Baldwin had a special interest in and appreciation for the Soviet Union. He made his first trip to Russia in 1923 and was invited back for a second visit four years later.
In 1928, he issued a comparison of repression in democratic and socialist countries that has remained a mainstay of the ACLU's philosophy to this very day: "Repressions in Western Democracies are violations of professed constitutional liberties and I condemn them as such. Repressions in Soviet Russia are weapons of struggle in a transition period to Socialism.' In fact, this philosophy has been echoed by none other than William Kunstler who currently serves on the ACLU's National Advisory Council, who said, 'I do not believe in public attacks on socialist (Read that Communist) countries where violations of human rights may occur."
In 1934, Baldwin wrote in "Soviet Russia Today," "When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever."
Investigations Began Early
In the very same year it was founded, the ACLU came under investigation by a joint committee of the New York state legislature. They found the ACLU to be: "...a supporter of all subversive movements; and its propaganda is detrimental to the interests of the state. It attempts not only to protect crime, but to encourage attacks upon our institutions in every form." In the same report, the subcommittee also observed that the ACLU's, "...main work is to uphold the Communists in spreading revolutionary propaganda and inciting revolutionary activities to undermine our American Institutions and overthrow our Federal Government."
The Union's first widespread notice came in the 1925 "Monkey Trial,": when they sought to challenge Tennessee's Butler Act which made it illegal to teach evolution in state‑supported schools. Determined to make this a major test case, the ACLU advertised for a teacher who would be willing to challenge the law. John T. Scopes, a high school math teacher, who would later admit, "I wasn't sure I had taught evolution," responded to the ACLU's call and entered America's history books.
Ironically, creationism vs. evolution surfaced again in 1981 when first Arkansas, then Louisiana and Georgia, passed laws allowing equal time to be given for the teaching of scientific creationism in public schools. Outraged, the ACLU sprang into action, arguing that scientific creationism is a religion rather than a science, and claiming that, as such, it had no place in the curricula of America's public schools.
So, whereas 56 years earlier they had fought to defend the teaching of evolution as an "alternative" theory, this time they fought to make evolution the ONLY theory to teach. Writing in Barron's during the incredible national turmoil in August 1968, Shirley Scheibla concluded a report on the ACLU with a summary that bears striking resemblance to the findings of that New York state legislative committee 48 years earlier. Scheibla wrote: "...nearly all the causes it (ACLU) has taken up tend to weaken law and order and the ability of society to defend itself. Some landmark cases give Communists more freedom to destroy the nation from within. Those involving the draft erode the state's ability to defend itself against attack. Other significant ACLU cases diminish the authority of schools and police and the influence of religion."
Two years after that column appeared, the ACLU celebrated its 50th anniversary. They chose to observe that landmark event by presenting selected "heroes" with the "50th Anniversary Civil Liberties Award." An examination of some of their choices for those awards should remove any lingering doubt about the union's radical leftist position. They were: David Dellinger, an admitted Communist; Paul Robeson, an identified Communist; Julian Bond, a radical black legislator; and C. Willard Heckel whose claim to fame was his active defense of avowed Communist Angela Davis.
Bring Down The System
Despite all the denials and claims to the contrary, the evidence is over‑whelming that the ACLU is still working toward the goal that Roger Baldwin spelled out so clearly in 1935: "The Goal Is Communism." Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU, especially its foreign‑policy positions as spelled out by the Union's Center for national Security Studies. They wrote: "The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress of the courts, virtually all 'covert action,' most 'clandestine intelligence,' gathering (i.e. spying ‑‑ especially Israeli or Jewish spies), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced the U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us."
But what else can we expect from an organization that welcomes the likes of William Kunstler onto their National Advisory Council. Kunstler has admitted, no, bragged: "I am a double agent, working within the system to bring down the system." Perhaps the ACLU should consider making that their motto. At least it's honest.
Unequal Access
Perhaps nowhere is the ACLU's chameleon approach to individual rights more evident than in their efforts to remove each and every vestige of religion from public places ‑‑ especially our nation's public schools. A group that is bound and determined to protect an individual's rights to say, read, or watch anything he wants, draws the line when religion is involved. If they had their way, religious groups would be forced again to meet in secluded basements or perhaps even caves to insure that no "innocent" bystander was forced to listen to their message.
Whatever happened to the concept that religious liberties should be protected constitutional liberties? Rather than recognizing, as our Founding Fathers did, that freedom of worship is the most fundamental of U.S. liberties, the ACLU interprets "freedom to worship" as "freedom from worship." If they had their way, the pilgrims never would have been allowed to hold religious services. Time and time again, the ACLU has gone to bat for homosexual (Queer) groups to hold meetings in public school rooms after normal school hours. And time and time again, the ACLU has fought to keep that same right from being granted to religious groups. In fact, in 1979, the ACLU went so far as to sue the public school system in Sioux Falls, Iowa. Why? They wanted to stop the singing of "Silent Night" at Christmas assemblies. Three years later, in the state of Washington, a high school planning to put on the rock opera "Jesus Christ, Superstar" as its spring play was warned by the ACLU that this was religious instruction and that if they kept it up, they could expect "more direct and more drastic action."
In one of the classic equal access cases, the ACLU sued the Lubbock (Texas) Independent School District over this section of school board policy: "The school board permits students to gather at the school with supervision either before or after regular hours on the same basis as other groups to be determined by the school administration to meet for any educational, moral, or religious purpose, so long as attendance at such meetings is voluntary."
Ironically, the school board had instituted that policy after protest and threats about their previous practice of allowing morning Bible readings over school public address systems. Perhaps the greatest irony of all, however, lies in the fact that in the ACLU's first equal access case, the Union actually fought for a student's right to religious speech. It happened in 1969 in a Des Moines, Iowa.
Mary Beth Tinker, a high school student, was suspended for wearing a black arm‑band as part of a protest against America's involvement in Vietnam. But Miss Tinker, the daughter of a Methodist minister, claimed that she was wearing the arm‑band as an act of religious speech, not political protest. It was during the Advent season, she explained, and she wore the arm‑band as an act of religious mourning for the dead. The ACLU joined her cause and won ‑‑ a victory for religious expression in our schools! It seems that all we need to do is come up with a religion that supports the ACLU's left‑wing agenda and they'll help us fight for it.
Criminals and Their Victims
"Court decisions and public sentiment notwithstanding, we shall therefore continue to seek to prevent every execution and to abolish capital punishment, whether by litigation, by legislation, or by the weight of a renewed public outcry against the brutal and brutalizing institution of capital punishment."
This is the ACLU Capital Punishment Project. "Court decisions notwithstanding?" What better way to sum up the ACLU's unique approach to solving the terrible problem of crime in America today. They oppose the death penalty. So, who cares what courts decide, who cares what laws state legislatures pass, who cares what the American people think, or who cares about anything else?
There's an old saying, "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you what you are." Well, the ACLU's friends are dope dealers, terrorists, serial killers, spies, rapists, American Nazis, pornographers, convicted murderers and more. The truth is, they should change their name to the American Criminal Liberties Union. Remember, they claim that their "only client is the Bill of Rights." Somehow, they have been able to find in the Bill of Rights an excuse not to have the death penalty for even the most heinous and vicious of crimes. But they have also found excuses why no criminal in America should ever be punished at all. Part of the ACLU's novel approach to crime is first of all simply to legalize criminal activity. That's their answer to the national problem of illegal drugs. Just make them legal. There. No more problem. Crack, angel dust, cocaine, heroin; the ACLU see no reason why those should be illegal at all.
Of course, legalizing drugs is not going to stop the sales to minors by those pushers who aren't exactly used to filing 1040s with the I.R.S.! So, let the street corner sales continue. Let the crack houses continue to pose serious threats to the safety of innocent people in previously quiet neighborhoods. Prostitution, too. Let's make that legal. After all, when a disease‑infected street corner hooker makes a grab at a passerby, she's just exercising her constitutional right of free expression. And the dangerous hangers‑on that tend to congregate where prostitutes ply their trade?
Well, they certainly have a right to freedom of assembly. Let's not forget about pornography. We need to legalize that, too. After all, this $8‑billion industry is protected by the Constitution. So any laws to hinder its distribution or sale; no matter how hard core, no matter how obscene, no matter how young the people are who are featured in it or buying it, are unconstitutional. That's right. The ACLU believes our young children should be able to have hard core pornography readily available to them. But it's not just the criminal actions the ACLU seeks to legalize that is so frightening. It's their unabashed commitment to do whatever it takes to see no one should have to suffer too much for the crimes they commit. Thanks to the ACLU, America is entering the 1990s with, as Pat Buchanan described it, "...a justice system where the guilty have never been freer, bolder or more secure, and the innocent have never been more terrified or repressed."
What else can we expect from this organization when the director of their "National Prison Project," Alvin J. Bronstein, reports to the United States Sentencing Commission that, in a ranking of serious crimes, the ACLU ranks a polluter's actions a more serious offense than a violent murderer's! Of course, the ACLU has always been able to find an economic justification for the "poor" to commit violent crime and they've always been able to find reasons why businessmen should be behind bars.
The ACLU loves to focus on issues like abortion (Murder of the Unborn) or homosexuality (Queers), to inflame the American people into thinking that the government is going to be invading their bedrooms. The truth is, the only people invading bedrooms in this country are the burglars and rapists and other criminals that the ACLU keeps out of jail! Over the past 20 years, they have established an incredible number of roadblocks that make it nearly impossible for the criminal justice system to function in a manner that can reasonably protect the public safety.
Policemen have found it almost impossible to do the job they have dedicated their lives to doing. At any point in the process, from the moment of arrest to the last possible appeal, there have been so many technicalities added into the system that even a tiny glitch can allow even the worst rapist or murderer to walk right back out on the streets, free. That's where the ACLU wants them. Out on the streets, where it will be easier for them to strike again. Like Willie Horton. They don't make any bones about not wanting them put in jail. Here's the opening paragraph of a Position Statement released by the ACLU's National Prison Project: "We believe that no new jails or prisons should be constructed by local, state or federal officials until all possible alternatives to incarceration are examined and utilized. The cost of dealing with offenders, in other than a closed institution, will in the long run, result in financial savings. Thus there should be maximum funding, staffing and utilization of non‑institutional corrections to minimize future human and economic waste."
"Human and economic waste?" That's what these criminals are guilty of in the first place. And the ACLU wants us to keep them out on the streets so they can continue wasting lives and property. With all the emphasis on rights and liberties, what happens to the rights of those criminals' victims? One ACLU staffer was once quoted as saying, "Victims don't have any rights." Wherever the ACLU is involved, the evidence certainly supports that statement. In fact, the ACLU's Policy Guide, which lists the official national policies of this organization, contains no less than eight entries dealing with the rights of prisoners. Yet out of nearly 300 separate policy entries in that Guide, not one is addressed to the rights of crime victims.
Crimes "Without Victims"
"...An organization which finds liberty in the court mandated release of hundreds of dangerous predators into the community, but finds oppression in the death penalty for the brutal sexual assault and murder of a small child; or which finds liberty in the depiction of sexual violence against women, but finds oppression in a small town's depiction of a nativity scene."
That's how Steven J. Twist, a former Chief Assistant Attorney General, described the ACLU. Given the ACLU's unique approach to crime and criminals, an area deserving our special attention is a category they describe as "victimless crimes." Included under this umbrella are such activities as prostitution, pornography, aberrant sexual behavior, drug use and others. As usual, however, while defending the rights of Americans to engage in those activities, the ACLU ignores the fact that there are indeed victims of those crimes and that the ACLU's actions place those victims of those crimes and that the ACLU's actions place those victims, and American society in general, in grave danger.
Pornography
In simplest terms, the ACLU thinks the distribution and sale of all pornography should be made legal, even so‑called "kiddie porn" which depicts small children engaging in sexual intercourse. Kiddie porn and child prostitution are things Father Bruce Ritter knows something about. Father Bruce is the founder and head of Covenant House in New York City. He spends his time trying to put together whatever pieces are left of kids after their brutal treatment at the hands of pornographers and pimps, kids, as he put it, who: "...had been bought and sold like so many potatoes."
Father Bruce has written a book about his experiences at Covenant House, entitled Sometimes God Has a Kid's Face. In it, he tells stories of kids like the little girl who had been arrested eight times for prostitution and thrown out a window to her death by her pimp, all before her 12th birthday. Or of the 10‑year‑old boy who showed up at Covenant House with the toy cars and trucks his customers had given him. Father Bruce is rightfully bitter about the ACLU. He wrote: "If I delivered an ethnic slur, even implicit, the American Civil Liberties Union would jump all over me. They would scream that I was teaching people to hate. But they don't seem to worry that pornography degrades an entire gender, that It teaches millions of young men that it's ok to subjugate and torture young women."
Father Bruce has a right to be bitter. No institution or organization in America works harder to protect the rights of pornographers than the ACLU. In return for that protection, the ACLU receives a significant amount of its financial support from the pornography industry. Of course, the industry can well afford to be generous when it's an $8‑billion a year business!
Free to Die From Illegal Drugs
In Policy #210, entitled "Victimless Crimes," the ACLU: "...opposes the definition of behavior as criminal when such behavior, engaged in either alone or with other consenting adults, does not in and of itself harm another person, or directly force such person to act unwillingly in any way. Examples include, but are not limited to: gambling, attempted suicide, sexual relations, or the introduction of substances into one's own body."
Then, four items later, in Policy #214, as Wall Street Journal editor L. Gordon Crovitz pointed out, the ACLU compares drug use to catching a cold: "There is today widespread recognition of the fact that narcotics addiction is at bottom an illness to be treated and not a crime to be punished." Presumably then, an American's right to die by self-injected heroin is at the root of the ACLU's position in the forefront of opposition to random, mandatory testing for drug use.
When the federal government, during the Reagan administration began pushing for such drug testing, the ACLU was quick to oppose. But what was at stake here was not the right of some innocuous clerk to use drugs. What was at stake here was the safety and well-being of the American people. Look at rail workers, for example, a primary target of the government's drug testing program.
How many more lives will be lost in how many more train wrecks before something is done? Estimates by rail workers themselves suggest that anywhere from 20% to 80% of their fellow workers report for duty under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But even those estimates pale when compared to actual facts. Like the horror in January 1987, when an Amtrak passenger train hurtling down the track at 105 miles per hour, plowed into three Conrail locomotives, killing 16 people and injuring more than 170 others. Why did it happen? The Conrail engineer had been smoking marijuana and ignored several warning signals until it was too late for him to stop. Why doesn't the ACLU explain to the families of those 16 victims and to all those wounded that drug abuse is a victimless crime?
What about air traffic controllers? An individual in one of those enormously stress-filled jobs can make one careless mistake and cost hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of lives! Yet, estimates suggest that as many as half the controllers in some major airports carry out their functions under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Spying Makes News
Of course, as evidenced in another case, the ACLU also sees nothing wrong with Americans turning traitor and selling classified government information to the highest bidder. It was the case of Samuel L. Morison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command Morison stole classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cut off the "secret" designation and sold them to a foreign publication ‑‑ one which is read religiously by Soviet and other foreign intelligence agents. The photos were published and later picked up by the Washington Post, CBS‑TV and others.
Morison was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to two years in prison, certainly a mild enough sentence since he could have received a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and a $40,000 fine. However, the conviction itself was enough to generate outrage, not just within the ACLU, but also among those in the news media who feel that the First Amendment gives them the right to obtain and publish the finest state secrets money can buy! So, the ACLU claimed that Morison had the right to steal and sell classified documents and the news media claimed they had the right to buy and publish such documents, all under the First Amendment. Nowhere did concern for the safety and security of the American people enter into their arguments.
Terrorists Have Rights, To
The ACLU has found some strange ways over the years to apply the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights. But perhaps none is stranger than their continuing effort to twist and distort the intention of our Founding Fathers in order to grant immunity and protection for avowed enemies of our nation to carry out their assault on America and the American people.
Sometimes their support of terrorists and terrorist activity is subtle, such as the Union's ongoing, strenuous objection to the use of metal detectors at America's airports. Other times, it is much more blatant. Like their representation of Philip Agee. Agee is a former CIA employee who has revealed CIA secrets and names of CIA agents. When the State Department attempted to revoke Agee's passport, the ACLU came to his defense. Where did Agee want to go? This was in 1980, during the Iran hostage crisis. He wanted to go to Iran to help Khomeini's terrorists decipher CIA documents!
Following is another example. Support your Local P.L.O. "I'm afraid even the good guys on civil liberties are going to be against us on this one."
That's how the ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser summed up the ACLU's decision to represent an agent of Yassir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In Policy #264, the ACLU gives a graphic demonstration of its "mainstream" position when it addresses the rights of homosexuals (Queers): "The ACLU opposes criminal restraint on any homosexual (Queer) behavior, between or among consenting adults in private, or in public..."
Also: "The ACLU opposes criminal restraints on public solicitation for private sexual behavior between or among adults of the same sex."
It gets better: "Similarly, the ACLU opposes discrimination in public and private housing and accommodations, government benefits, occupational licensing, and government and private employment; including teaching of children and jobs requiring security clearance, simply because the person is a homosexual (Queer). The ACLU opposes limitations on the custody and visitation rights of parents when such limitations are based solely on the parent's sexual orientation. The ACLU opposes governmental or private attempts to prevent homosexuals (Queers) from speaking out about homosexuality and from forming and sustaining political and social groups on and off school campuses."
In other words, homosexual groups have a right to hold meetings, and presumably even to proselytize, on school grounds, but students wishing to gather for religious purposes do not. This was taken, in part, from a book entitled "Not OUR America...The ACLU Exposed!" For the complete book containing much more information about the ACLU, write to: Washington Legal Foundation, 1705 N. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Contributions to the WLF are tax deductible.
The quoted price for the book is $3.00, and we suggest sending an extra amount to cover postage and handling. It was the case of Samuel L. Morison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command Morison stole classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cut off the "secret" designation and sold them to a foreign publication, one which is read religiously by Soviet and other foreign intelligence agents. The photos were published and later picked up by the Washington Post, CBS‑TV and others. Morison was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to two years in prison, certainly a mild enough sentence since he could have received a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and a $40,000 fine. However, the conviction itself was enough to generate outrage, not just within the ACLU, but also among those in the news media who feel that the First Amendment gives them the right to obtain and publish the finest state secrets money can buy! So, the ACLU claimed that Morison had the right to steal and sell classified documents and the news media claimed they had the right to buy and publish such documents ‑‑ all under the First Amendment. Nowhere did concern for the safety and security of the American people enter into their arguments.
Where the ACLU Gets Its Anti-God, Anti-Christ, Anti-Christian, Anti-American Ideas!
It is unfortunate, indeed, that the Christian clergy seems to be ignorant of, or apathetic to this plot to destroy everything they say they stand for as Christians. In fact, in many instances, they stand behind their pulpits and defend and support the very people who are pledged to destroy them. It is part of the Talmudic tradition that lies and deception are permissible when dealing with the Christian enemy. Their Policy is that of Communism: "When you tell a lie, make it a big one and shout it over and over, until people begin to believe it."
This is exactly what the Jews have done with their "Chosen People story" and their cry of "anti‑Semitism," against anyone who tries to expose them. In the 16th Century, Martin Luther, the great reformer accused the Jews of: "...squeezing from us our money and goods...of lying, blaspheming and cursing."
He went on to say: "I will give you my true counsel. First, avoid their synagogues and schools and warn our people about them...there is more wisdom uttered in three of Aesop's Fables, than in all the books of the Talmudist rabbis."
Yet in spite of this warning, Luther's books are now banned in Lutheran schools. It will do us little good to attack the arms of this world‑wide octopus. The filthy arms of prostitution, drugs, pornography, immorality, you recognize most of them, I am sure. It will do us little good to march before the abortion clinics and before the theaters which display a filthy, blasphemous movie such as The Last Temptation of Christ, as long as the head is allowed to remain healthy. Most of the well known Christian leaders who protested the movie, were more concerned of the movie, than in its contents and what it would do to their people. How many of them do you know that have even told their people that the producers of this movie were Jews and that the studio that produced it was Jew owned and run?
I dare you, as concerned Americans to look behind the facade of Hollywood and see those who seek to destroy Christian values. I dare you to look at the names of those who are seeking to destroy the economic stability of America in order to further their control. I challenge you to look and then act, for you will find most of the top leaders in this "Plot to Destroy Christianity," are Jewish names.
These must be exposed, if we are to remain free. This will be a dangerous undertaking, for Jewish power is strong in this land and is growing all the time. It will not be the task for some "sunshine soldier." Jewish judges and lawyers now control our court system and you can expect no justice from them, for they have a mandate from their god, Satan, to lie in order to convict you as a Christian. But it's not just the criminal actions the ACLU seeks to legalize that is so frightening. It's their unabashed commitment to do whatever it takes to see no one should have to suffer too much for the crimes they commit. Thanks to the ACLU, America is entering the 1990s with, as Pat Buchanan described it, "...a justice system where the guilty have never been freer, bolder or more secure, and the innocent have never been more terrified or repressed." What else can we expect from this organization when the director of their "National Prison Project," Alvin J. Bronstein, reports to the United States Sentencing Commission that, in a ranking of serious crimes, the ACLU ranks a polluter's actions a more serious offense than a violent murderer's!
1931: The circle of Friends was formed by twelve prominent German businessmen who promised to donate regularly to the Nazi Party. Baron Kurt von Schroder (Jew), partner of J.H. Stein Co. (Jewish) Cologne Bankers, was the leader of this group. J.H. Stein then became Hitler's personal banker. Hitler's aide, Walther Funk (Jew), met with Schroder to discuss the real views of Hitler on questions concerning the international bankers. Funk was able to satisfy Schroder, and the financial support of the Nazi Party (by the Jews) continued.
1932: China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.
1932: Politically induced depression and promises of less bureaucracies, more freedom for private enterprise, a 25% reduction in the cost of government, and lower taxes and return to Constitutional Government elected the Great Jewish Traitor Franklin Roosevelt. But within 100 days after the inauguration, banks were closed, pigs and cattle were shot, crops were plowed under, federal boards, bureaus, commissions, and bureaucrats invaded every kind of business and tried to control every facet of private life. Gold was demonetized and no one allowed to own it. Grain raised without a government permit could not be fed to the farmer's own animals.
1932: On March 28, 1932, the New York Times noted, London: "N.M. Victor Rothschild, twenty‑one year old nephew of Baron Rothschild, is going to the United States soon to take a post with J.P. Morgan & Co. It was learned tonight."
The Morgan‑Rothschild connection explains the otherwise incomprehensible mystery of why J.P. Morgan, famed as "the most powerful banker in the world," left such a modest fortune at his death in 1913, a mere $11‑million after his debts were paid. Even now, the present members of the Morgan family seem financially secure, though none of them are counted among the "richest families." J.P. Morgan Jr. (known to a very few intimates as Jack) was embarrassed to find he had to sell off many of his father's art treasures to pay the debts of the estate. Most of the huge sums handled by J.P. Morgan went directly to the Rothschilds.
1933: "Jews, The Power Behind The Throne!" In 1933, the well known and reputable Dutch publishing company of Van Holkema and Warendorf, published a book which contained three conversations between Hitler and the International Jewish financier, Sidney Warburg.
This book was written in the form of a diary and covered interviews given by Hitler in 1929, 1931 and 1933. It clearly revealed Hitler's plan for Jewish finances in rising to power in Germany. On page 15, we read of a decision made by the United States Government, under the direction of the Jewish Presidential advisor to the Jewish President Woodrow Wilson, Edward Mandel House, in which pressure was brought to bear on England and France, to leave Germany alone, so she could become solvent and protect the investments of the International Bankers.
On page 18, we learn that in a secret meeting of important International Jewish Bankers, a plan was made to pressure France by inspiring in her the fear of a Communist revolution in Germany. It was agreed that a Nationalist Revolution would be the best for the bankers interests, rather than a Communist takeover. Sidney Warburg, of the New York firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., was chosen to go to Germany as a representative of the Internationalists and take charge of the negotiations. He held several series of meetings with Nazi representatives in Munich, where it was agreed that an initial sum of $10‑million would be paid to Hitler's intermediary, a man named Von Frey.
The bank of Mendelsohn and Co., was to issue ten single checks of $1‑million each, endorsed in favor of members of Hitler's trusted staff. Hitler notified Warburg that the bankers would need to create distrust among the German people by increasing unemployment. Which they immediately did. On page 43, of this book, in the copy of a letter penned by Hitler himself to his Wall Street promoters on October 29, 1929, in which he said: "Our movement is growing rapidly...I have spent the sum given to me for the upbuilding of my party and I must find new revenue within a reasonable period." 1
At a hasty conference of the International Bankers in New York, attended by Montagne, Norman, Rockefeller, Carter and McDean, it was agreed to send Hitler $15‑million more. Warburg was once again sent to Munich to handle the details. He told the German people that they were not yet mature enough for a democracy and that a nationalist movement was what they needed. He was not at all uneasy about Hitler's Jew baiting, since Hitler had told him that the Nazis aimed only at Galacian Jews.
While it may seem strange to many to see a Jewish banker lining up with an anti‑Semite like Hitler, it is not strange if you read Protocol No. IX, of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. (Whether they are a forgery or not makes no difference, since they are obviously being followed by World Jewry. And if the Protocols are a forgery we sure would like to see the original. They must be something!). It said: "Nowadays if any state should raise a protest against us it is only pro forma (Provided in advance) at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti‑Semitism is indispensable to us for the Management of our Lesser Brethren."
In other words, the International Jewish leaders promote anti‑Semitism to keep the "lesser Jews in fear and thus in line." At this time, the International Zionists were anxious for a European War, through which they could enforce the Balfour Treaty and gain control of Palestine.
The final financial arrangements for aid to Hitler came through the Jewish bank of Mendelsohn and Co., in Amsterdam. In 1933, they advanced Hitler another $7‑million. When this Warburg Manuscript was published, there was an immediate drive underway to put into effect a ban of the book. This was carried out by world Jewry and the German Secret Police. Many publishers, out of fear, recalled as many copies as they could.
The only mention of this book in America appeared in a short item in the New York Times, November 24, 1933, page 14, column 2, in which Felix Warburg, of the New York Warburgs, charged the editor of the Times with perpetrating a hoax. He stated that the Sidney Warburg mentioned in the manuscript was not his son Sidney and that he was not a member of International Jewry. Strange that they would pick one not of themselves for this sensitive mission. It is also strange indeed, when you consider that both International Jewish and Nazis sources sought to suppress the report. The Swiss magazine Der Sperber, published an account of this manuscript in 1936, in Zurich, which carried a detailed report of the facts contained in this outlawed book. It also circulated a book titled Spanischer Sommer, which showed how the International Jews and Bankers had paved Hitler's way into power.
Hitler's Rise To Power
Hitler began his rise to power in 1919, but he had a long and stormy road ahead, until he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. During this time, he expended a tremendous amount of money, most of it coming from non‑German sources, although many wealthy German ladies, intrigued by the little mustached man, sent him their family jewels. It is also rather interesting to note that Hitler sold his idea of anti‑Semitism through the help of very powerful and wealthy Jews.
Some of these Jews used the excuse that they financed Hitler so that they could control him, but it is a known fact, that they made billions of dollars profit by financing both sides in World War II, just as they did in World War I. The Jews who financed Hitler are as much to blame for any Jewish deaths in Germany, as the German people, yet we never hear anything about this in the constant wailing over the so‑called Holocaust.
Most of the men who knew about these transactions between Hitler and the Zionists, met with untimely deaths. Many pages could be written on evidence surrounding their murder and how it was tied to the Internationalists. One of the most prominent of these was Dollfuss, Chancellor of Austria. He was assaulted in his office by a band of Nazi thugs, who wounded him mortally and then left him to bleed to death.
Fritz Thyseen, writing in a book titled I Paid Hitler! described the Dolfuss murder and said the reason the Chancellor was killed was that he had received a copy of the Warburg document and one exposing Hitler's Jewish ancestry. (This story had been in public circulation for a long before this).
If Hitler was such an anti‑Semite, be honest enough to ask yourself this simple question:
* "Why did Hitler keep the war going when he knew Germany was defeated and it would only result in hundred of thousands of German casualties?"
* "Why was it that during the conduct of the war, on many occasions, he refused to accept the advice of his top admirals and generals on how to conduct the war?"
* "Why was it in North Africa, when General Rommell had the Americans and British forces in retreat, that Hitler refused to send Rommell the supplies he needed to complete a victorious campaign?"
If Hitler was an anti‑Communist as some claim, why did he allow the top Communist propagandist to attend the Reichstag Fire Trial in 1933, where he was allowed to harangue the German people in favor of Communism. Why was this man allowed a safe return to Russia?
During this period, German Nationals were being shot down in cold blood in Germany's streets for the smallest misdemeanor against the Nazis. But here we have a powerful Communist allowed to publicize Communism and get away with it. It doesn't make very much sense to me. This man, Dimitroff, later became the President of the Communist World International, so he was no "small fry." And why didn't he arm the millions of Russian troops which had surrendered without firing a shot at the German Army, but requested that they be rearmed and supplied and they would "Kill the Communist S.O.B.'s?"
Treason Against Germany
From 1933 to 1938 Hitler turned from being a creature of the generals and International Jews, into a radical totalitarian dictator. Many of those who were close to him were dismayed by what they saw. These were "dyed in the wool" German patriots who loved their country with a passionate love. They were true Germans who felt it necessary to stop the madman which was destroying the country they loved. Nearly every one of them that broke with Hitler met a terrible death. Admiral Canaris was slowly strangled to death; General Rommell, the Desert Fox of North Africa was forced to commit suicide; Field Marshall Von Sitzleden was killed and his body was exhibited hanging from a meat hook.
It was no coincidence that Hitler used these sadistic means, since they were the same means used by Communism and came straight from a Judaist‑Talmudic background. There were at least seven assassination plots against Hitler by top ranking officers in the Germany army in 1943 alone.
On March 21, 1939 Representative Jacob Thorkelson made the following speech on the floor of the House of Representatives: “MR. SPEAKER, last night while I was driving, a news flash came over the radio that recalled to my mind events of 22 years ago. It said: ‘The President has placed a high tariff on German imports and joins with England and France to stop Hitler and save the world for democracy.’ I said: ‘What rot to save the world for democracy.’ I recall 22 years ago I heard the same slogan. We stepped to the front and saved the world-for what? For socialism and communism. We are today on the verge of internal war as a result of our departure from constitutional government. Our own Government is undermined with socialism and communism until it is about to be destroyed by these two evils.
The Communist, to camouflage his own activities, shouts ‘Naziism and fascism.’ He waves the swastika to cover the hammer and the sickle. These red-dancing dervishes ought to be exported to go as part of the war materials shipped out of the United States.
A foreign war would bury many blunders committed by the New Deal during the past 8 years. It might even delay disintegration, but it cannot stop it. I do not think for one moment that anything can stop it except the return to constitutional government, and it is apparent that the majority does not favor such procedure. Personally, I do not believe that our people are receptive to this last deal. Our people do not favor meddling with European affairs, and we have no earthly reason to be mixed up in it. We did have cause when Japan sank the Panay, and when Mexico confiscated American property, but Germany has not sunk any of our ships, and she has not confiscated American property. So our bellicose attitude is for some other insidious purpose, and I ask what it is.
I am, of course, opposed to foreign war, and I am firmly convinced that the present attempt to involve us in another European conflict is too much even for those who have faithfully followed the President since he took office.
In the midst of the turmoil of today, let us stop for a moment and review the causes which led to war in I9I4 The World War did not begin in Germany, as a certain minority would have us believe. Poincare carried revenge in his heart because of the War of I 870, and he, with Ivolsky and Count Sergius, of Russia, helped to bring about the war. The Minister of Austria, Count von Bechtoldt, lit the fire when he presented the ultimatum to Serbia after Archduke Ferdinand was killed at Sarajevo.
The whole thing, if the truth were known, might have been instigated. The money interests of England were not averse to war because commercial competition with Germany was rather acute. It is well to bear in mind that when the international money men are squeezed a little too hard, war is sometimes convenient.
We were not threatened by Germany from 1912 to 1916. What happened in 1917? The threat of German invasion was not greater then than it was the year before, but in spite of that, war was declared. Who controlled and disseminated the propaganda that was instrumental in changing the viewpoint of the American public?
We had always been friendly toward Germany, and there was no particular animosity toward that nation in 1916, as I recall it. We must now be careful that the same agency does not prevail again and so lead us into another war, costly in lives and property. The wars raging today are to a great extent the aftermath of the Versailles Peace Treaty. This treaty was not only unjust but it was not based upon sound understanding of central Europe. It left some of the victorious nations dissatisfied, because in the division of the spoils England and France received the lion's share; as a matter of fact, the Lion received the most of it. It is extremely dangerous to deprive a well-organized and patriotic people of their means of livelihood. A highly intelligent people cannot be confined on a small piece of land, for they will overflow - peacefully or by force. That is happening in Germany today. She was deprived of all colonies and even forced to submit to occupation and division of her little empire in the center of Europe. This short-sighted policy on the part of the conquerors brought about a closer union of the German people, and the result may be seen today. It was a case either of submissive disintegration at home or of acquiring sufficient room for healthy expansion. The German nation has chosen the latter. Let us now look facts squarely in the face. Germany is the key to the peace in Europe and in the Orient. Why? Because Germany allied with England will control Europe exactly as she is doing now, and both of these powers would make it unhealthy for any nation to invade China, with the United States in a neutral position.
This, of course, is not new, as I believe it is recognized by every European statesman; but restoration of colonies might have sealed such alliance and established international peace. I grant that it is none of our business; but, in the knowledge of it, it is our business to keep out of a war which might have been settled by transfer of colonies instead of loss of life. Congress alone will be responsible to our people, and it must employ sound judgment and common sense before the final decision is made. In the event of European conflict, which I believe is unavoidable, certain powers will expect our help, and pressure will be brought to bear upon us in the same old way. ‘Blood is thicker than water,’ and ‘We speak the same language.’ When that happens, it is well for Congress to bear in mind that it does not matter what language we speak, destruction and death are realities in spite of sentiment.
The question Congress must consider is our material interest in such conflict, for destruction and death are certain. It is unfortunately held by our people that we do not want colonies, and as we do not own property in Europe, it is unlikely that we will suffer unless we cross the firing line and invite attack. Neither have we sentimental principles at stake, and this is particularly true if we bear in mind the inheritance from the last war which is now insidiously destroying our own Government. The little consideration which has been given to us by he powers we helped in 1917 may have a sobering effect when we recall unpaid or defaulted obligations. Now, my colleagues, with this picture before you, can any one of you find a reasonable excuse for participating in another destructive war if such occasion should arise? I realize, of course, that general war is not declared, but no one can disregard such possibility, and it is our business as Members of Congress to visualize this before it actually happens.
Transportation of troops will not be as easy now as it was in the World War. We have a highly efficient submarine and air force to deal with today. Both of these machines are much more destructive now than in 1917. We may find it very difficult to transport troops across the Atlantic because of these two new weapons. Airplanes, as you know, carry destructive loads of explosives - enough to sink ships carrying troops. Submarines are equally dangerous to such units of the fleet. The loss of one ship will resolve itself into the loss of thousands of lives, and that is a possibility we must not overlook. There is another serious side to hasty action. The west coast of the United States is not protected by outlying fortifications, something that I believe the Members appreciate now more than when we discussed the harbor of Guam. If the Philippines and other islands were fortified, it would in a measure be an effective protection to the west coast of the United States and the Panama Canal, but Congress has been opposed to taking such action. That was my reason for supporting harbor improvement in our outlying possessions. Submarine and air bases in our Pacific islands are of inestimable value to the protection of the west coast of the United States, and for that reason should be encouraged instead of discouraged by Congress. It does not require an expert to visualize what may happen in a simultaneous attack on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, for one side must be left unprotected. The greatest danger, of course, would come from consolidation of bases in a convenient proximity to allow concentration of troops for attack. I believe our fleet is now on the Atlantic coast, and it will no doubt remain there if general war breaks out in Europe. It might even be extremely dangerous to move the fleet from the coast, and this would be particularly true in the event of an unexpected collapse of major powers. In such event it will be necessary for us to prevent occupation of islands and places threatening our vital centers. In the event of another world war it is quite possible that we may be forced to occupy and prepare strategic points with fortifications in order to allow greater mobility of our fleet. This will be the duty of Congress, and my colleagues, as eminent and far seeing statesmen, must aid and encourage such preparation before it is too late. We are now frantically in the midst of introducing legislation to keep us out of war. A most useless procedure, I assure you. Belligerent nations care nothing about our legislation or expostulations. If they are concerned about our attitude and fearful of it, they would not, of course, declare war. But the fact that war is declared proves that we are not considered. That is no more than right, because we would brook no interference with our plans at home. I have always found that it is best never to pull your gun until you are going to shoot. I say it is therefore useless and a wasted effort to threaten and complain, and it does in reality show a weakness within our own Nation. Nothing assures peace to a nation so much as a first-class army and navy. Nothing instills confidence, courage, and spirit in our armed forces more than first-class fighting units. The Constitution provides that Congress furnish and maintain such units for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States.” 1
Then on June 19, 1939 Representative Jacob Thorktlson, of Montana, made another speech: “Mr. Speaker, communism or super-socialism is an insidious disease nourished by hatreds in the minds of those who subscribe to it. It is an Asiatic philosophy diametrically opposed to Christian principles and all that Christianity has accomplished in the past 2,000 years. Communism thrives on immorality and corruption, and is destructive to the family, social, and political life of all people, and to the Nation.
It is international in scope, and directed by an invisible government whose insane desire is the control of gold and the power it wields. The first objective is now a reality, for they have the gold, and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 gave the power of control and ownership to the invisible government. This objective is partly accomplished but much is yet to be done to make the American people swallow this bitter pill. It is quite possible that there are too many good, sound and sensible Americans left, who will in no uncertain manner voice their objections to regimentation by Asiatic Communists. The first step in this conversion, namely, the transfer in ownership of gold, was brought about by servile Members of Congress. It was accomplished by hypnotized Congressmen who enacted communistic legislation.
The second stage, that of control and placing of more Communists in strategic positions, will be attempted by legislation now in force, by appointments, or by contemplated legislation. In this category, I refer to the Wagner Health Act and the Binderup-Voorhis Monetary Control Act, both of which are communistic in principle and in fact.
I have spoken very plainly, with one purpose in mind, which is to inform the American people about actual conditions that should be discussed in our newspapers. I do not believe that any red-blooded patriotic citizen would sit idly by and wait to be enchained by a few communistic super-criminals, whose agents may be found in many of our cities today. It would also be interesting for Congress to know the identity and affiliations of those who are constantly being placed in key positions in our own Government. What is the purpose of these changes, and why is it necessary to reorganize the Government without decreasing personnel or the cost of the pay roll? We are so far on the road of collectivism that little or no regard is given to the fundamental principles of our Government and the rights of the States.
This attempted conversion of our Republic is aided and abetted by radicals in society and in educational
institutions. These radicals, ‘parlor pinks,’ and ‘reds’ are dangerous because they are long on conversation and short on common sense. As a matter of fact, they are irresponsible. Other groups of radicals are comprised of those who become dupes of the money power and willing servants enslaved by gratuities, such as memberships in pretended humanitarian or charitable organizations, which are in reality fronts to shield the Communists and their activities in the invisible government. Many pawns of communism unfortunately do not understand and are incapable of analyzing the mind of an Asiatic. An understanding of it is necessary in order to deal intelligently with its peculiar oriental psychology.
These subservient pawns to the invisible government do not realize that they are used as stooges and, when no longer useful, will be left along the road of oriental intrigues, victims of their own follies. The truth of these statements is evident in the treatment accorded to those who fought for the ‘red’ government in Spain. Many of them are now stranded in France, rejected and ignored by the Soviet Russian Government they fought for. While in the "red" army they killed and destroyed with Asiatic abandon, and now they are left, as I said before, unsung and unclaimed.
Returning again to discuss the dupes of the Communists, I cannot refrain from calling attention to those Members of Congress who are obsessed with the idea of making democracy work. For 1O years they have been willing tools of the invisible government; they have enacted Communist-prepared legislation, which has delegated more and more power to centralized control of the Government. I believe many were involved innocently, yet such ignorance is not an excuse for their actions, because they have sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, an obligation which they have ignored. There is nothing wrong with our Government except that we have not adhered to its cardinal principles, and in such deviation we have brought about rapid deterioration.
No doubt many Members of the House will vote for further extension of the now chronic emergency and monetary power to the President and to the Secretary of the Treasury, a power absolutely unnecessary except as it may be used by the invisible government to destroy American liberties and rights. This, of course should be voted down by all those who have the slightest spark of patriotism and interest of the people at heart.
Other dupes of the invisible government are those in the ranks of labor who are dominated by recognized and self-acclaimed Communists. This was clearly stated on the floor of the House on June 14 by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Woodrum). He showed clearly that all Federal unionized activities such as the Workers Alliance, Federal Art Projects, and so forth, are practically exclusively communistic. This, of course, is generally known, yet no effort has been made by the Federal Government either to investigate or to check this deplorable state of affairs.
These are the same organizations that call the President Comrade Roosevelt, and here one may find a most unusual situation, in which attempts are made to destroy the Constitution instead of adhering to it. This is particularly true when we analyze those who are directing all subversive activities in the ranks of labor. Are they good Americans or are they better Communists? I am inclined to believe the latter, and I am firmly convinced that everyone will agree with me after close investigation of those who are now directing communistic activities in the United States.
When I was a union man, we worked in the interests of our employer because we considered ourselves a part of the industrial machine in which we were employed. Today, labor is in reality working under direction of the invisible government for destruction of industry and business, and for Federal ownership and control of the Nation's industries. This, of course, is diametrically opposed to the principles of our Government in which all people reserve the right to themselves to be free, not only in operation of business but in their private lives as well. It occurs to me that the general run of workingmen are not aware of the fact that they are used as tools of the very people they belabor in their union halls, that is, the capitalists. It is most extraordinary that the laboring man is allowing himself to be used by the very group he criticizes, to bring about his own destruction. It is not my desire to discuss this further, but I shall instead proceed in the discussion of communism itself, its object, and what is expected of those now engaged in and plotting further communistic activities.
Let us now admit that nearly all the European governments are socialistic, and that they are autocratic or totalitarian in form. I am not concerned with those, but shall proceed to discuss communism as propounded by Heinrich Mordecai, alias Karl Marx. His slogan was, ‘Whatever is, is worth destroying.’ And he must be credited with being open and fearless in destruction. This technique has been refined today. The Communist now promises something which seems perfectly obvious and right, but he does exactly the opposite, as was done with the promises made in the 1932 platform of Roosevelt. For example, I see in the papers, the group now meeting in Washington expresses itself firmly against communism, and yet they know, as well as we do, that there are Communists among them who hide their activities under such expression.
I shall name a few of those who have been leaders in communism so that the American people may visualize who their rulers will be when the zero hour arrives. Heinrich Mordecai advocated class hatreds, riots, and strikes, and stated in his Communist Manifesto: ‘The Communists refrain from keeping their views and intentions secret. They openly declare that their goal can only be achieved by a forcible destruction of all existing orders of society. The ruling classes shall tremble before the Communist revolution.’ This should be plain to all of us and compared with what has taken place for the past 10 years. For you see ‘it can happen here.’
We have been treated with an appeal to the masses. For what purpose? To gain control, and after having acquired such control, to rule and destroy. We have been treated to propaganda of class hatreds between he have's and the have not's, hatreds in business, and hatreds and dissension in the ranks of labor. Business is gradually being destroyed by Federal invasion and industries are now dormant or idle. Greater power has been delegated by Congress to the President in accord with the communistic plan. What is required now? To shift and place in key positions those in sympathy with communism, who can be trusted to carry out the communistic plan when the time comes.
Heinrich Mordecai was not only a Communist; he was also an anarchist. He lived and thrived upon all things contrary to Christian doctrines. Destruction of life meant nothing to him, as long as his own kind was not destroyed. He was the promoter of the First International, in 1864. He laughed when his dupes became entangled with the law, and he jeered at suffering and poverty. Death and destruction meant nothing to him, for he lived on the suffering of others. Such is the record of the progenitor of communism.
Chaim Goldman, or ‘Vladimir Ulyanov,’ alias Lenin, was the next prominent disciple of Heinrich Mordecai-Marx, and it was he who embraced the communistic doctrines to be used for destruction of the Czarist government. He did this as thoroughly as his predecessor in communism, and drenched Russia with innocent and defenseless people's blood. He also used willing dupes to attain power, and after having reached the objective, he, like others, destroyed those who had befriended and helped him. He was a human being without humanity.
I cannot forego mentioning the name of Benjamin Cohen (Bela Kun) who was sent to Hungary by Chaim Goldman (Lenin). In 1919, he is credited with the killing of 12O,OOO innocent Christian people, 30,000 of whom were murdered within 3 months. Later, after returning to Soviet Russia, 40,000 white Russians were killed in the vicinity of the Crimean Peninsula. Records of this are authenticated by various investigating committees; but if anyone should be interested in refreshing his memory with additional information, he might procure the book The World Hoax, by Ernest F. Elmhurst, published in 1938. There is, of course, voluminous evidence to be had dealing with mass murders in Russia and adjoining countries by the disciples of these same communistic philosophies under the control of the same leaders. I have been informed that there are rumors that this same Bela Kun is in Chicago at the present time, no doubt preparing for an American communistic revolution.
One of the most famous disciples of communism, our neighbor now living in Mexico, is Laiber Davidovitch Bronstein, alias Leon Trotsky. I shall not discuss his history, because it is still in the making and no doubt will include leaves from communistic happenings in the United States. This gentleman visits New York at times, which is the headquarters of proletarian communism, and those who are by choice disciples of this most un-Christian philosophy. It is people of this type who are now attempting to rule the United States, first, by money, and, secondly, by destruction of all those things we hold dear to us and which have built our country into a prosperous nation for the past 151 years.
They are exactly the same kind and type who are now ruling in Russia; and if there is any difference, it is in refinement in the method of procedure. This refinement is evidenced in the manner in which avenues of communication are controlled by the invisible government. As to learning the actual truth, we are no better off than we were before we had the telephone, telegraph, radio, and high-speed presses, for today we are allowed to read and hear only those things which are prepared for us by the subsidized power now in control. I want the people to know that the acquisition of all this property and power has been accomplished by the use of the people's money and not in any sense exclusively by the use of private capital. It is this power which is destroying us today, and it is dangerous in the hands in which it now rests. In Soviet Russia the Communists comprise I-7/10 percent of 170,000,000 people, which they are able to rule by sheer force and ruthlessness. That can also happen in the United States if we go to sleep. In this communistic rise to power millions and millions of lives have been sacrificed, and despots have been seated on the ruins of human liberties and rights. Washington warned us of this danger, but here we are confronted with deliberate attempts to destroy the Government. It will begin by strikes, local strife, gradually increasing under well-placed and well-directed leadership of known Communists now in command of proletarian communistic parties. The expense will be paid by those who financed revolutions in Europe and are now seeking power here. The money which is used is the people's credit, now Iying idle in various banks, as it has been used in the past 7 years in destroying industry and business.
Do you want that? Or do you want to return to the republican form of government that you have always had and which guarantees freedom to all people, no matter what race, creed, or color? Is there any necessity for the prevailing conditions within the United States? The answer is, emphatically, ‘No.’ The present condition has been brought about by those now in control of national and international gold and credit. This is a far-reaching attempt by them, a little hurried at the present time, but definitely an attempt to take charge of the United States. And history itself will complete the chapter.” 1
|
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay." -- Oliver Goldsmith |
These men realized that Hitler was a "Judas goat" who was leading them to destruction. The facts surrounding these plots have been revealed by British historians after a careful study of captured documents. While some say that Hitler's escapades were acts of God, we personally believe as Goff did, that he was a Satanist and under the protection of that evil one. The Bible tells us, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." 2
From the moment of his rise to power, Hitler used every means at his disposal to drive Germany into war. As his forces conquered country after country, it was Hitler's direct orders which caused such a hatred of Germany among the conquered people. But Germany must die! this was the word from the "puppet masters" who even then pulled the strings which governed this strange man. It was with Hitler's knowledge and consent which gave the Soviets 70,000 square miles of Polish territory without a fight. By 1940, with German help, the little countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were safely in the Soviet fold. Then Rumania, Northern Bukovania, and portions of Bessarabia fell to the Communists.
When the German armies moved into Poland it gave the Communists the opportunity to do the same from the east and allowed the Soviets to wipe out the cream of the Polish Army Officers Corps at Katyn Forest. This atrocity was used by the Communists to further hatred against Germany, who in this case was not guilty. It might be interesting to note her, that while both Germany and Russia invaded Poland, England and France only found Germany guilty. Stalin admitted they were using the Germans, saying: "We shall assist the Germans in an European War so that they can offer prolonged resistance to the British and French, and in this way exhaust the Capitalist nations...In this way we will control the decision."
Then on May 24, 1940, the Germany Army was in a position to defeat the British at Dunkirk and very possibly end the war. It was then that Hitler gave his famous order that the left wing of the German assault be halted. Gen. Heinz Guderin in his book "The Panzer Leader," said that when this command came, the German military leaders were utterly speechless.
It went against everything the military stood for. Yet they obeyed and the British were able to make it back to their fortress. Here we see Hitler, with one command, destroy everything the Germany Army had accomplished by their blood, sweat and tears. Dr. Walter Dornberg, German expert on the development of the flying bombs and the brains behind the V‑1 and V‑2, stated that Hitler could have won the war in early 1944, but he held back on development of this new and terrifying means of waging war.
Then to make things even worse, with Britain in his grasp, he turned away and attacked his ally, Russia. Many military experts have tried to figure out the thinking of this devious man. Had he become so drunk with power that he decided he could conquer the world? Or was their a deeper purpose behind it? He was never on the battle front, so did not have to face the hardships of his people. While they were suffering and dying, he was living in Sybarite splendor in Berlin.
It was at this time that the British Government, followed by the United States, came to the aid of the Communist forces. They were able to draw the elite of the German forces into a conflict in which their supply lines was hundreds of miles long. But the real purpose for Hitler's attack soon became obvious to thinking Americans: It allowed Stalin to know who was the hidden enemy in his country and hundreds of thousands of those who fought with the Germans, against the Communist Butchers, were later liquidated. With the defeat of the Germans in Russia, the Communists were able to tighten their control over all of Eastern and Central Europe. Thanks to Hitler they had uncovered almost all the Anti-Communist cells in the countries under its control.
"Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." 1
The columnist Raymond Clapper, writing for the Scripps-Howard papers, on May 16, 1940, stated in reference to the report of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, of whom the majority were Democratic Senators: "There is a current rising hysteria in this country, sprouting from the idea that we ought to enter the war as a preventive measure to kill off the danger of later invasion of the Western Hemisphere. Rarely is the proposition stated so badly, but that is the thought behind a good many words that are being uttered today.
That viewpoint, which is steadily gaining ground because of the importance of some who hold it, now finds its thesis sharply opposed by the Senate Naval Affairs Committee in a most significant report which advocated additions to the Navy. Because it is the voice of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, this report is bound to become a textbook for those who believe the Administration is moving toward deeper involvement in Europe...In effect the committee stands on hemisphere defense. It states that some of our best informed naval experts are of the opinion that the United States should not participate in the European war under any circumstances now conceivable, and that United States soldiers should never again be landed on a foreign continent. The Senate Naval Affairs Committee says we are not prepared to participate in the European war, that we do not possess the necessary weapons, and that we should not consider our naval needs with any such object in view. We should, the committee says, profit by the experience of the last World War and avoid becoming too greatly involved in European affairs. The committee said that if we are to remain at peace, we must avoid becoming interested financially in the outcome of the European War, and our industries must not become too greatly compromised by foreign war orders. This is a statement which seems to have come a little late, since American industry, particularly aviation, already is deeply involved...
The naval committee report is based upon the argument that adequate naval power, supplemented by air strength and a relatively small Army, gives us complete protection. The report goes into some detail to make the point that if Germany can, by air and submarine, subdue Britain's vast naval force around the British Isles, the same fate would be in store for any naval force we would send over. On the other hand, our Navy, operating at home, and protected by air strength, is immune to anything except a superior battle fleet.
As to Japan, the committee states baldly that at the present time the U.S. Navy could not undertake a war in far eastern waters. We should have to increase our fleet perhaps 100 percent, and build an impregnable naval base in the Philippines. Says the committee: 'The cost to us of such a war would be so great that we must, by every means in our power, avoid the necessity of having to undertake it.'"
This remarkable report, coming unanimously in May, 1940 from the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, should have been read by every American who had the interest of his own country first at heart. So little publicity was given to it by the Jewish controlled newspapers and radio that it could be said to have been suppressed, as so much vital information has been withheld from the American people. It stated: "Why should we go to war to defend freedom, if we must begin by destroying it with our own hands? We need not do this. The cold, hard military facts is this: Our Navy, if adequate, supplemented by a highly efficient Army and air force, will be so effective that few nations, not excluding victorious totalitarian nations, will challenge its power; and if any does we shall be the deliverer and not the recipient of the terrible hammer strokes of war. The naval military, and air forces necessary to prevent any foreign nation or group of nations from challenging us in our part of the world are well within the power of this Nation to create and maintain without regimenting all our vast resources under a single control, without wiping out our democracy, and without abandoning our American way of life and free government.
If we realize that the important causes of war in human minds and emotions; that force cannot change materially human nature; give up the illusion that American armed force can bring permanent peace to a warring world and confine our military objectives to the defense of this country, we shall find that our problem of national defense becomes relatively simple. An impregnable defense for America will be costly, but infinitely less costly in the long run than engaging in another futile attempt to 'save the world for democracy' and certainly less costly than conquest and consequent confiscation of resources and enslavement of all our people. It is believed that the American people are ready and willing to make any sacrifices necessary to protect their birthright and their liberties, but that they are not willing to endure the horrors of war to take part in the age-old quarrels of Europe and the game of power politics...
No attack of a serious nature can be made upon our country, unless an enemy secures command of the waters which wash our shores to such an extent that he can bring troops or aircraft within striking distance for assault, or unless his blockading forces can operate effectively against our vital trade routes to the countries bordering upon the Caribbean Sea to South American countries and to Hawaii and Alaska. So long as our Nation possesses an adequate fleet, an adequate air force, and the necessary number of secure bases from which these forces may operate effectively, there is little chance of a successful attack upon us.
Our fleet, including the fleet air force, however, must be kept concentrated, and must be superior in fighting power to any fleet or combination of fleets which can be brought against us...We alone, of all great peoples, are so fortunately situated that we can remain at peace and be secure in our homes and our means of livelihood. 'In the words of George Washington: Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?'
Why not take advantage of our peculiar situation, develop the sources of raw materials available in this hemisphere and construct the instrumentalities or war which will enable us to pursue our way in peace, free from the horrors of invasion, the perils of bombs from the sky above us, the burdens of supporting vast armies, and the perils to our liberties which any involvement in war would bring? The committee's attention has been directed to articles and items which have appeared in the public press alleging that military and naval experts are of the opinion that it is inevitable that the United States will become involved in the European war and that the United States should take an active military part in the war.
The committee can state that some of our best informed naval experts are of the opinion that the United States should not participate in the present European war under any circumstances now conceivable and that United States soldiers should never again be landed on a foreign continent. None of the naval experts or civilian witnesses who appeared before the committee recommended that this country participate actively in the present European war. Privately some military and naval officers may believe that we should enter the war, but they have not so recommended publicly to the committee.
The United States at the present time is not vulnerable to direct attack by any means whatsoever save those with which a thoroughly modern navy and air force can deal adequately.
Air power, due to its limited radius of action, has not yet changed the fact that in a military sense we are an insular nation and that we are not vulnerable to direct attack if we prevent the establishment of air bases in this hemisphere. Military power can always be exercised more efficiently and to much greater effect within a reasonable radius of action than it can by fighting thousands of miles away. We are more fortunately situated than any other peoples. We should take advantage of our fortunate situation and avoid entangling our peace and prosperity in the quarrels of Europe or Asia.
We should make every effort to preserve peace in the Far East. We can, if we have to, defeat Japan, but the effort required would be enormous. At the present time, due to lack of United States naval bases in this area, a war in the Far East could be undertaken only in conjunction with Great Britain, France, and Holland.
No circumstances were presented to the committee which would indicate the necessity for United States naval forces being sent to operate in European waters or United States air forces being sent to operate from bases in Europe. Our naval forces should not be subjected to the hazards of European shore-based aircraft and small submarines. Our naval and air forces should be preserved for our own defense if and when needed. We should face the basic military and economic facts that we do have the power or the means to police the world; that we cannot bring peace to a warring world, but that we do have the power and the means to prevent others from transporting their wars to this hemisphere.
Thoughtful consideration should be given its conclusions that the best interests of our country will be served if we remain at peace; that we very probably can remain at peace, be free from the horrors of war, the fear of invasion, the crushing burdens of vast armies, the fear of bombs from the sky above us, and be able to work out our own domestic problems in a sensible American way; and that should any unscrupulous aggressor attack us, we will be able to meet and defeat him quickly and decisively far from our homes and our firesides, if we provide ourselves with ample sea and air power to command the seas which wash our own shores and the sea approaches to the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Sea." 1
One of the best and most patriotic editorials ever written was stated in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, on September 3, 1940: "Dictator Roosevelt Commits an Act of War: Mr. Roosevelt today committed an act of war. He also became America's first dictator. Secretly, his Secretary of State, Mr. Hull, entered into an agreement with the British Ambassador that amounts to a military and naval alliance with Great Britain. This secretly negotiated agreement was consummated yesterday September 2. Today Congress is informed of the agreement. Note well the word 'informed.' Although the President referred to his under-cover deal as ranking in importance with the Louisiana Purchase, he is not asking Congress - the elected representatives of the people - to ratify this deal. He is telling them it already has been ratified by him - America's dictator.2
The President has passed down an edict that compares with the edicts forced down the throats of Germans, Italians and Russians by Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. He hands down an edict that may eventually result in the shedding of the blood of millions of Americans; that may result in transforming the United States into a goose-stepping, regimented slave state.
Under our Constitution, treaties with foreign powers are not legal without the advice and consent of the Senate. This treaty, which history may define as the most momentous one ever made in our history, was put over without asking the Senate either for its advice or its consent. The authority which the President quotes for his fatal and secret deal is an opinion from the Attorney-General. Whatever legal trickery this yes-man may conjure up, the fact is that the transfer of the destroyers is not only in violation of American law, but is also in violation of the Hague Convention of 1907, solemnly ratified by the United States Senate in 1908. It is an outright act of war.
Undeterred by law or the most primitive form of common sense, the President is turning over to a warring power a goodly portion of the United States Navy, against the repeated statements of Senators, Navy Department officials and officers of the Navy that the ships are needed for our own defense...But, in doing so, he commits an act of war. He strips our navy of fifty valuable ships and he enters into leases which might not be worth the paper they are written upon in a month's time. And all this is done in utmost contempt of democratic processes and of the Constitution of the United States (which is not surprising for the Jews have always been the most traitorous people who have ever existed on earth since the dawn of time!).
If this secretly negotiated deal goes through, the fat is in the fire and we all may as well get ready for a full-dress participation in the European war. If Roosevelt gets away with this, we may as well say good-by to our liberties and make up our mind that henceforth we live under a dictatorship. If Congress and the people do not rise in solemn wrath to stop Roosevelt now, at this moment, then the country deserves the stupendous tragedy that looms right around the corner."
Colonel Charles A. Lindberg, a fine, honest, able and patriotic young American, a recognized authority throughout the world on aviation and defense by air, in an address stated: "In times of war and confusion, it is essential for our people to have a clear understanding of the elements upon which our national safety depends...Judged by aeronautical standards, we in the United States are in singularly fortunate position...
From the standpoint of defense, we will still have two great oceans between us and the warring armies of Europe and Asia. In fact, there is hardly a natural element contributing to air strength and impregnability that we do not now possess. Aviation is for us an asset. It adds to our national safety. With a firm and clear cut policy we can build an air defense for America that will stand above these sifting sands of war...Let us not be confused by this talk of invasion by European aircraft. The air defense of America is as simple as the attack is difficult when the true facts are faced. We are in danger of war not because European people (read that Jews) have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of America, but because the American people (read that Jews) have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of Europe (the Jewish Bolshevik revolution in Russia).
A foreign power could not conquer us by dropping bombs in this country unless the bombing were accompanied by an invading army. And an invading army requires thousands of small bombers and pursuit planes. It would have little use for huge transatlantic aircraft.
No, the advantage lies with us, for great armies must still cross oceans by ship. Only relatively small forces can be transported by air today, and over distances of a few hundred miles at most. This has great significance in Europe, but it is not an element that we have to contend with in America. Such a danger can come, in any predictable future, only through division and war among our own peoples. As long as American nations work together, as long as we maintain reasonable defense forces, there will be no invasion by foreign aircraft. And no foreign navy will dare to approach within bombing range of our coasts. Our danger in America is an internal danger.
We need not fear a foreign invasion unless American peoples bring it on through their own quarreling and meddling with affairs abroad. Our eyes should not search beyond the horizon for problems which lie at our feet...The greatest inheritance we can pass on to our children is a reasonable solution of the problems that confront us in our time, a strong nation, a lack of debt, a solid American character free from the entanglements of the Old World. Let us guard America today as our forefathers guarded it in the past. They won this country from Europe with a handful of Revolutionary soldiers. We certainly can hold it now with a population of 130,000,000 people. If we cannot, we are unworthy to have it.
But the course we have been following in recent months leads to neither strength nor friendship nor peace. It will leave us hated by victor and vanquished alike, regardless of which way the tide of battle turns. One side will claim that we aided its enemies; the other, that we did not help enough.
Let us turn again to America's traditional role, that of building and guarding our own destiny. We need a greater air force, a greater Army, and a great Navy; they have been inadequate for many years. Let us form with our neighboring nations a clear-cut and definite policy of American defense. But above all, let us stop this hysterical chatter of calamity and invasion that has been running rife these last few days. It is not befitting to the people who built this nation.
That the world is facing a new era is beyond question. Our mission is to make it a better era. But regardless of which side wins this war, there is no reason, aside from our own actions, to prevent a continuation of peaceful relationships between America and the countries of Europe. If we desire peace, we need only stop asking for war. No one wishes to attack us, and no one is in a position to do so.
The only reason that we are in danger of becoming involved in this war is because there are powerful elements in America who desire us to take part (read that Jewish elements). They represent a small minority of the American people by they control much of the machinery of influence and propaganda. They seize every opportunity to push us closer to the edge. It is time for the underlying character of this county to rise and assert itself, to strike down these elements of personal profit and foreign interests. This underlying character of America is our true defense. Until it awakes and takes the reins in hand once more, the production of airplanes, cannon and battleships is of secondary importance.
Let us turn our eyes to our own nation. We cannot aid others until we have first placed our own country in a position of spiritual and material leadership and strength."
Despite the efforts of the Jewish controlled press and radio and the New Deal character-assassinators and hatchet-men, Col. Charles Lindberg made another address on June 15, 1940: "There is an attempt to becloud the issue that confronts us. It is not alone an issue of building an adequate defense for our country. That must and can be done. But we must not confuse the question of national defense with the question of entering a European war...Arming for the defense of America is compatible with normal life, commerce and culture... But aiming to attack the continent of Europe would necessitate that the lives and thoughts of every man, woman and child in this country be directed toward war for the next generation, probably for the next several generations.
We cannot continue for long to follow the course our government has taken without becoming involved in war with Germany. There are some who already advocate our entry into such a war. There are many perfectly sincere men and women who believe that we can send weapons to kill people in Europe without becoming involved in war with those people. Still others believe that by gestures and applause we can assist France and England to win without danger to our own country.
In addition to these, however, there are men among us of less honesty who advocate stepping closer and closer to war, knowing well that a point exists beyond which there can be no turning back they have baited the trap of war with requests for modest assistance. This latter group is meeting with success at the moment (this group was the Jews). This dabbling we have been doing in European affairs can lead only to failure in the future as it has in the past...We demand that foreign nations refrain from interfering in our hemisphere, yet we constantly interfere in theirs. And while we have been taking an ineffective part in the war abroad, we have inexcusably neglected our defenses at home. In fact we have let our own affairs drift along until we have not even a plan of defense for the continent of North America.
No people ever had a greater decision to make. We hold our children's future in our hands as we deliberate, for if we turn to war the battles will be hard fought and the outcome is not likely to be decided in our lifetime. This is a question of mortgaging the lives of our children and our grandchildren. Every family in the land would have its wounded and its dead...
If we decide to fight, then the United States must prepare for war for many years to come, and on a scale unprecedented in all history. In that case we must turn to a dictatorial government, for there is no military efficiency to be lost...
We must have a nation ready to give whatever is required for its future welfare, and leaders who are more interested in their country than in their own advancement. With an adequate defense, no foreign army can invade us. Our advantage in defending America is as great as our disadvantage would be in attacking Europe. From a military geographical standpoint, we are the most fortunate country in the world. If the British Navy could not support an invasion of Norway against the German Air Force, there is little reason for us to worry about an invasion of America as long as our own air force is adequately maintained. As far as invasion by air is concerned, it is impossible for any existing air force to attack effectively across the ocean...
Now that we have become one of the world's greatest nations, shall we throw away the independent American destiny which our forefathers gave their lives to win? Shall we submerge our future in the endless wars of the Old World? Or shall we build our own defenses and leave European war to European countries? Shall we continue this suicidal conflict between Western nations and White races, or shall we learn from history as well as from modern Europe that a civilization cannot be preserved by conflict among its own peoples, regardless of how different their ideologies may be?
You men and women of America who believe that our destiny lies in building strength at home and not in war abroad, to you I say that we must act now to stop this trend toward war...If you believe that we should not enter a European war, you must support those of us who oppose such action. We cannot stop this trend alone. Some of your Representatives in Washington are already considering a declaration of war, but they are responsible to you for the action they take. Let them know how you feel about this. Speak to your friends and organize in your community. Nothing but a determined effort on the part of every one of us will prevent the disaster toward which our nation is now heading."
Then on April 24, 1945, American forces under General George Patton were lined up along the Elbe River, in some places less than 14 miles from Berlin, when the order came through General of the Armies, a Jew by the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower that they were to withdraw and await the appearance of the Russian forces in Berlin.
Then came the end on April 30, 1945, the London Daily Times ran a headline which said: Hitler on brink of death with cerebral hemorrhage! The following day, General Kukhov and the Russian Army entered Berlin. The great German specialist, Dr. Giensing who had examined Hitler on many occasions said that it was impossible that Hitler had died from a cerebral hemorrhage or from cancer as reported. On the afternoon of May 1, 1945, the Hamburg radio suddenly stopped its program to announce that the Fuhrer had died, "...fighting to his last breath against the enemy."
Admiral Doeniz, was put in command of the German forces. Then on May 8, seven days after the Russians had entered Berlin, it was stated that the charred remains of Hitler and three of his companions, including his paramour Eva Braun, had been found in the burned out rubble of the Chancellor's bunker. No pictures were ever taken of his body.
No concrete evidence was ever given that the body was his. There are many contradictory stories about what happened in that bunker. (Many believe that Hitler escaped, and later lived out his life in the State of Israel under an assumed name). Whether he escaped or not, is not the important thing. His task had been accomplished. Germany lay in ruins.
1933: The whole civilized world knew that Joe Stalin was a train robber, a bank robber, a liar, a gangster, the worst and most brutal murderer that Satan had ever turned loose upon the earth, up to that time. Mao tse Tung has proven to the worst mass murderer in the history of the world since its beginning.
They knew that Stalin had just murdered without any justification or excuse 374 of his highest ranking generals, 30,000 other high army officials, and 98 of his closest and most loyal friends of the Central Committee that placed him in his high office. He had just butchered or starved to death 7 million of the honest, hard working farmers in the Ukraine. He was conducting mass massacres of millions of innocent Christian men, women and children. The civilized world was turning against the unprincipled God hating villains in the Kremlin. They were about ready to fold up.
Stalin was born Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, in the mountain village of Gori in the province of Georgia in 1879. His father was a peasant from the town Dido-Lilo. His mother, Ekaterina Geladze, was a devoutly religious woman whose forebears had been serfs in the village of Gambarouli. Not a great deal is known about Stalin's father, except that he sometimes worked as a laborer and sometimes as a cobbler in a shoe factory in Adelkhanov. He is said to have been an easy-going individual who liked to drink a great deal. Stalin's mother, however, was a devoted mother and worked hard. She took in washing to earn extra money for her family's benefit.
Her ambition was to see Stalin become a priest. She skimped and saved to provide him with the necessary education. Young Stalin attended the elementary school in Gori for four years and won a scholarship which entitled him to attend the Tiflis Theological Seminary. But Stalin wasn't cut out for a religious life. He was continually getting into trouble with the seminary authorities. He was expelled after completing four years of study. He then joined a group of young revolutionaries.
Stalin first married Ekaterina Svanidze, who bore him a son, Yash-Jacob Djugashvili. This boy was never very bright. Even after his father became dictator, he worked as an electrician and mechanic.
Stalin's second wife was Nadya Allilyova who bore him two children, Vasili, a son, and Svetlana, a daughter. Vasili became a major-general in the Soviet Air Force. He usually led the flying demonstrations on special occasions of state after his father became dictator. He was thrown into the discard after his father died.
Stalin and his second wife don't seem to have gotten along very well together. Stalin had an affair with a beautiful Jewess, Rosa Kaganovich. She is reported to have been living with Stalin when his second wife, Nadya, is said to have committed suicide. It is also believed that in addition to Stalin's love affair, Nadya became more and more depressed as the result of the ruthless way in which Stalin slaughtered so many of her co-religionists whom he accused of being diversionists.
Rosa's brother, Lazar Kaganovich, was a great fried of Stalin's He was made a member of the Politburo and retained his office until Stalin died. Kaganovich proved his ability as Commissioner for Heavy Industry when he developed the Donetz Basin Oil Fields and built the Moscow subway. Kaganovich's son, Mihail, married Stalin's daughter Svetlana. What became of Svetlana's first husband remains a mystery. It would appear that Svetlana's first husband removed himself, or was removed, to allow Kaganovich's son to marry Stalin's daughter, just as Stalin's second wife removed herself or was removed, to allow Stalin to marry Kaganovich's sister, Rosa.
Stalin only became a member of the Upper Curst of the Russian revolutionary party because, during the preliminary phases of the Russian Revolution, many of the better known leaders were in jail. Stalin never rose to any very exalted position in the Communist Party during Lenin's dictatorship. It was during Lenin's last illness that Stalin jockeyed for position, and then he moved out in front, to eliminate Trotsky and his other Jewish contenders. Once he took over the leadership he never relinquished it until his death.
How Stalin rose to power is an interesting story. Lenin suffered a paralytic stroke in May 1922, and this affected his speech and motor reflexes. In December of that year he appointed a triumvirate composed of Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin to share the problems of government. Shortly after Lenin suffered another stroke and died. Trotsky has suggested, and his followers believe, Stalin helped bring about Lenin's death because he was irritated by Lenin's incapacity and prolonged illness.
When the triumvirate started to function in Moscow the Politburo included Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Bukharin, Tomsky and Stalin. Zinoviev and Kamenev had been Lenin's right hand men from the day he became dictator. They naturally regarded themselves as the senior members of the triumvirate and logically his successors. Zinoviev treated Stalin in a circumspectively patronizing manner and Kamenev treated him with a touch of irony.
Zinoviev and Kamenev considered Trotsky as their real competitor for the dictatorship after Lenin died. In Trotsky's book "Stalin" he records that Stalin was used by both Zinoviev and Kamenev as a counterweight against him (Trotsky) and to a lesser extent by other members of the Politburo also. No member of the Politburo at that time thought Stalin would one day rise away above their heads.
Zinoviev was considered senior member of the triumvirate when he was delegated to give the opening address of the 12th Party Congress, a function Lenin had always reserved for himself on previous occasions. Zinoviev didn't go over too well. Stalin was quick to take advantage. Before the congress was over, Stalin had secured control over the Communist Party machine and held a dominant position in the triumvirate. This was the situation when Lenin died in 1924.
In April 1925 Stalin had Trotsky removed as war commissar. He then broke relations with Zinoviev and Kamenev and allied himself with Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky. Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky then united forces in opposition to Stalin, but they had moved too late.
In February, 1926, Stalin had Zinoviev expelled from the Politburo; then from the presidency of the Petersburg (Leningrad) Soviet; and finally from the presidency of the Third International. In October, 1926, Stalin had Kamenev and Trotsky expelled from the Politburo. Next year Stalin had his three enemies removed from the Central Committee of the Communist Party and shortly afterwards he had them read out of the party altogether.
In 1927 Trotsky tried to start a revolt against Stalin on the grounds that he was departing from the Marxian ideology and substituting an imperialistic totalitarian dictatorship for a genuine Union of Sovietized Socialist Republics. What everyone seems to have failed to realize what the fact that Stalin had been nominated to rule the Soviets by the International Bankers. He had to purge Russia of all men who might obstruct their Long Range Plans.
During the purge several million people, mostly Christians, were slain and about an equal number sent to forced labor. Many men who had been leaders of the revolutionary movement, since the First International was formed, were hounded to death or imprisoned. Among the leaders Stalin purged were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Martynov, Zasulich, Deutch, Parvus, Axelrod, Radek, Uritzky, Sverdlov, Dan, Lieber, and Martov. About the only Jews close to Stalin at the time of his death were Kaganovich, his brother-in-law and Rosa, his third wife.
Stalin continued to develop Lenin's policy to establish the Communist sphere of influence between the 35th and 45th parallels of latitude right around the northern hemisphere. Many revolutionary leaders in other countries became convinced that Stalin had developed personal Imperialistic ideas and was intent upon making himself ruler of a world-wide totalitarian dictatorship. They were right, Stalin took his orders, as Lenin had done, from the men who are "The Secret Power" behind the World Revolutionary Movement, until 1936 and then he began to ignore their mandates.
Lenin had stated in 1921 that Spain was to be the next country Sovietized. Upon his death Stalin accepted the subjugation of Spain as a pious legacy. Once Spain had been turned into a so-called proletarian dictatorship it would be an easy matter to subjugate France and Britain. Germany would then be between the nut-crackers. If by some mischance the subjugation of Spain failed to materialize, then the incident could be used to help bring about World War II.
While preparing for the Spanish revolution, Stalin was ordered by the international bankers to take an active part in an economic war which was planned in 1918 immediately after the Armistice had been signed. Generally speaking, the people who had not been engaged in the actual fighting became prosperous during World War I.
When the fighting ended the people in the allied countries enjoyed two boom years. Then, after speculative investments had just about reached their peak, vast amounts of money were withdrawn from circulation. Credits were restricted. Calls were made on loans. In 1922-25 a minor depression was experienced. This economic juggling was a preliminary experiment before the Power-That-Be brought about the great depression of 1930.
History records what happened when Stalin enforced his edicts in reference to the collectivization of farms. For centuries the serfs in Russia had been little better than slaves of the landed proprietors. Lenin had won their support by promising them even greater concessions than they had been granted under the benevolent rule of Premier Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin from 1906 to 1914, when over 2,000,000 peasant families seceded from the village Mir and became individual land owners. By January 1, 1916, the number had increased to 6,200,000 families. But, in order to secure the loans they had made for the Abmachungen and industrial development programs, the International Bankers insisted that they control the import and export trade of the Sovietized nations. They also demanded the collectivization of farms as the only means to obtain greatly increased agricultural production. It is acknowledged that over 5,000,000 peasants were executed, or systematically starved to death, because they refused to obey, or tried to evade the edicts. Over 5 million more were sent to forced labor in Siberia.
What is not generally known is the fact that the grain which was confiscated from the Russian farmers was pooled together with a vast quantity of grain purchased by the agents of the International Bankers in other countries except Canada and the United States. In addition to this corner on grain the International Bankers brought up huge supplies of processed and frozen meats in the Argentine and other meat producing countries. Canada and the United States could not find a market for their cattle, or their grain.
During the period 1920 - 1929 the International Bankers subsidized shipping in most countries except Britain, Canada, and the United States. As the result of this commercial piracy, it became impossible for ships owned in Britain, Canada, and the United States to compete with ships owned by other countries. Thousands of ships were tied up idle in their home ports. Export trade fell off to an all-time low. But regardless of these obvious facts, Franklin Roosevelt, a Jew ‑‑ according to Dall his son‑in‑law; gave the Kremlin murderers official recognition, plus $11‑billion cash, plus 1600 expensive planes, plus our money plates, 3 plane loads of special ink, 4 plane loads of special paper, and permission to make and spend all of the money they could print.
1933: Cuba. During a revolution against President Genardo Machado naval forces demonstrated; no landing was made.
1933: Russia. On the verge of economic collapse, was officially recognized by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Jew), averting the failure of World Communism and Pronounced a Death Sentence upon millions of East Europeans, Chinese and other people around the world!!! Under the cover of the war, the newly established Jewish Communist regime in Russia, murdered every opponent, together with their families, friends and disarmed the entire populace (This is what the Jews plan for American Christians if they can disarm them through the "desire to protect them" from themselves. After all we are told daily by the Prostitute News Media that the only people killed with GUNS are family members, or by the mentally deranged ‑‑ and stupid American Christians are listening to them spread this Satanic Lie!; thus eliminating any possibility of rebellion.
1933: Defender Magazine gave a morbid description of the Bolshevik takeover in 1917: "The Jews were now free to indulge in their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out.
Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths.
Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death. Christian mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms. A red Jewish terrorist would take the baby, hold it by the feet, head downward and demand that the Christian mother deny Christ. If she would not, he would toss the baby into the air, and another member of the mob would rush forward and catch it on the tip of his bayonet.
Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. There were many places of public execution in Russia during the days of the revolution, one of which was described by the American Rohrbach Commission: 'The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls were bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood. Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate." 1
1933: On January 4, 1933, Hitler met with the Dulles (John Foster Dulles) brothers at the Cologne home of Baron Kurt von Schroder to guarantee Hitler the funds needed to install him as Chancellor of Germany. The Dulles Brothers were there as legal representatives of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. (Jewish‑Financial House; a branch of the Rothschilds), which had extended large short term (because they knew in advance about how long the war would be allowed to continue) credits to Germany.
1933: World War II really started in 1933, when Judea: All Jews World-Wide - Declared War on the Third Reich.2
1933: On September 30, 1933, the financial editor of the London Daily Herald wrote about: "Mr. Montague Norman's decision To give the Nazis the Backing of The Bank of England."
1933: In May, 1933, Alfred Rosenberg was a guest at Deterding's large estate, Buckhurst Part, Ascot, one mile from Windsor Castle. Where Oswald Duth writes that in 1931 Sir Henri Deterding and his backers, the (Jewish) Samuel family, gave Hitler $30‑Million pounds.
1933: On March 26, 1933, the Zionist Association of Germany sent a telegram to leading Jews in America: "In a declaration transmitted by the Jewish Telegraphers Union to the entire Jewish world press on March 17, we have already emphatically protested against anti‑German propaganda. We have objected to mendacious atrocity reports and reckless sensational news, and we are repeating it today in public. We oppose any attempts to misuse Jewish affairs for the political interests of other states and groups. The defense of the national rights of the Jews and the safeguarding of their economic position cannot and must not be linked with any political actions directed against Germany and the reputation of the Reich." 1
When the shooting began Jews were put into forced labor facilities for security and manpower reasons. These became death camps only after wartime transportation problems aggravated food and medical shortages. The "gas" victims in many well‑publicized photos are actually typhus victims, look at their bodies and the condition of them, gassing does not cause people to lose weight to the point that people are only skin and bones. But disease does! So as a preventive measure the gas Zyklon B was used to delouse clothing of guards and inmates alike. Other pictures are in fact German casualties of Allied carpet bombing raids on Dresden during which 250,000 Whites, mostly women and children, were killed by other Whites during one day of a war waged for...For What?
1933: On June 16, 1933 Vladimir Jabotinsky (Polish Jew), did not shrink away from political murder of his own Jewish people. The assassination of Chaim Arlosoroff, a member of the Jewish Agency Executive Committee and one of the most respected Zionists, by Jabotinsky and others of the Zionist radicals. Then later in a moving speech: "...Jabotinsky insisted that all energies be expended to force the Congress to join the boycott movement. Nothing less than a 'Merciless fight' would be acceptable, cried Jabotinsky. 'The present Congress is duty bound to put the Jewish problem in Germany before the entire world...We (Jews) must destroy, destroy, destroy them ‑ not only with the boycott, but politically, supporting all existing forces against them to isolate Germany from the Civilized World...our Enemy (Germany) must be destroyed."
1933: On August 6, 1933 Samuel Untermeyer returned from Amsterdam to New York and greeted his compatriots in a continent‑wide radio broadcast which was immediately arranged for him: "...Each of you, Jew and gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in the sacred war should do so now..."
1934: This year marked the first really concerted effort to pave the way for the eventual disarming of civilian America. An effort to destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to destroy the right of all Americans to own and carry arms.
Second Amendment The Right to Bear Arms
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." 2
The protection afforded by this Amendment prevents infringement by Congress of the right to bear arms, but it does not similarly extend to state action 3 (By this we can see that the enemies of America and its people have been preparing the way to disarm them for over a hundred years!) nor to private conduct 4. To what extent this protection runs, that is, what the nature of the right is, remains after all these years a matter marked by uncertain lines. There is some little evidence in the scanty congressional debates to indicate that the Framers were solely concerned with maintaining, or allowing the States to maintain, a militia force sufficient to prevent the establishment of a standing army 5.
For earlier texts of the Amendment, (see id., 434, 749). The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition. In United States v. Millier 307 U.S. 174 (1939), it sustained a statute requiring Registration (of guns) under the National Firearms Act 6 of sawed‑off shotguns. Said the Court: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
The Court then recited the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia and continued: "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. 1 In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 2, the court upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: 'Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well‑regulated militia.' Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made,3 1031‑1058, and Final Report (Washington: 1971), 246‑247). At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, whether there would be a conflict, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward answering." 4
Following is, in part, a publication prepared by Robert (Bob) Hallstrom, titled "The Guns Of God ‑ A Study" and published by The Gospel Of The Kingdom, P.O. Box 9411, Boise, Idaho 83797. It is being presented here so that you the reader, who perhaps is a Christian, will know that It is not God's purpose for you to give up your arms, nor is it the purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, They wish you to be armed and ready to defend, not only yourself, but your family, people and country as well. "When a strong man fully armed guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed." 5
As this country slips faster and faster down the slippery slope (in)to destruction, more and more people are concerned with the protection of their life, liberty, and property. In the early history of our country few men would leave their homes without a weapon close at hand. The same was true as the West was settled. Man, and man alone, was responsible for the protection of himself, his liberty, his family, and his property.
As the land became settled men banded together for protection and formed posses to catch criminals. With the forming of communities the sheriff came into being, and as federal presence moved westward so came the sheriffs and marshals. The people did not expect the lawman to stop all crime for people recognized that a lawman could not stop crime.
However, he did present a symbol of authority and criminals knew that where there was a lawman, there was someone dedicated to catching them if they decided to rob a bank or commit some other crime. A lawman is passive protection from crime more than anything else.
The individual victim has always been the first person to have contact with the criminal. It was the bank teller, the storekeeper or the home owner, who had to deal directly with criminal activity ‑‑ not the lawman. If the individual didn't handle the situation by preventing the crime, neither could the lawman. If the individual was unsuccessful then the lawman went after the criminal; and many times the lawman would deputize individuals to assist in the chase and capture of the criminal: so the individual still did not escape the necessity to pursue criminals as well as prevent crime.
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals (1982)
Call 911 and Die
Most Americans believe that their local police have a duty in law to protect them against criminals. They are wrong. Some of them are dead wrong. And some of those who are dead wrong are dead because they have been duped by ignorant or dishonest politicians or police chiefs, who promise protection that they cannot give. Some of these officials know that they have no legal duty to protect the average person, and yet still support disarming law-abiding people, the better "to protect" them from criminals!
Frontline police officers sometimes are verbally abused by victims of criminals who wrongly believe that police officers have a duty to protect the law-abiding. These good citizens blame the police officer for not doing a job for which they have never been responsible: protecting the average person against criminals. The Police say: We serve everyone, but no one in particular. U.S. law is based on English Common Law. In English Common Law, "the Sheriff" is a government employee whose main job is enforcement of government decisions: Seizure of property, arrest of persons wanted by the authorities, collection of taxes, etc. Maintenance of public order, a secondary duty, was done to the extent resources allowed.
Police Protection = Police State. It is obvious, 500 years ago in England and in America now, that a sheriff could not be everywhere at once. It was, and is, equally clear that to protect every person would require an army of sheriffs (or sheriff's deputies). Maintaining an Army of police officers, in effect a police state, would nullify the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights.
Neither the framers of the Constitution, nor their successors, wanted to avoid the risk of harm to come in individuals arising from criminals' activity by creating a police state that inevitably would harm every individual. Instead, the Framers provided for a judicial system to deal with criminals, persons who abused the Freedoms provided by the Constitution. The Framers assumed that a law-abiding person would largely be responsible for their safety. As a matter of law, that assumption still is valid. The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is based on individual ownership of arms. Generally, the Framers avoided stating the obvious. So, they did not word the amendment, "A well...state, the right of Every Person...infringed." That is, the Framers assumed that every person would look out after his own security, and of necessity would be armed. They saw no need to state so obvious a truth.
The Militia: Armed Persons assembled for lawful purposes. Rather, the Framers wanted to emphasize what they felt would be obvious: That armed individuals may lawfully assemble to use their Arms only to defend the State based on the U.S. Constitution (but not to overturn the Constitution). This is, perhaps, why the words Militia, State, and Arms are capitalized. When armed individuals gather for lawful purposes, i.e., the defense of the Constitution, they are "the Militia."
A 20th Century derivative of "the Militia" is the National Guard, which has existed since 1901. It is an arm of the Federal Government: "Since 1933, all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity, they have become a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, but unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate state guard unit." 1
Thus, the National Guard exists to enforce Government Policy. It is not the "Militia," but A "militia." U.S. Law states that a "State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States." 2
Nonetheless, no state now does so. If the Federal authorities used the Army or National Guard to change the Constitutional order, or a State governor so abused a state militia, a disarmed citizenry would be helpless. The Framers did not want this. Generations of their successors have agreed. As a result, the Framers wanted the wording of the Second Amendment to make it clear that armed individuals could gather together for specific purposes, i.e., defense of the Constitution and the Liberties it proclaims.
Uncontrolled criminals subvert the Constitution. The Framers felt no need to state that individuals would use arms to defend themselves against whom the government never promised to provide, and indeed, never has had an obligation to provide. It is only the failure of the government to control criminals in recent decades that has called into question the validity of the individual right to own arms for the essential purpose of defending the Constitution. This is as much an individual duty as is personal self-defense.
The Law: The Police are not there for YOU, State and City governments, rather than the Federal Authorities, are responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection. However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.3
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you no right to police protection. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that: "...There is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." 4
There are a few, very narrow exceptions. In 1983, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals remarked that: "In a civilized society, every citizen at least tacitly relies upon the constable for protection from crime. Hence, more than general reliance is needed to require the police to act on behalf of a particular individual...Liability is established, therefore, if the police have specifically undertaken to protect a particular individual and the individual has specifically relied upon the undertaking...Absent a special relationship, therefore, the police may not be held liable for failure to protect a particular individual from harm caused by criminal conduct. A special relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual requests, or a police officer promises to provide protection." 1
As a result, the government, specifically, police forces, has no legal duty to help any given person, even one whose life is in imminent peril. The only exceptions are a person who:
(1) Has helped the police force (i.e., as an informant or as a witness).
(2) Can prove that they have specifically been promised protection and has, as a result, done things that they otherwise would not have done.
If you rely on the Police: you will pay heavily. Even someone repeatedly threatened by another has no entitlement to police protection until they have been physically harmed. In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend, who had a criminal record. Over several months, he repeatedly threatened her: "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you."
She repeatedly sought police protection, explaining her request in detail. Nothing was done to protect her. When he threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently begged the New York City Police Department for help "Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused." the next day, she was attacked. A "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (Sodium Hydroxide) in her face. She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred.
The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss had no right to protection. The Court refused to create such a right because that would impose a crushing economic burden on the government. Only the legislature could create a right to protection: "The amount of protection that may be provided is limited by the resources of the community and by a considered legislative-executive decision as to how these resources may be deployed. For the courts to proclaim a new and general duty of protection...even to those who may be the particular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits."
Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda Riss was victimized not only because she had relied on the police to protect her, but because she obeyed New York laws that forbade her to own a weapon. Judge Keating wrote: "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." 2
In California an imminent death threat meant nothing. Even a person whose life is imminently in peril is not entitled to help. On September 4, 1972 Ruth Bunnell called the San Jose (California) police department to report that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had telephoned her to tell her that he was coming over to her house to kill her. During the previous year, the San Jose police, "had made at least 20 calls and responses to Mrs. Bunell's home...allegedly related to complaints of violent acts committed by Mack Bunnell on Mrs. Bunnell and her two daughters." Even so, Ruth Bunnell was told to call back only when Mack Bunnell arrived. Some 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived and stabbed Ruth Bunnell to death. A neighbor called the police, who then came to the murder scene. The California Court of Appeals held that any claim against the police department: "...is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly Section 845, which states: 'Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection." 3
In Washington, D.C. rape was no cause for concern. If direct peril to life does not entitle one to police protection, clearly imminent peril of rape merits no concern. Carolyn Warren, of Washington, D.C., called the police on March 16, 1975: two intruders had smashed the back door to her house and had attacked a female room mate. After calling the police, Warren and another room-mate took refuge on a lower back roof of the building. The police went to the front door and knocked. Warren, afraid to go downstairs, could not answer.
The police officers left without checking the back door. Warren again called the police and was told that they would respond. Assuming they had returned, Warren called out to the roommate, thus revealing her own location. The two intruders then rounded up all three women.
"For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of (the intruders)."
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that: "...the fundamental principle (is) that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no special legal duty exists."
In an accompanying memorandum, the Court explained that the term "special relationship" did not mean an oral promise to respond to a call for help. Rather, if involved the provision of help to the police force. 1
In Illinois school teachers get no help either. On April 20, 1961, Josephine M. Keane, a teacher in the Chicago City Public Schools was assaulted and killed on school premises by a student enrolled in the school. Keane's family sued the City of Chicago, claiming that: "...the City was negligent in failing to assign police protection to the school, although it knew or should have known that failure to provide this protection would result in harm to persons lawfully on the premises (because) it knew or should have known of the dangerous condition then existing at the school."
The Appeals Court affirmed the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Presiding Justice Burke of the Appeals Court held that, "Failure on the part of a municipality to exercise a government function does not, without more, expose the municipality to liability." Justice Burke went on to say that: "To hold that under the circumstances alleged in the complaint the City owed a 'special duty' to Mrs. Keane for the safety and well-being of her person would impose an all but impossible burden upon the City, considering the numerous police, fire, housing and other laws, ordinances and regulations in force." 2
In North Carolina, helpless children do not count. Even defenseless children merit no "special care." On June 3, 1985 police tried to arrest a man and his "girl friend," both of whom were wanted on multiple murder charges, and who were known to be heavily armed. The alleged murderers, along with the girl friend's' two sons, aged nine and ten years, tried to flee in a car. As the police closed in after a running shootout, the children were poisoned with cyanide and then shot in the head either by the mother or her "boy friend," one of whom then blew up the vehicle, killing both.
The boy's father, who had filed for divorce, sued the law enforcement agencies and officers for "wrongful death" of his sons. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that: "...the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe them (the children) any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death...Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public. In this instance, a special relationship of the type stated did not exist...
Plaintiff's argument that the children's presence required defendants to delay (the) arrest until the children were elsewhere is incompatible with the duty that the law has long placed on law enforcement personnel to make the safety of the public their first concern; for permitting dangerous criminals to go unapprehended lest particular individuals be injured or killed would inevitably and necessarily endanger the public at large, a policy that the law cannot tolerate, much less foster." 3
In Virginia a wrongful release = a wrongful death? Wrong! Marvin Munday murdered Jack Marshall in Virginia. Munday, convicted for carrying a concealed pistol, was sent to jail by a judge who expressed concern that Munday, "might kill himself or a member of the public."
Munday was mistakenly released from jail 8 days later. Nine days after that he was re-arrested on an unrelated charge. Five hours later, the same jailer and sheriff released him, apparently without checking to see if that was proper. Three weeks later, Munday robbed and murdered Marshall. Marshall's widow sued, alleging negligence on the part of the sheriff and jailer, asserting a violation of Jack Marshall's right to due process. The Court rejected the claim: "...a distinction must be drawn between a public duty owed by the officials to the citizenry at large and a special duty owed to a specific identifiable person or class of persons...Only a violation of the latter duty will give rise to civil liability of the official...to hold a public official civilly liable for violating a duty owed to the public at large would subject the official to potential liability for every action he undertook and would not be in society's best interest...no special relationship existed that would create a common law duty on the defendants to protect the decedent (Marshall) from Munday's criminal acts. Similarly, without a special relationship between the defendants and the decedent, no constitutional duty can arise under the Due Process Clause as codified by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Therefore plaintiff's (Mrs. Marshall) due process claim also must fail." 1
The bottom line: Your life is in your own hands. These cases and there are many others, show clearly that under U.S. law:
(1) No individual has a right to police protection, even when life is in clear and immediate peril;
(2) There is no right to police protection simply because there are not enough police resources available to enable every person who feels threatened to be protected;
(3) To make police officers answerable to individual citizens for a failure to provide protection would make police officers afraid to do anything for fear that an action, or inaction, would expose them to civil liability.
This is unavoidable:
(1) Life is risky;
(2) The police cannot be everywhere at once;
(3) It is impossible to hire enough police officers to protect every person who needs it or thinks they need it.
No one can or should rely on the local police force to defend him or herself, even against a specific threat coming from a known source. Each of us is responsible for ensuring his or her personal safety. Anyone who says "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you," at best is misinformed, and at worst is simply lying. To offer such advice suggests that police have a duty to provide protection and usually will provide it. The police have no such duty. And, while police may try hard to provide protection, and a failure to do so can be catastrophic, there is no legal recourse for a person harmed by that failure.
What we need the least is a gun ban and waiting periods. "Gun Control" is founded on a total misunderstanding of the role of the police in our society. "Gun control" advocates presuppose the police have a duty to protect every individual. But, as shown above, the police never had this duty, and indeed, cannot have it so long as the Constitution remains in force. Therefore, bans on gun ownership, or imposition of a waiting period before a gun may be purchased, simply give an attacker a legally-protected Window of Opportunity to do you harm. Moreover, "gun control" makes the law-abiding person less able and willing to take responsibility for their own defense. We will never eliminate criminals. But we must do far more to curb them. That is what the Constitution and common good sense requires.
Many police forces are under strength. And it is quite clear that to enable the police to defend each and everyone of us, would require us to set up a police state that makes Joe Stalin's Russia look like a "Love Boat," cruise ship. That is not the lesser of two evils, i.e., better than letting criminals run free, it is the greater.
What we need most is a nation-wide carry law. A law-abiding person's security, as a matter of Law and a matter of Fact, is in their own hands. Even if we had effective criminal control, and we are far from that happy state of affairs, each law-abiding person would still be responsible for their own safety.
Any law-abiding person should be able legally to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise, as this is the best way to enable such persons to protect themselves. It is a potent deterrent: the criminal would not necessarily know who was, and who wasn't armed. I would enable a person who had been threatened and was not entitled to police protection, to have at hand the means to protect themselves.
No more Killeen Massacres, or the one at the MacDonald Restaurant in California, and several others which have taken place in the past few years. Carry is not a panacea. A criminal would always have the advantage of the first shot, but if the intended victim(s) were lawfully entitled to carry a firearm, the criminal's first shot could be their last. If a carry law was in effect on a nation wide scale massacres such as those mentioned above would almost certainly become a thing of the past. The criminal would be killed quickly by one of the intended victims.
Licensing is not needed, simply because criminals now carry weapons at will. Licensing would only affect the 99+% of Americans who own firearms, and who do not abuse them. What purpose is served by the costly building of huge files on law-abiding people?
Moreover, is not the presumption in the U.S. Law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? There are enough laws on the books today, to put the criminals away for life, if they were enforced. An appellate court has ruled that police were not negligent in failing to protect three women from two knife‑wielding assailants.
The case1 stemmed from a 1975 incident in which two men broke into the house shared by three women. Two of them called police after hearing the other scream for help. A police dispatcher assured them assistance was on the way. A squad car arriving on the scene, merely circled the house without stopping, and the dispatcher failed to relay a second call for help. The intruders, discovering the other two women, repeatedly raped and beat all three over the next fourteen hours. In dismissing the suit, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed what it called the "well‑established" and "Uniformly accepted rule" that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection to any particular individual citizen." The court held that police have a duty only to the "public at large and not to individual members of the community."
Similar decisions across the nation place citizens in a dilemma, as more states are adopting stronger limitations on the right of self‑defense, compounded by the nationwide drive to place restrictive gun laws on the books. If court rulings continue to hold that police have no duty to protect the individual, as ownership of fire‑arms faces increasing restraints. U.S. citizens will ultimately find themselves completely at the mercy of violence‑prone criminals. Being armed, is being physically equipped with offensive and defensive instruments (knives, guns, armor, vests, etc.). Being armed or physically equipped obviously implies that these instruments are to be carried and not left in the closet or dresser drawer at home.
The State Creates Its Own Enemies
Ghoulishly capitalizing on the tragedy of a mass murder, the anti‑gun forces are surging forward with their plans for total gun confiscation. If law‑abiding private citizens were disarmed, they claim, criminals and crazies would be unable to kill and maim. That's an obvious lie ‑‑ criminals, by definition, disobey laws, and madmen can kill with knives, cars, or champagne bottles as easily and as senselessly as they can with guns.
The not‑so‑secret agenda of the State and its apologists is clear: disarm peaceful citizens to render them powerless. Turn law‑abiding Americans into criminals with the stroke of a legislative pen. Anyone who refuses to surrender his or her weapons would become an Enemy Of The State, much the same as any armed citizen is right now in the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Socialist Nicaragua, or Fascist El Salvador, or Monarchist Great Britain. Gun confiscation is non‑partisan ‑‑ it is always and forever aimed at anyone disliked by the current gang in power.
Gun Seizure Sparked 1776 Revolution
The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there. London claimed to be the "legitimate" government ruling America, just as Washington or Sacramento or Albany claims to be today. And their attempt to disarm us stems from the same power lust that drove King George. We must, therefore, hold onto our guns; legally or illegally, for the very same reason the colonists did.
The Truth About Gun Ownership
The anti‑gunners, certain that the role of government is to grant privileges and dictate behavior, shout that citizens have no reason to be "allowed" to own assault rifles, which have "no legitimate sporting use." The Constitution, though, says nothing about "a well‑regulated hunting club" being necessary. We do not own handguns, assault rifles, shotguns, and other powerful weapons because we are hunters or plinkers or collectors. We do not own guns because the Constitution "allows" us to. The Constitution does not "grant" rights.
It recognizes rights already and irrevocably held forever by the people themselves (individuals), and forbids government from trampling on them. We have a right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists or not! All Article Two guarantees is that we shouldn't have to defend that right against "our" federal government. We've seen that simple guarantee erode, though, haven't we?
The real reason for gun ownership is to protect the individual from the State, whether it be an invading State from across the seas or a domestic State grown tyrannical and oppressive. The goal of total, repressive confiscation is clear in the subtle, shifting arguments of the anti‑gun forces. When handguns were the target, they clamored for prohibition because handguns were not militia‑type weapons protected by the Second Amendment. Now they cry for assault rifle bans because "mere citizens" have no business possessing "military‑style" weapons! These eager confiscators rightly point out that assault rifles, handguns, and indeed all "weapons" have only one purpose: to kill. Again they speak a truth, but only partially. The unasked questions is, "To kill whom? And under what circumstances?" The answer is, "To kill any who attempt to rob, maim, rape, or kill us."
Even that answer, though, does not fully express the most important reason for gun ownership. Only a small number of people are actually touched by criminal violence. The State, though, touches each and every one of us every hour of every day. People in government seek to tax our earnings to pay for their whims, to draft our children to fight in wars they start, to regulate and interfere with our lives out of pure love of power and their desire to wield it. They have become as tyrannical as any Tory redcoat, Soviet Commissar, or Nazi Gestapo. And they are coming to steal your last line of defense against them. Will you meekly obey?
The State is, in reality, interested only in protecting itself rather than its citizens. If you do not believe it, then look at which crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely, those against private citizens or those against itself? Recently a judge sentenced a woman to jail because challenged his authority, and for no other reason.
The judge had ordered her to reveal the whereabouts of her little girl, but she refused to do so. So we ask the question: Who was the injured party? Was she a threat to any other person? Was she a threat to the general public? The answer is NO. But she "WAS" a threat to the power of government because she would not obey the imperial judge.
The most grave crimes in the State's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private persons or property, but dangers to its own contentment, i.e., treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of leaders, refusing to obey the orders of a government agent, and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money, or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously the State's openly assigned priority to it own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed function.
Gun Control Enforced at Gunpoint
When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned weapons from private individuals? How will the agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and so‑called assault rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens, yet perfectly fine in the hands of federal, state, county or city agents? If this is truly "government by the people," why do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent government? If the States does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?
The usual answer ‑ stripped of equivocation ‑ is that "mere citizens" are like half‑witted children, incapable of safely handling "dangerous" commodities such as weapons or explosives or medicines or information. And it is only when some "half‑witted children" pass a civil service exam or are elected by other half‑wits to work for the wise and all knowing State do they "magically" become smart, honest (that is why the police put pad‑ locks on their lockers in the police station. Because they are so honest!) and trustworthy enough to carry weapons and decide whom shall be "allowed" to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be. Sounds pretty condescending and paternalistic, doesn't it? That's how they view us. Sheep for the shearing at tax time, cannon fodder during times of war, and dangerous idiots the rest of the time. Yet they have the audacity to ask us to obey their decrees?
Government Creates Crime
What many Americans refuse to face, usually by saying "it can't happen in America," is that the government does create new classes of criminals with the mere stroke of a pen. In 1919, Prohibition turned millions of people overnight from sociable drinkers to Enemies Of The State. The crime of ingesting alcohol turned neighborly, peaceful people into fair game for imprisonment, fines, and seizure of property.
Just as the so‑called war on drugs is doing today. Some fought back, often with simple shotguns against "revenooers" armed with assault rifles (the Thompson sub‑machine gun) in a modern version of the Whiskey Rebellion. The Prohibition Amendment created crime by definition. If, tomorrow, smoking or drinking coffee or owning a book were declared illegal, the State would suddenly point to a new "criminal underworld" of massive proportions. In the eyes of the State they would become "a new breed of criminal" to be weeded out of society and thrown into prison. So it is with any prohibition of popular activities, including gun ownership!
Gun Prohibition Disarms The Poor
Let's face it ‑ police respond faster to calls from Beverly Hills than they do to calls from Watts. The rich can afford armed guards, to boot! When so‑called Saturday Night Specials are banned, does it affect those who can spend hundreds on a fine pistol? No. Does it prevent criminals from stealing whatever weapon they want or buying it on the black market? No.
The only people harmed by a "cheap handgun" ban are the honest poor who have hardly enough money to feed their children, let alone defend themselves from inner‑city marauders. Any form of gun control disarms those least able to defend themselves. Also, what good is a 15‑day waiting period to someone who is threatened by an armed criminal coming by tonight? When one perceives a threat, one should be able to acquire protection immediately.
Gun Prohibition Is Racist
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was rammed down the throats of the American public, blatantly exploiting then‑ current fears of gun‑toting black rioters by implying that the law would help to disarm American Blacks, other minorities, and all dissenters at a time of civil upheaval.
To paraphrase a popular slogan, "if the government does not trust minorities with guns, minorities cannot trust government." Well this holds true for All Americans. In a mirror image case 20 years later, assault rifle bans are being ramroded through legislatures by appealing to fears that gun‑toting white racists are on the loose. The real and only purpose of gun control is to disarm the innocent and the peaceful, of whatever race, creed, or social status.
Gun Prohibition Is Sexist
The same goes for women. Police and purported feminists urge women to resist rape with fists, fingernails, key‑rings, and screams. But why should any woman allow an assailant to get within arm's reach of her? Why don't Women's Rights activists in or out of government reveal the most effective way for a woman to defend herself: to buy a gun and learn to use it? The truth is, they want women to feel weak and perpetually threatened so that they will beg the State for protection. A woman standing proud, armed, and fearless is the last thing most self‑proclaimed "feminists" want (since that would undercut their perverse longing for a huge paternalistic government!).
Governments Kill More Than Any Mass-Murderer
How can people who work for or worship the State ‑ statists point to the murder of five children in a school‑ yard or twenty people in a restaurant and claim that as sufficient reason to disarm tens of millions of Americans? Are they so presumptuous as to suggest that we are capable of such violent madness? Perhaps there is a degree of psychological projection going on here: statists feel within themselves the urge to kill and project it onto the people they fear the most; us, the victims of the State. For while tens of millions of people own guns, only a minuscule fraction ever use those guns to transgress against others. Every State, however, has guns and even more powerful and terrifying weapons in its clutches and every State has used them, will use them, and are using them to murder hundreds, thousands, and millions of innocent unarmed people.
You say it can't happen here! Well it has already happened in America. The following article written by Neal Knox and published in Guns & Ammo Magazine, September 1989 issue, p. 32: "It was clear that all the government had to do was wait. The multitudes of demonstrators in the immense government square had shrunk to a few thousand, and more were drifting away every day. But the hardliners were determined that the demonstrators shouldn't escape unscathed; such protests could lead to open rebellion and violent revolution‑like the one that had created the present government. With the heads of government divided and wavering, the Army decided to act. Obeying the orders of the president, the commanding general of the army lined up his forces facing the demonstrators and ordered them to disperse. The demonstrators didn't think the Army would attack. It did. Tanks rolled into and across the demonstrators' ramshackle huts. Marching soldiers with fixed bayonets and assault rifles and tear gas followed the tanks, clubbing, bayoneting and shooting those assembled.
The Army later said the demonstrators rioted; the general claimed armed soldiers were attacked. Many of the demonstrators were wounded; the number who died will never be known ‑ the government claimed it was only one. The commanding general declared that the demonstrators were driven by 'the essence of revolution,' and that it was 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' that the demonstrators had been about to seize control of the government.
The commander was Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
The place was Washington, D.C., not Beijing.
The date was 1932, not 1989.
The 'assault rifles' were bolt‑action Springfield Model 1903s, not AK‑47s. The peaceful demonstrators weren't students in Tiananmen Square demanding the equivalent of our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for grievances. The demonstrators on the Washington mall and nearby Anacostia already had those rights; their problem was that they used them. They were Americans ‑ World War I veterans, thrown out of work by the Great Depression (created by the Federal Reserve), lobbying for government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.
No, the attack on the Bonus Marchers, bad as it was, wasn't the brutal mass murder unleashed upon the students in Beijing. The American people wouldn't have tolerated it ‑ and had the means to stop it. What happened at Tiananmen Square was the kind of ruthless tyranny that has occurred in other lands throughout history, and is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared might be done by the powerful central government they were creating under the United States Constitution. That's why the people refused to ratify that Constitution until it was amended to guarantee certain individual freedoms known today as the Bill of Rights. That's why the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly and petitioning the government were backed up by the Second Amendment guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. And when, during debate on the amendment, some senators attempted to limit the right to apply only to 'the common defense' which is what some people today say it is, the Senate rejected it. That piece of 'legislative history' clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to be an individual right; not merely a 'collective right' of states to have militia.
Most of the world's constitutions, even the Constitution of Soviet Russia, contain beautiful words promising freedoms that only U.S. citizens enjoy. The reason, as unintentionally acknowledged by the anti‑gun crowd, is that only in the United States do individual citizens have such relatively free and unfettered access to firearms. But instead of glorying in that unique freedom, and the freedoms it guarantees, some in the Establishment are attempting to eliminate it ‑‑ with too much success.
The nation existed for 150 years without any federal gun laws. The National Firearms Act, attempting to tax out of existence machine guns and short‑barrelled shotguns (the bill originally included handguns) was enacted in 1934. Don't kid yourself that the reason was Thompson‑toting hoodlums like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde. The real reason was the fear put into the Establishment by those Bonus Marchers, and the March 7, 1932 march on the Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan, where police killed four and wounded 50.
The government's fear was summed up by one of the co‑sponsors of a bill to ban private possession of 'military weapons whose only purpose to kill people.' During the hearings he blurted it out: 'What scares me is the thought of those veterans going against the police; Vietnam veterans know how to use those guns.' The legislator was testifying in Maryland hearings earlier this year (1989) on a California‑type bill banning the possession of AK‑47s rifles and other military‑style semi‑automatics...New Jersey State Police Col. Clinton Pagano, a determined advocate for prohibitive gun laws, has said many times that 'gun control is people control.' He is exactly correct. That objective never changes, only the excesses used to promote it. The first major gun control push in this country wasn't 'to control crime,' it was to control freed slaves. The first Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), so proudly cited by anti‑gun 'liberals,' held that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' meant only that it could not be infringed by the Congress, that the Second Amendment did not prohibit the Ku Klux Klan from conspiring with local officials to prevent freed slaves from possessing guns and attending political meetings.
The next major wave of 'gun control' was supposedly to deny guns to 'anarchists' ‑‑ which was a code name for immigrants; during the waves of immigration around the turn of the century. For the first time the criminal element began actively using and promoting 'gun control' as a means of disarming potential victims.
Immigrant shopkeepers, accustomed to being bullied by thugs, corrupt police and government in Europe, had willingly paid 'protection money' to the thugs who helped support New York's corrupt Tammany Hall political machine. But their American sons began to arm themselves and began to fight back with guns, which inspired Tammany politician 'Big Tim' Sullivan to push through the 1911 law which bears his name, requiring police permission to possess a handgun. Immigrants, like blacks in southern states which enacted purchase permit laws, needn't apply. The U.S. didn't have a patent on people control through 'gun control;' according to recently released government papers researched by retired West Yorkshire Constabulary Inspector Colin Greenwood, the British government deliberately exaggerated reports of armed crime to justify their 1919 law requiring firearms licenses. The real intent wasn't to control armed crime (which was much lower then than now), but an effort to check the Irish Republican Army. During the late 1930's, firearms registration laws were enacted in most of the European countries that didn't already have them. They were legislated in the guise of 'crime control,' but proved to be of great 'people control' benefit to the invading German Army, and subsequently to the invading U.S. and Russian armies. In the U.S. in 1938, the national government required gun dealers to be licensed, and required records to be kept on handgun buyers. But more restrictive 'gun control' was promoted under a novel excuse: 'keeping guns out of the hands of Fifth Columnists.'
Incredibly, in the spring of 1941, a year after gun owner lists were known to have been used by the Nazis to disarm occupied nations, gun registration laws were pending in 40 U.S. state legislatures.
World War II put a stop to U.S. 'gun control' efforts, as did returning GI's who had seen how such laws had been used to enslave occupied nations ‑ and decimate the Jews. But the debate began again in the 1960's. This time the excuse was to keep 'Saturday Night Specials' out of the hands of 'juvenile delinquents' who were supposedly buying guns by mail order. A new law eventually passed after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy ‑‑ but most observers agree it was not those murders, but the race riots that gutted and burned cities from coast to coast which provided the final votes for the Gun Control Act. It wasn't really crime control, for the firearms crime rates have more than doubled since its passage; it was people control.
Throughout the 1970's, the major efforts were to ban 'Saturday Night Specials,' which were at times defined to include two‑thirds of the handguns made. But most of the laws that were passed only eliminated the unsafe junk, which had the predicted effect of upgrading the crooks' armament to equal or better that of the police ‑‑ for which the anti‑gunners have avoided taking credit, but which they are using to pass even more laws.
In this decade, we've seen the Supreme Court decline to consider the clearly unconstitutional outright ban on handguns in Morton Grove, Illinois. We've seen Congress ban armor‑piercing so‑called 'cop‑killer' bullets which had never killed a copy, and we've seen non‑existent 'plastic guns' banned. In each case the technique was the same: to solve a non‑existent problem with a broadly defined bill that banned much, much more than the guns or ammo which created the supposed 'problem.' The latest such assault is the attack upon semi‑autos, which follows the same pattern. While waving around the AKs, they attempt to ban your M‑1 Carbine, Remington 742 and Winchester 100. Because that expanded definition ploy has become so obvious, the sponsors pulled back to 'only' ban about 50 models under the new California law, while giving the anti‑gun attorney general the power to easily ban more by going to the courts. In Congress, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum's (D‑OH.) bill would ban three dozen, Sen. Dennis DeConcini's (D‑AZ.) would ban a dozen ‑‑ but the actual number in the initial list isn't important, for once the dam is cracked, it is relatively easy to pour more through. Not even the most dedicated gun‑banner truly believes that semi‑auto bans such as California's new law, or the ones pending in Congress, will affect the flow of drugs. Nor is it true that 'assault weapons' are suddenly 'the guns of choice' of criminals. Since a semi‑auto ban can't prevent isolated acts of insanity; since large‑ capacity magazines are important only when someone is shooting back; since criminals do not prefer 'assault rifles,' then why the ban?
We know why Mexico prohibits private ownership, even temporary importation by hunters, of all firearms chambered for military cartridges. They make no secret of their fear of revolution. We know why Poland had a registration and licensing law on all firearms ‑‑ so when the government declared martial law on December 14, 1981 they could immediately suspend all gun permits and call in all guns. We know why Soviet Georgia required all rifles and shotguns to be registered ‑‑ so when their troops killed dozens of protestors with poison gas in Tbilisi earlier this year (1989) the government could seize some 66,0000 guns in only a few hours.
We know why the Chinese government won't allow their people to have any form of the AK‑47, but why won't the government of California allow Californians to have them, unless registered to allow easy confiscation? Why do President Bush and Sen. Metzenbaum want to deny them to Americans? Do they, or any other official of the U.S. government, believe that they have something to fear from an armed citizenry? If they do fear the people, perhaps it is with reason. And many of us would like to know what that reason is. Those who wrote the Bill of Rights gave us the Second Amendment as an insurance policy to make certain that a Tiananmen Square massacre could never occur in America. In recent weeks, in watching the powerful television scenes from Beijing, we have witnessed what can happen when the people have no freedom insurance. I'm not truly worried that U.S. Army troops and tanks are about to be unleashed upon Americans. But don't tell me it can't happen here ‑‑ because it has already happened here!"
How can the insane actions of a Patrick Purdy or a Ted Bundy even dream of comparing with the death toll of the most minor skirmish in the smallest of wars or "police actions?" The murder of five innocent children is heart‑rendingly tragic, but how many thousands of innocent children were roasted in Hiroshima, Nagasaki? How many died in the bombings of London, Dresden and Paris?
How many women, children, and old people have been shot by the bullets of "their own" government in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Nicaragua, China, El Salvador, India, Israel, Afghanistan, Tibet, Argentina, Libya, Ireland, Russia, South Africa, Chilie, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Iran, and on and on and on for every State you can name even "our" United States. For statists to use the "mass murder" of a few people as an excuse to disarm Americans when the State is the largest, bloodiest, longest‑lived institution of mass‑murder in all of history is appallingly hypocritical.
Do we owe allegiance to the apologists for such atrocities? Never! Private ownership of weaponry is the last defense against all tyranny, foreign and domestic. The thought that there might come a time when peaceable gun owners must take arms against their own local police and the U.S. military is anathema to almost everyone. The possibility, however, must be faced. A lot of American colonists were horrified at the thought of defending themselves against "their" king's army, too.
Civilian-Based Defense Preferred to Standing Army
Some say that the Constitution "granted" the right to keep and bear arms to provide for a "well‑regulated militia." Since we have a standing army, the argument goes, civilians no longer need to own guns. Yet that amendment was written precisely because the British used that exact argument in their attempts (from 1768 to 1777) to disarm the colonists. Americans detested the standing armies of the British government and knew that civilian‑based defense was the ultimate, perhaps the only, protection against any threat to liberty, whether from London, Moscow, or Washington D.C.
Defying Unjust Laws Is Right and Proper!
When the day comes (and it is fast approaching) that the Imperial State commands its subjects (that is how they view you and me, regardless of what they say) to turn in our weapons, what will we do? Make no mistake, if people refuse to surrender or destroy their weapons, they will be dealt with by Heavily Armed Police: they will be imprisoned, fined, perhaps even shot if they try to defend their Constitutional, nay, their human, rights.
Of whom should we be more wary ‑‑ invading foreign troops whose rule we would never sanction, or "our own" government, to which most of us grant some legitimacy and which is right here, right now, all around us? Perhaps paraphrasing a parent's question will help provide an answer: If the State passed a law telling you to jump off a cliff, would you? No fair answering that "good, pure, sober, honest politicians wouldn't let that happen." With guns, it is happening right now. And when that friendly cop on the beat (whom most gun owners exalt as a good man just doing his job) comes around to your house, he will come armed with "good government" handguns and assault rifles to seize our "bad private" handguns and assault rifles. "Sorry pal," he'll say, "but the law is the law."
That possibility is something many gun owners ‑‑ staunch defenders of law and order and supporters of local police ‑‑ refuse to face. They blank out the fact that even, perhaps especially, in America, they may have to choose between owning their guns and facing the full implication of the Declaration of Independence. "...that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..."
Some would rather surrender meekly to the State, giving up their last shred of defense against tyranny, rather than face that choice. But if they do surrender their firepower, the choice will have been made. And it won't matter whether our new masters speak Russian, Chinese, Japanese, English, or American Bureaucratese. They will be our masters nevertheless.
What To Do
First of all, keep your guns! Do not turn them in just because some law is passed ordering you to do so. That's just what they want ‑‑ sheeplike compliance. You are not a criminal. Don't let the State declare you one or treat you like one.
The colonists who turned in their weapons to their Tory town governments soon learned the folly of their actions. Any government that outlaws gun ownership is an outlaw government! It is no more necessary to obey an oppressive, tyrannical State than it is to obey any thief who demands that you turn over your property under threat of death. We know the free person's answer to such a demand. So does the State.
That is why statists seek to browbeat us into disarming without a fight. They need the sanction of the victim. They cannot hope to disarm us by force. That would tip their hand and guarantee a revolution. But by stealth, instilled guilt, and appeals to our peaceful, law‑abiding natures will they attempt to expropriate our only defense against their continued and increasing predations.
Resist the urge to obey the edicts of self‑proclaimed rulers. Don't walk timidly into a concentration camp filled with once‑free men and women. Decry with every fiber of your being this trampling of our fundamental human rights! The right to own guns is a civil right, without which all other civil rights are impossible to defend. The right to own guns is the right to own, and protect, your body and your property. The right to own guns is the right to resist tyranny. Any who seize guns are thieves or tyrants.
Why The Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment was created, among other things, to secure the First Amendment. That is, if government were ever to interfere in the free exercise of religious beliefs then the people reserved the right to keep and bear arms that they might secure their inalienable right to freely exercise (act upon) their religious beliefs.
When James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he and his colleagues enumerated our natural rights and freedoms in Article I (freedom of religion, speech, press, assemble and etc.) and then in Article II stated how the people should preserve those individual liberties; by an armed citizenry! There can be no question that this was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Furthermore, the significance given to this right and duty is apparent by its position in the Bill of Rights, being stated in Article II ahead of all other rights, guarantees, protection and subsequent amendments. Two of our greatest Presidents remove any lingering doubt: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
And: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." 1
Abraham Lincoln stated: "Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
These men of vision understood and publicly declared that the guarantees of liberty rested in the Bill of Rights, and that the very foundation of that liberty was Article II, which provided for an armed citizenry. They clearly understood the right and duty of all free men to be armed so that they might defend their lives, liberty, and property, as well as their families and country. To oppose the right to keep and bear arms on ideological grounds is one thing, even though it indicates a clear lack of historical perspective and a denial of the natural, absolute inalienable right to defend one's life, family, property, and freedom. However, to oppose that right by denying that the Second Amendment means what its says or that it does not pertain to the rights of the people, is at best a demonstration of ignorance, and in most instances a maneuver of deception and intellectual dishonesty. The Second Amendment was created not only to secure and protect the states and the Constitution, but also to insure to all Americans the right to possess the capability to protect their religious and personal freedoms.
First Amendment
In Biblical times Ezra and Nehemiah rebuilt the city of Jerusalem with a weapon in one hand and a tool to build with the other. Likewise, this country (America) was founded by people who carried a Bible in one hand and a rifle or pistol in the other. The same was true for the western migration. Our forefathers knew and understood their individual responsibility to provide for their own safety and protection.
"But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." 1
Providing, included more than food or shelter. It is panning for the future welfare of your loved ones, which includes their safety. Providing is protection as well as love and affection. Our Forefathers were prepared to protect and defend their rights and their families to the last drop of blood, because if one didn't then "he has denied the faith." Our forefathers were concerned over religious liberty and how they could hold on to it. They were concerned that the Constitution was not clear enough to espousing freedoms, and therefore the Bill of Rights came into being. Few people are aware of the fact that the Bill of Rights also had a preamble which states: "The conventions of a number of the states having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire in order to prevent misconduct or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."
They were so concerned about religious abuses that the first article of the Bill of Rights is about religion, not the power of the states. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 2
The rest of Article I deals with "freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It should be obvious that the freedom of religion cannot exist without these other rights.
How can a man worship his God without the right of assembly, of speech, or the press? The first phrase of Article I was an attempt to prevent government from establishing a state or a federal religion such as existed in England, and the second phrase was to prevent Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of any religious beliefs. In other words Article I declares that we can exercise our religious beliefs and government can do nothing to interfere in that exercise.
However, 20th century government is of the opinion that we can believe what we want but we cannot practice what we believe. That's why the word "exercise" becomes extremely important. Looking up the word "exercise" in Webster's Dictionary, the first thing of interest are action words: words like "to use," "to practice," and "to exert." These are not words of the mind or of beliefs, but words of action. One definition of "exercise" states, "Act of divine worship."
Not a belief of divine worship but an ACT of divine worship. Our forefathers knew that worshiping God was more than belief in God, prayer, and study. They knew that by their works shall they be known and judged by God. Works require action and our forefathers attempted to preserve for us the right to practice our religious beliefs by using the word "exercise." Where the practicing of religious beliefs is concerned the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States makes it quite clear that no law can be passed, "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It has already been settled as a matter of law by the United States Supreme Court that: "...the government must neither legislate to accord benefits that favor religion over non‑religion, nor sponsor a particular sect, nor try to encourage participation in or abnegation (inhabit, denial) of religion." 1
The issue of owning guns and carrying them can be made a valid and powerful religious argument, for it was Christ who said: "He who has no sword, let him sell his cloak, and buy one." 2 So we can see ‑‑ Christ thought it imperative that every person be able to defend himself. Christ thought it so important He actually told us to sell our clothes, if necessary, in order to be able to protect ourselves, our families and our property.
20th Century Use of Force
Every day the newspapers report more and more incidents of violent crime. There are rapes, murders, and burglaries in ever increasing numbers, and whenever a gun is used in the commission of a crime, it is exploited by the media to the point it almost appears that guns cause crime. However, a gun is nothing more than a tool; just like a pick or a shovel. A gun cannot function by itself. Only with the mind and body of a human can any gun or knife perform a function. A person must physically pick up a gun and use it before it can function.
Many people feel a gun is dangerous and evil and they feel threatened by it; and because they feel threatened they feel the only solution to the crime problem is to confiscate or regulate the carrying of guns. This philosophy is especially rife throughout our mass media. In any event, many people are left with the notion that guns are bad and dangerous, and that all violent crimes are a result of the availability and use of guns and other so‑called "dangerous" weapons. But how much crime occurs with the use of guns? Of all the serious crimes committed in a recent year, less than four out of 100 involve the use of a gun.
Taking all crimes into consideration, less than four out of 1,000 involved the use of guns. It would appear that the media has again led us astray. Of all the violent crimes committed in this country, guns play a very insignificant role in the commission of those crimes. Lou Boyd stated in his column that robbers carrying knives draw far more blood than robbers carrying guns.
Criminals will not register their guns. In 1964 the Haynes decision (390 U.S. 85) ruled that criminals may not be asked, or even allowed, to register their guns because it would be an infringement of their rights under that portion of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which protects us from self‑incrimination. If criminals cannot be forced to register their guns, how in the world can the state expect to control the carrying of concealed weapons by criminals? If the state doesn't know that a criminal has a weapon, what probable cause could possibly exist to suspect any criminal of carrying a concealed weapon?
Even then, if the criminal, on first contact with the law, demands a search warrant and an attorney, the criminal has invoked the exclusionary rule and is safe from prosecution of a concealed weapons charge. If a criminal is protected by the Constitution of the United States and the decisions of the Courts, shouldn't the honest law‑abiding citizen be so protected from his government's intrusion into his personal affairs?
Doesn't the honest citizen have an even better claim to carry a concealed weapon than the known crook? Or is it the position of the state that honest citizens must rely upon government (police) for the protection of life, liberty, and property (if that is the case, it is abundantly clear ‑‑ the governments plan is a total failure; as the crime rate continues to climb ever higher), while the criminals are allowed to rely on weapons they carry concealed? If one looks at it with clear eyes, it is clear that the only purpose for all gun control proposals, is to make criminals out of honest citizens!
An Armed Citizenry Reduces Crime
There is a causal relationship between the ownership of guns and the crime rate. If you compare the rate of crimes committed with guns in states having strict gun controls with those have no controls, you will find that there is no difference. Looking at the number of guns per capita in the separate states, it was found that the higher the density of gun ownership, the lower the rate of crime.
Looking at the statistics provided by the United Nations and/or the International Police Association figures on reported crime, the U.S. ranks in the middle of all countries in its rate of crime committed with guns. So, in reality, compared to the other countries of the world, this country's rate of crimes committed with guns is not above average.
England has stringent gun control. In 1930 controls were placed on hand guns in England. For over one generation there was no change in the crime rate statistics. Then, in the 1960's, violent crime began to rise at an alarming rate. The government felt hand gun controls were not enough, so they added controls on rifles and shot guns.
These new controls went into effect in 1968, and ten years later, the rate of crimes committed with guns in England was still soaring. Therefore, strict gun control does not reduce crime, it increases it! Conversely, Switzerland requires every person to own and be proficient with a hand gun, and this law has been extended to include automatic weapons. Interestingly, Switzerland has practically no crime. The conclusion is obvious; the more guns in the hands of the populace, the lower the crime rate.
Many years ago in Orlando, Florida, there were 33 rapes in a nine‑month period, and so women began buying and carrying guns to protect themselves ‑‑ and they carried them concealed! Media representatives got together with the local police force and offered a firearms safety and self‑defense course for the women of the town. The event was well publicized. Thus, all of the would‑be rapists knew that in Orlando there were over 6,000 ladies carrying hand guns ‑‑ and the ladies were trained to use them! As a result, the incidence of rape decreased from 33 in the previous nine months to 3 during the next nine months! As a side benefit, the general crime rate went down as well and, in fact, Orlando was the only city in the U.S. with a population over 100,000 that had a reduction in the overall crime rate that year! Had these ladies done nothing the rate of rapes would surely have continued and probably increased. Had they not carried concealed weapons, the rate may not have decreased either.
In all probability, the violent death rate would also have increased as there would undoubtedly have been some murders in conjunction with the rapes. Therefore, it was reasonable that these honest female citizens exercised their constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. Likewise, shouldn't we exercise our constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in order to protect our life, liberty, and property?
Another example showing that the carrying of guns (or having them readily available for use) reduces crime can be found in the story of Highland Park, Michigan. Convenience grocery stores were being robbed at the rate of 1.5 per day, or 45 stores per month. The police chief responded by providing training to the owners of the stores and their employees in the use of hand guns. This event, also, was well publicized, and in the ensuing four months, a 99.5% reduction was the result! The robbers knew that every store employee was armed with a weapon and knew how to use it. The criminals apparently felt the risk was too great and, therefore, robberies decreased dramatically.
In nearby Detroit, grocery store owners were having a similar problem, but the police chief was opposed to firearms training for store employees. However, over police department objections, store owners went ahead on their own and had their employees trained by a private detective organization. Unfortunately for the criminals, there was no publicity of the training project, and so the would‑be robbers didn't know about it ‑‑ at first.
In rapid order seven robbers were killed while holding up the stores. After these deaths were publicized, the robbery rate dropped drastically from 86 per month to less than 10 per month. The point is obvious ‑ when the criminal knows he might face a loaded gun in the hand of a trained person, the criminal will think several times about the possible consequences before committing a crime. These store owners and operators didn't openly display their guns. They were either concealed on their person or under the counter.
Therefore, concealed weapons are a threat and danger to the criminals: Not to the Public. In carrying weapons, the honest citizen presents no threat or danger to society and is only interested in the preservation of peace and the ability to defend his/her life, liberty, and property. Gun ownership, and the ability to freely carry and use them, will decrease crime!
"Criminal" Defined
A basic definition of a criminal is one who takes what you have without your permission. The Idaho Constitution states that no gun shall be confiscated unless used in the commission of a felony. Yet the police will confiscate any weapon found in a vehicle even in conjunction with misdemeanor offense. Is not government acting criminally when they confiscate weapons in contravention of the Constitution?
Are they not taking property without permission? When governments wants to limit or regulate our right to keep and bear arms, thereby abridging our rights, is government not acting as a criminal? Are they not taking away a right by regulation? Besides that the courts have already ruled: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." 1; "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." 2
When government prosecutes us for exercising an inalienable right, especially when that right is Constitutionally protected, is not government acting as a criminal? Who then is the criminal? The free and natural citizen exercising his inalienable right to protect himself, or an oppressive government who abridges through "rule making" and regulation, the individual's right to keep and bear arms?
The Real Terrorists In America?
Although a vile and wicked man, he was elected to high office by the constitutional vote of a free people in a democratic country. However, this ungodly schemer realized that only a dramatic act of chaotic evil could catapult him toward total dictatorial power. Therefore, this national leader secretly ordered the tragic firebombing of a "Federal Building." It was a brilliant and diabolical move. Craftily, he blamed the fiery carnage on his enemies and cleverly inflamed public opinion against them by deft use of the media, which is always under the total control of the Left.
The national leader ordered law enforcement into action. Whereupon they promptly arrested an innocent man, planted evidence to frame him, and smugly announced to the nation that a "terrorist" guilty of the firebombing was in custody. Swift justice would be his lot and the death penalty meted out, the national leadership assured the frightened and, by now, angry masses.
However, law enforcement authorities warned that the arrested terrorist was, in fact, only one of many participants in a broader, national conspiracy of anti-government plotters. (Notice: There is no conspiracy of the government trying to take over and make a dictatorship of the nation, but that there was a conspiracy to destroy it - Does this seem like a double standard to you?)
These men and women, the government and the media explained, are professed "enemies of the state." What's more, if their bloody terrorist acts are to be prevented in the future, the people must now agree to give up some of their liberties in exchange for security. They must demand that the legislature pass new and very stiff "Draconian Laws" against terrorists immediately!
Laws like H.R. 916 which has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and states on page 3, beginning at line 16: "§ 942. Unlawful acts (a) Offense. Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), it is unlawful for a person to manufacture, import, export, sell, buy, transfer, receive, own, possess, transport, or use a handgun or handgun ammunition."
Law and Order, and respect for government was demanded, talk against the government must stop, and they would stop! Therefore, new, wide-ranging, anti-terrorist legislation must be quickly enacted. Constitutional prohibitions against illegal search and seizure must be relaxed. The Federal Government must be granted extraordinary investigative police powers. Only this, he counseled, will enable federal law enforcement to put an end to these mad terrorists, these shameless enemies of government.
Some, of course, opposed this massive increase in government police power. But the national leader was not to be deterred. He cagily hinted that anyone who opposed the government's plan were "haters of humanity," accomplices to the bombing of the federal building; they, too, he said, are social and religious pariahs, aliens to law and order. "We must purge the nation of this dark evil," trumpeted the national leader of this great democratic country. "Tighter gun control and firearms laws are necessary. Hate crime legislation is required. The negative, anti-government critics MUST be curbed - the voices of hatred and divisiveness MUST be silenced."
"Extremists (And Cultists) who would overthrow the government and who defame its institutions must not find a safe haven ever again," said the increasingly popular national leader. Remember, the most dangerous enemy to the state are those who follow a cult! "A Cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools his children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the 2nd amendment, and who distrusts big government." 1
The people of the nation applauded. "Yes, everything will be set right by our national leader." His standing went up greatly in the polls, and he was sitting pretty. The people reasoned, "Our elected leader knows the best way. The anti-government protestors are, indeed, haters, cultists, and anarchists. Riff-raff. They must be harshly dealt with, the sooner the better."
"Yes," they roared and echoed in unison, "More national police are needed. More and more laws restricting our constitutional rights should and must be passed right away. It is he who wants only to protect us against the terrorists. In fact, we demand more power be given to the government and to our national leader! He knows who to tag as a terrorist. After all, it is he who deeply loves as and feels our pain; has he not shown it? It is he who wants only to protect us. He would never lie to us. We trust him. Let us, therefore, use our federal police powers to destroy our enemies, these terrorists, these horrible, firebombing haters, cultists, fascist fanatics."
This is a tale of Two Cities: The above story is true. Indeed, it is, to use a Charles Dickens' phrase, A Tale of Two Cities. On February 27, 1933, Adolf Hitler, German's constitutionally elected leader, secretly ordered the firebombing of Berlin's Reichstag - a Federal Building roughly equivalent to our own nation's U.S. Capitol. The public outcry inevitably resulted in the dictatorial empowerment of the federal government. The SS Gestapo was created (A National Police Force, 100,000 strong), and a leader who had become hugely popular, Adolf Hitler, assumed virtually complete, totalitarian authority.
The people of Germany had gladly given up their constitutional rights and freedoms to a megalomaniac whom they unswervingly revered and trusted (The same as do the Democrats today) He spoke flatteries to them. He was for good against evil. He felt their pain and cried real tears while soothing their suffering. So Germany and the whole world entered a dark era of despair, horror, and death. And it all started with the clandestine torching of a single Federal Building!
As Santayana once said, "He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it." And so, on April 19, 1995, a Federal Building was fire-bombed in Oklahoma City. President Bill Clinton, no doubt fully aware of Hitler's fantastic success with the same, outrageous scheme six and one-half decades prior, moved fast to follow in the Nazi Fuhrer's footsteps. His own, Himmler-type agent, FBI Director Louis Freech, in a speech in Oklahoma City, ranted and raved about "enemies of the state" and "haters of humanity." (Yes, he actually used those very terms!)
Any person who doubts that the Zionist/Globalist controlled U.S. Government is capable of bombing its own building in Oklahoma City should look at the following proven history of federally-engineered terror actions against the American people. President Clinton's own, Hess-like agent, Attorney-General Janet Reno, arrogantly goose-stepped forward to the podium to announce that a mad bomber, though just one cog in a nationwide, terrorist conspiracy, had promptly been arrested. Once convicted, said Janet Reno, the evil Mr. Timothy McVeigh would pay the maximum penalty - Death!.
The American people, as the Germans before them, seem more than eager to oblige President Clinton and his henchmen in their lust-filled grab for the ultimate in government power and authority. The media have assured the ignorant and trusting masses that President Bill Clinton and his lovely wife, Hillary, would never lie to us. "Father" Bill and "Mother" Hillary adore and love our little children. Indeed, they love all of us. The government is only here to help you. Only believe...and you will remain safe and secure in your comfortable cocoons out in suburbia.
But distrust our national leader, they caution, and we will smash you. Criticize Big Brother, Big Sister, and their police state, and you may end up on the receiving end of an IRS or FBI investigation. Or worse, you may be accused of having drugs in your home, and the ATF, dressed in black ninja suits with hoods over their heads will break into your home in the middle of the night and kill you and your family.
All of a sudden, dissent has become dangerous. Under a number of new state and federal laws, an American citizen may no longer be permitted to present his or her thoughts in public, if the expressed opinion is considered by "anyone" to be in any way offensive to someone.
If you are accused of such a crime, a federal statute (Public Law 101-275) requires that your name be reported to the FBI within three months of the date of the occurrence of the "alleged" offense.
Recent court ruling have held that the First Amendment may not protect speech if what is said is considered offensive or harmful in some way. Under Federal Law, what you think and believe can, indeed, be a prosecutable offense, if your thoughts and opinions are publicly expressed. You man lose your job, have your property seized or be incarcerated under civil law, have heavy fines assessed against you and be thrown in jail for having an unpopular, or not politically correct.
Many Americans may be unaware that the enforcement mechanisms in place to combat "hate crime" are also being used to "attack opinions or so-called hate-speech," when it is expressed in a manner considered inappropriate under the evolving standards of political correctness. Furthermore, if a government approved expert in bias-motivated crime identifies a citizen or a group as racist or homophobic, the expert opinion is recognized and entered into the official record without scrutiny or question; and even without the defendant even knowing it has happened. Who these so-called experts and authorities are and what they are saying about the constitutional and patriot movement is particularly disturbing in light of recent attempts to craft legislation against citizen militias and the so-called promoters of hate-speech.
An Intimidating Law: Since 1991, if the expression of an opinion is identified as in some way intimidating to a growing number of "government protected" groups (read that some so-called minority groups) in America, a citizen can be charged with a crime and have his or her name placed "permanently" in a centralized registry compiled and maintained by the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI.
Humor is particularly vulnerable in this new atmosphere of criminalizing communication. Radio talk show host Howard Stern 1, for example, had a warrant issued for his arrest in the state of Texas, (but has since been rescinded), for making allegedly insensitive comments concerning the shooting death of a popular Hispanic recording star.
In May, an Indianapolis police sergeant and commander of the Johnson County Militia was demoted to the rank of patrolman and suspended without pay for a month after a local television station showed him addressing a public meeting of the Sovereign Patriots Militia group and making a humorous, but apparently inappropriate and (an allegedly) anti-Semitic comment about Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. Sergeant James Heath referred to Goldsmith as Mayor Goldstein in his speech. Although fellow police officers considered the punishment for Heath's humor to be harsh and unfair, local members of the Jewish community demanded that Heath be fired for the comment.
Many laws are particularly pervasive concerning homophobic expressions. When Representative Dick Army (R.-TX) recently called homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, Barney Fag during a National Public Radio interview, for example, Armey could have been prosecuted under the statutes of Frank's home state of Massachusetts. Chapter 27 of the Massachusetts General Law, Section 16, makes it a crime to...disrupt a person's exercise of Constitutional rights through harassment or intimidation, [if] motivated by...sexual orientation prejudice.
So-called hate speech can also be prosecuted in civil court. The State Code of Virginia, for example, allows punitive damages to be awarded to anyone who feels harassed or intimidated because of his or her race, religion or ethnicity (unless they happen to be Christian and White). Section 8.01-42.1, Paragraph A, states, An action of injunctive relief or civil damages, or both, shall lie for any person who is subjected to acts of (I) intimidation or harassment or (II) vandalism directed against his real or personal property, where such acts are motivated by racial, religious or ethnic animosity.
The politics of controlling speech has serious risk. The Federal Election Commission, for example, fined the Christian Action Network $1.26 million in 1992 for mailing out letters to its members which asserted that then-candidate Bill Clinton supported special rights for homosexuals. Although Clinton did indeed order a number of new social endorsements and protections for Queers and Lesbians in government service within days of being elected into office, the FEC arbitrarily ruled that the Christian group may not use non-profit funds to advocate the defeat of a presidential candidate. A federal court in Virginia overturned the FEC fine on Friday, June 30, 1995, asserting that the Christian Action Network's comments were protected under the First Amendment. It is unclear if the heavily homosexual Clinton Administration will appeal the ruling.
Hate Crime Protection For Everyone: Despite recent court rulings, speech is not necessarily protected in many states. Some jurisdictions have such broad-based definitions of the supposed protected group that virtually anyone can claim membership and victimization under the statute.
In the state of Oregon, for example, the statute in section 181.550 states that a hate crime includes speech that intimidates or harasses an individual and is motivated by prejudice based on the perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, martial status, political affiliation or beliefs, membership or activity in or on behalf of a labor organization or against a labor organization, physical or mental handicap, age, economic or social status or citizenship of the victim.
Speech is being prosecuted in other ways as well. In the state of Montana, several citizens have recently been charged with an obscure crime called criminal syndicalism for expressing their opinions in public or in written form. A recent example involved a letter written by a resident of Indiana to a Montana state official, F. Joe Holland, of the North American Freedom Council, mailed an angry letter to a Montana government official, which has resulted in his being charged with the offense.
Holland has railed against government corruption in dozens of states for decades. His writings are certainly unfriendly to government, however, Holland has no history of communicating threats, conspiring to harm American citizens or advocating violence against anyone in government. In Ravalli County, Montana, local dissident Cal Greenup has also been charged with criminal syndicalism for saying hateful things about the government. The Montana law is about to become a national issue. Both sides agree that the Holland case is expected to be litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Historically, the First Amendment has had to be saved from government intrusion by the free press and the free speakers who are frequently disdained by society in general, said former state senator and civil rights attorney John W. DeCamp of Lincoln, Nebraska, who is representing Holland. This is just one example.
DeCamp, the chief legal counsel for the family of slain tax protester Gordon Kahl and representative of various militia leaders (with, incidentally, a 12-0 record in court) points out that the free speech issue is under fire across the country as intensely as ever in our [nation's] history.
Although many states have enacted a variety of laws restricting communications deemed offensive, hate speech legislation is not specifically a state's rights issue in the 1990s. The federal government has taken control in many respects. One of the prosecutors in the Holland case, Montana State Assistant Attorney General John P. Connor, Jr., has privately implied that the U.S. government is involved with the litigation against Holland. Perhaps the most disturbing element in this new atmosphere of prosecuting "thought" crime is the involvement of the Reno Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in assisting state governments and local law enforcement agencies in writing legislation, formulating prosecution policy and establishing the reporting procedures for this type of crime. The origins of this new federal authority is rather revealing.
The New Federal Thought Police: In the 1992 Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, distributed to all law enforcement agencies nationwide by the FBI, a newly designed police report has been introduced that seems to be more focused on the supposed bias motivation of crime than on the actual offense under investigation.
This new nationally standardized Incident Report is the most frequently used document in police work. Line officers and patrol supervisors fill out dozens of these reports each shift, for every offense from vandalism and property theft to assault and homicide. Note on the federally approved version of this report, almost 20 percent of the first page of the document concerns the so-called bias motivation associated with the incident.
The 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act (Public Law 101-275) requires all law enforcement agencies to provide quarterly and annual reports concerning bias motivated crime to the federal government. Americans are learning, often at great expense that the key problem with the language in the law is the usage of the terms intimidate and harass.
Defense attorneys have argued that the standard for definition of a hate crime is purely subjective, and should have no bearing on other criminal charges in state courts. The danger is that a misdemeanor charge of vandalism, for example, can become a federal offense under the statute. If the complainant or alleged victim of any crime claims that the suspect used a racial slur or made an inappropriate comment concerning the individual's sexual preference, the officer is required by federal law to report it. The officer's agency is then required to compile and send all such report every three months to the FBI in Washington. Even if no overt criminal act has actually occurred, if the alleged victim tells a law enforcement officer that he or she feels intimidated or harassed, because of membership in a protected group, a hate crime has occurred and the agency is required by law to report it to the federal government.
In the Quarterly Hate Crime Report expected to be sent to the FBI, the suspect in the crime "does not actually have to be charged." Not in the instructions for preparing the federal hate crime incident report the offense of intimidation...is to be reported...regardless of whether arrests have taken place.
For example, Republican Representative Dick Armey could have found himself a suspect in a criminal act, with this name entered on the NCIC computer with the following UCR Codes:
UCR Offense 10 (Intimidation)
Location 11 (Government Building)
(Anti-Male Homosexual [Gay])
Victim Type "4" and "1"
(Government) and (Individual)
Crafting Model Hate-Crime Legislation: Who decides what group will be protected and what type of legislation will be enacted to prosecute hate crimes in the United States? According to the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics, 1990, A Resource Book, the FBI has this to say about the ADL, one of the so-called "experts": "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a human relations organization with 31 regional offices across the country. ADL is dedicated to promoting intergroup cooperation and interfaith understanding. Over the past decade, ADL has become a leading resource in crafting responses to hate violence, including model hate crime legislation, a 17 minute hate crime training video, a handbook of existing hate crime policies and procedures at both large and small police departments and a general human relations training program for law enforcement, designed to examine the impact of discrimination, while promoting better cultural awareness and increased appreciation for diversity."
All this from a group who has been found in criminal activity, by bribing and stealing information about various people and groups across the country, whom they themselves hate, and practice hate policies against!
Government-Approved "Experts": The FBI also recommends the American Jewish Committee, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force as groups able to help state legislatures craft laws against "hate."
By endorsing these particular agencies as "experts" in bias motivated crime the FBI has essentially facilitated the introduction of legislation throughout America based on the often biased political opinions of these groups, many of which raise tax-free funds based on the number of so-called hate crimes they report.
For example, the Souther Poverty Law Center and the ADL have recently written "Militia Task Force" reports which assert that citizens who acquire and train with firearms in an organized manner are linked with racist hate groups and anti-minority violence. In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, dated October 25, 1994, Morris Dees with the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed that the militia movement has been "infiltrated" by white supremacist leaders. This letter resulted in a response from the Justice Department that it was indeed investigating the militias in Montana, Michigan and Ohio for possible civil rights violations.
Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of a federal government endorsement of any private group's agenda or expertise is the ultimate authority these organizations exert on the state and federal legislative process. The FBI hate crime training manual endorses the ADL and the SPLC as experts, whose expert testimony is then subsequently worthy of congressional committee consideration.
During the April Senate Judiciary committee hearing concerning legislation directly involving the militia movement, for example, Dees was introduced as the preeminent expert on organized militias in the United States. His inflammatory comment concerning an alleged linkage between these groups and racism was taken without question and is now part of the "official" record in Washington. His testimony will further be used to "craft legislation" against the militias in America.
This trend is expected to continue. Expression that is considered "subversive," "offensive" or "racist" is about to be regulated. Indeed, based on the recent case in Montana, the government is about to be legislatively protected as a "victim group" when it comes to insensitive speech. There is little that can be done to halt this pattern of erosion against freedom of expression when protected groups in America are permitted to claim they have somehow been "assaulted" by words.
From burning flags to fiery rhetoric, certain speech can result in regulatory or judicial intervention. Until the courts or Congress decide to control this corrosive pattern of legislating political correctness, or for that matter, patriotism, the First Amendment may no longer apply. Many attorneys are now advising their clients to be cautious in their public statements. Hold your tongue, patriot. The Federal Government's "Thought police" are on patrol; and they are looking for you.
Christians must recognize that the sinful nature in people is the controlling factor in human interaction. Thus, there is no such thing as perfect conduct and perfect government. Law enforcement officers are human and part of government and they are subject to sin like everyone else, but their temptation are far greater. Therefore, there has always been a certain amount of corruption in law enforcement, waxing and waning at different times.
Christians must also realize that there are forces in control of the Federal Government and many state governments who have "Declared War on Christianity" that if they profess to be Christians, in the future they can full well expect these groups, such as the ADL to aim every government gun they can in their never ending efforts to destroy Christianity.
That we are not dealing with sin in general, we are concerned about leadership in government agencies and the thrust toward the "New World Order," or whatever it may be called at that moment. The men and women of our police forces in the field exhibit propensities toward individuals, but they're not in positions to plan strategies on a global scale; they can only implement tactics in order to get their paychecks. If they must be politically correct under pressure, they'll do it. Most of them will follow their leaders and their directions on how to treat individuals.
From the 1960s to the present, strategists in influential places have sought to destroy the "thin blue line" for political reasons. In the 60s it was the socialists-leftists, but now the so-called "right-wing" has been included in the putsch. The O.J. Simpson lawyers, especially Alan Dershowitz, have given tremendous boost to this plan. They have used racism and individual police sin to advance this cause, so that the overall plan to discredit and destroy local law enforcement is ever nearer completion. For it is the local police that the leaders of the New World Order must use to control the masses, therefore they must create and generate a hatred for the police toward the citizen. Even solid Americans are now believing that the vast majority of police officers are corrupt, and the police officers are coming to view the citizens as their enemies not the criminals.
On the second anniversary of the Waco Massacre, a rented truck was parked in front of the federal compound in Oklahoma City containing the offices of the ATF and some other federal agencies. A device within the truck was detonated and the resulting, explosion scooped out the front of the building doing a remarkable amount of damage. The explosion has left 167 (their figures) dead, including 15 children. The count at Waco was 87 dead, including 17 children, who had been saved by the ATF from being abused. When the news of Oklahoma City broke, many soon realized the sureness of the non-coincidental dates of April 19, 1993 and April 19, 1995. And because of those dates, realized that the Christian Patriot Right would be accused and associated with this tragedy. Perhaps a quick summary of the importance of April 19th in history is in order:
* April 19, 1776: The beginning of the American revolution at Lexington and Concord;
* April 19, 1993: Federal terrorists invaded the Branch Davidian Church;
* April 19, 1993: The U.S. Government opened the U.S. Holocaust Museum, even as the Holocaust in Waco was in process.
* April 19, 1995: On the same day of the Oklahoma disaster, a Christian Identity prisoner, writer and teacher named Richard Snell was wrongly put to death in Arkansas. Snell's so-called "crime" was defending himself against a Negro police officer who intended to kill him, and in Snell's self-defense the Negro officer died. From the inception of Snell's trial to his row appeals, Snell's prosecution was laced with anti-Christian, anti-White rhetoric and bias.
Richard Snell's last words directed to the system: To Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, were, "Keep looking over your shoulder, Governor Tucker, because justice is coming."
* April 19, 1995: That same day that pagans and anti-Christians executed Richard Snell - someone, allegedly a man named Timothy McVeigh and possibly others, were said to have taken justice in their own hands, and they did so in a carbon copy fashion of the feds at Waco.
The bomb in Oklahoma City killed some 167 people, most of them innocent women and children. And finally, did you know that on the rental form for the big, yellow Ryder truck that carried the bomb, McVeigh listed his birth date as April 19th. The meaning and symbolism is intentional and cannot possibly be missed.
The Proven History of Repeated Government Terror-Deception Actions: The U.S. and foreign governments have repeatedly utilized Terrorism as a means of increasing state-power. In the early 1900's, the chief of the Russian secret police, Sergei Zubatov "seems to have originated the idea of creating one's own opposition." He told one revolutionary: "We shall provoke you to acts of terror, and then we shall crush you." Zubatov "created most of the supposed labor and intellectual opposition groups. He enticed the intellectuals (including the Social Revolutionaries) into heinous crimes, including the bombing of the Royal Family." 1
This Russian government-engineered terrorism was also described in the 1994 book, "Comrade Valentine," by Richard E. Rubenstein. That book described the life of Yevno Azef, a police informer who infiltrated various revolutionary groups, beginning in 1893.
Later Azef created his own terrorist operations within the revolutionary movement. Azef's secret police bosses, "actually encouraged him in Bomb Plots." He was given a free hand to undertake any level of destruction as long as the secret police were kept informed.
After the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks created a new secret police organization that utilized and improved upon Zubatov's tactics. Bolshevik dictator, V.I. Lenin appointed Feliks Dzierzhinski to head the Cheka secret police and spy agency (known in modern times as the KGB). Dzierzhinski perfected the use of "deception" and "false flag" opposition groups. The biggest success of this ploy was the famous "Trust" of the 1920s, a phony underground "opposition" organization. The U.S.S.R. repeatedly utilized this technique throughout the Cold War.
Dzierzhinski's Trust operations were described in Edward J. Epstein's 1989 book, "Deception." Part of the Trust deception scheme involved "Terrorism," conducted against the very Soviet system that was secretly directing the Trust. In order to dupe Western Industrialists, intelligence services and exiles into believing that the Trust was a genuine opposition group, Dzierzhinski's Trust agents engaged in various "Terrorist" operations: "The Trust delivered arms and supplies to their partisans inside Russia and contracted to undertake sabotage and assassination missions for them in Moscow and Petrograd...Police Stations were blown up...The Trust building, rather than being the cover for a subversive conspiracy, was the secret police headquarters for this seven-year 'sting.' It fed out all the secret documents, briefed all the false defectors...and even blew up Soviet buildings to make the deception more credible."
What explosion in the dead of night led to a declaration of war against Spain? The sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor with the loss of 260 men was blamed on a Spanish torpedo. The news media used this incident to manipulate public opinion in favor of war. Years later the ship was uncovered from the mud of the harbor revealing that the explosion had gone off inside the ship in the forward ammo magazine. The U.S. entered WW I after the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat on the high seas. Americans were told by the media that the vessel was an "innocent passenger ship" merely carrying tourists to Europe. In fact, some 55 years late, the manifest revealed that it was a registered warship commissioned in His Majesty's Royal Navy. Under international law the ship was fair game on the high seas.
The German embassy ran ads in New York papers urging Americans not to book passage on the ship. The federal government lied to the American people and said it was only an ocean liner. The news media used this incident to ship up public sentiment for America's entry into the war in Europe. One hundred and sixteen thousand, five hundred and seventeen American soldiers died in WW I - senseless waste of lives of a hundred thousand young men by sinister forces within the government who favored war, made possible in no small part because of this deception.
What bombing produced an instant declaration of war on Japan and Germany in 1941? December 7th is truly a day of infamy. But no more for the Japanese than for President Roosevelt and others in his administration who knew the "Japs" were on their way to bomb Pearl Harbor. Their murderous failure to warn the young men on the ships was treason. Two thousand, four hundred and three sailors and army soldiers died in a hail storm of bombs dropped from Japanese planes. Yet the government, in vain attempts to hide its complicity in the bombing at Pearl Harbor, has classified as top secret the document dealing with the months preceding the bombing and immediately after.
Classified documents dealing with a war that ended fifty years ago. A huge cache of top-secret records at the U.S. Navy storage depot at Crane, Indiana, many of them dealing with the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, remain hidden from public view. An estimated 28.6 million pages and 4,631 rolls of microfilm remain classified materials from World War II. Why the fear of releasing the documents? Because many of the World War II generation are yet alive and would instantly become foes of Washington were they to see the documents.
Those documents dealing with the Roosevelt conspiracy to withhold information obtained through the breaking of secret Japanese codes, are records that expose murderously criminal behavior and are not to be released until the next century.1 Other classified documents currently lying on shelves in the National Archives are growing older by the day, fading, but not fading as fast as the generation who fought the war. Admiral Kimmel, the commander at Pearl Harbor that fateful day, later called Roosevelt "a damned traitor," and so he most certainly was.
In actions similar to the Oklahoma City bombing, the late Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin secretly engineered various assassinations and bombings. These deceptive state terrorist acts "were used as an excuse to stage the 1930s purge trials and justify the arrest of millions of Soviet citizens, who were sent to slave labor camps."
The late CIA counterintelligence chief, James J. Angleton had great detailed knowledge of Soviet Trust operations. Angleton, who was a fanatic Zionist, helped train the Israeli Mossad secret police spy agency in the exact same "Trust" deception tactics that had been perfected by Feliks Dzierzhinski. Many of the Israeli agents in the Clinton Administration, the FBI, the CIA and the BATF, have also received training based upon Dziezhinski's Trust terrorism-deception operations.
To achieve their political goals, the Israelis have not hesitated to use terror against Jews and Americans. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a terrorist who fought his way to political power and international influence in a nation where every recent government leader had a violent criminal record, met his end on November 3 at the hands of a young assailant in his own image: A Jewish gunman firing bone-breaker bullets. "The American press keeps saying this is an 'unprecedented' horror, a Zionist militant with Jewish blood on his hands," noted Naeim Galadi, and Israeli historian and author. "In reality, there's nothing 'unprecedented' about it. Rabin launched his own career the same way: With terrorist murders that shed both Arab and Jewish blood when cold political calculation demanded it."
When illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine became a flood in 1940 with crowds of fugitives from nationalist Europe, the British military government attempted to curb the unwanted influx by detaining and deporting undocumented aliens. The Zionist underground decided to sabotage the refugees' ships rather than allow them to be turned away, Giladi related. In those days Rabin was a member of "Palmach, the name means 'action squads' it was a violent underground force," recounted Giladi. "In November 1940 his group blew up the refugee ship Patria in Haifa harbor. More than 250 Jewish emigrants died in the explosion."
In the ensuing months, three other ships swarming with Jewish refugees were dynamited by Palmach squads. More than 1,000 casualties later, Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary that the terrorist bombing "stirred more worldwide sympathy and support for us than we anticipated." Many of these Israeli terror acts were described in Dr. Alfred Lilianthal's 1978 book, The Zionist Connection. In 1950 and 1951, Israeli agents set off bombs inside areas heavily populated by Iraqi Jews, including the Mas'uda Shemtov Synagogue, which resulted in death and serious injury to Jews and caused the sudden exodus of 125,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel.1
Israel's Use of Terror Deception Tactics: Many of these Israeli terror acts were described in Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal's 1978 book, The Zionist Connection. In 1950 and 1951, Israeli agents set off bombs inside areas heavily populated by Iraqi Jews, including the Mas'uda Shemtov Synagogue, which resulted in death and serious injury to Jews and caused the sudden exodus of 125,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel. This Zionist use of terror bombings against Jews was documented in the May 29, 1966 issue of the Israeli magazine Ha'Olam Hazeh, in the 11/9/72 issue of The Black Panther (a publication of Israel's Oriental Jews) and in Dr. Lilienthal's book.
In an effort to undermine U.S. relations with Egypt, in 1954, "an Israeli espionage ring was sent to Egypt to bomb official U.S. offices, and, if necessary attack American personnel, working there. Several bomb incidents around U.S. installations in Egypt followed," 2. This scheme was known as the "Lavon Affair," named after the Israeli Defense Minister Phinhas Lavon.
During the 1967 Middle East War, Israel undertook a similar terror-deception attack against America, when it repeatedly attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in international waters. The ship was clearly marked with U.S. Flags. Dr. Lilienthal described the REAL reason for the attack: "Had the Israelis been successful in 'sinking' the Liberty, the atrocity would have been blamed on the Egyptians and produced a Pearl Harbor-type reaction in the United States."
Newsweek Magazine reported that Israel's Mossad intelligence agency "'has penetrations all through the U.S. Government. They do better than the (Soviet) KGB,' says one U.S. intelligence agency.'"
The Zionist/Globalists Who Control U.S. Government have long waged terrorism against Americans: The Oklahoma City Bombing was just another of a long series of Federal Terror Acts against Americans, that began after the U.S. Government joined the United Nations.
NBC-TV Dateline Show reported that in 1953, the U.S. Government repeatedly sprayed a chemical warfare dust in the area around a school and in nearby Minneapolis neighborhoods. U.S. children were deliberately used as human guinea pigs, "without their knowledge." Four decades later, many of the alumni of that school believe that the government experiments ruined their health and the health of their own children.3
What torpedo attack upon a U.S. ship in "international waters" led to war in Vietnam? The Tonkin Gulf resolution was passed immediately after Lyndon Johnson and others in the federal government deceived the American people into believing that a U.S. destroyer was attacked without provocation by the North Vietnamese Navy. It was revealed ten years later that no such attack had occurred. This deception by the President of the United States led to the deaths of 57,800 men in Viet Nam. The government to this day has engaged in a criminal cover-up of the fact that they left another 2,500 in bamboo cages as prisoners or war. Would the government lie to the American people? Ask a POW.
On March 8, 1977, the Army released a report "admitting" that it had secretly conducted "239 germ warfare 'open air' tests in at least eight major American cities between 1945" (the year that the U.S. joined the United Nations, openly) and 1969. The germs were released into the sea, the ground and into the air in both chemical and bacterial form. Among the areas subjected to "Federal Germ Warfare Terror Attacks" were: The Greyhound Bus Station in Washington, D.C., Key West and Panama City, Florida, St. Louis, Missouri, and around the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The Government also admitted that "it had released microorganisms at Washington National Airport in 1965 and into the New York City subway system in 1966 during peak travel hours (where the highest number of Americans would be targeted)," 4. "More than One-Million Commuters were exposed to U.S. Government Biological and Chemical Warfare Attacks." 5
LSD experiment costs U.S. 750G: Washington (AP) - "The government has tentatively settled a lawsuit charging the CIA used nine Canadians as human guinea pigs in mind-control research, including heavy doses of LSD, lawyers said yesterday. Sources who asked to remain anonymous said the CIA agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of $750,000. The suit cited psychological and emotional damage from treatment in the late 1950s at McGill University's Allan; Memorial Institute." 1
The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Navy "deliberately" fogged the San Francisco Bay area with bacteria for six days in 1950, according to military records. "The records concluded that 'Nearly every one of San Francisco's 800,000 residents were exposed' to the cloud released by a Navy ship steaming up an down just outside the Golden Gate Bridge. The aerosol released by the ship 'contained a bacterial known as Serratia...which has been found to cause a type of pneumonia that can be fatal.'" 2
The government never revealed the nature of the experiments despite an outbreak of Serratia-related pneumonia in San Francisco, within days of the biowar spray attack. At least one person died and 11 other cases of the diseases were confirmed at the time.
These Federal Government terror attacks against American civilians "rose sharply after May 1961," when then Defense Secretary (and leading New World Order supporter) Robert S. McNamara ordered the Army to attack the American population with "both biological and chemical warfare considering all possible applications."
Even after news of these domestic biowar and chemical attacks became known, the secret terrorism against U.S. civilians "continued!"
The New York Times reported: "Germ warfare experimentation 'in which bacterial agents are sprayed directly into the air.' Since 1979, the Army has conducted more than 170 open air tests at Dugway Proving Grounds, 70 miles from Salt Lake City, as part of an expanded biological warfare program. Army officials steadfastly asserted their right to test outdoors 'anywhere in the country, including the urban areas.'"
The Government "admits it is releasing a bacteria called Bacillus Subtilis, in Utah, to stimulate biological attacks with the more lethal Bacillus anthracis, which causes anthrax. Other bacteria, including Serratia marcescens, have also been used in open air tests."
Many strange "new" outbreaks of rare viruses and unusual bacterial infections, "can be tied directly to these continuing secret Federal biowar terror attacks against Americans." 3
The February/March, 1995 American Reporter revealed that some of the many unmarked black helicopter sightings, in urban areas such as Atlanta and in rural areas (flying at night, at roof top levels), are "Spraying some kind of Chemical. Shortly after these mysterious overflights, people in the area have become infected with various respiratory diseases and certain types of influenza. The helicopters, appear to be U.S. made UH-1 Hueys and possibly Russian-built Kamov 'Helix' helicopters, whose civilian mission in Russia is spraying crops." 4 The American Reporter also stated; "a large number of Russian chemical and biowarfare decontamination trucks have arrived in Mississippi."
Finally, newspaper accounts of the arrests of Egyptians accused of blowing up the World Trade Center reveal that not only did the FBI have advance notice of the bombing but, worse, their informant, a former Egyptian army officer, built the bomb. Emad Ali Salem infiltrated the anti-Israel group for the FBI, who asked him if the Egyptians could build a bomb. Salem told them they could not. The FBI instructed Salem to build a bomb for the Egyptians, using phony powder. Then the FBI told Salem to use real explosives. Salem did as he was told but began secretly to tape his FBI handlers in their meetings.
Transcripts of these recordings were published in The New York Times in October, 1993. Properly placed, the bomb would have killed a hundred thousand rather than the six people it did kill. According to court documents filed in New York, the FBI had advance knowledge of the bombing. But the decision was made on orders from the highest levels within the government to allow it to occur. Why?
Government-Engineered Radiation Terrorism: Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary released documentation of massive Federal radiation terror attacks against American citizens. The U.S. Government has conducted dozens of human radiation experiments which were targeted at "Pregnant women, fetuses, still born babies, live infants, the elderly and the mentally disabled."
During the 1940s, the Federal Government ran an iron absorption test on pregnant women at Vanderbelt University that led to an increase in cancer among children born to the patients.
From the end of World War II well into the 1970s, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Defense Department, the military services, the CIA and other agencies used prisoners, drug addicts, mental patients, college students, soldiers, even bar patrons, in a vast range of government-run experiments to test the effects of everything from radiation, LSD and nerve gas to intense electric shocks and prolonged "sensory deprivation." Some of the human guinea pigs knew what they were getting into; many others did not. Still others did not even know they were being experimented on.
Many of the stories of people whose lives were destroyed by mind-altering drugs, electroshock "treatments" and other military and CIA experiments involving toxic chemicals or behavior modification have been known for almost 20 years. But U.S. News has discovered that only a handful were ever compensated; or even told what was done to them. "There has essentially been no legitimate follow-up, despite the CIA's promise to track down victims and see what has happened to them," says Alan Scheflin, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and an authority on cold war mind-control research. "It's just one of the many broken promises." A CIA spokesman last week said the agency is searching its files for radiation tests but has no plans to revisit other human experimentation.
MKULTRA: Most victims have never been informed by the government of the nature of the experiments they were subjected to or, in some cases, even the fact that they were subjects.
Most of the MKULTRA documents were destroyed in 1973 on order of then CIA Director Richard Helms, and the records that remain...clearly suggest that hundreds of people were subjected to experiments funded by the CIA and carried out at universities, prisons, mental hospitals and drug rehabilitation centers.
In 1955, the Army reported research at Tulane University in which mental patients had electrodes planted in their brains to measure LSD and other drugs. In other experiments, volunteers were kept in sensory-deprivation chambers for as long as 131 hours and bombarded with white noise and taped messages until they began hallucinating. The goal: to see if they could be "converted" to new beliefs.
As recently as 1972, U.S. News found the Air Force was supporting research by Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi, who is now dead, in which psychiatric patients at the University of Missouri Institute of Psychiatry and the University of Minnesota Hospital; including an 18-year-old girl who subsequently went into a catatonic state for three days; were given LSD to study "ego strength."
Gittlinger concedes that some of the research was quite naive. "We were trying to learn about subliminal perception and all the silly things people were believing in at that time," he says. One study even tried to see if extrasensory perception could be developed by "training" subjects with electric shocks when they got the wrong answer. But "most of the exciting and interesting and stimulating, and quite necessary as it happens, during that period of time," Gittinger insists.
Another former CIA official, Sidney Gottlieb, who directed the MKULTRA behavior-control program almost from its inception, refused to discuss his work when a U.S. News reporter visited him last week at his home. He said the CIA was only trying to encourage basic work in behavioral science.1 Another Federal-directed radiation terror attack took place in the 1960-62 experiment at the Crocker Lab in Berkeley, California, "which the calcium...18 persons were injected with Plutonim, without their knowledge or consent, by Government Scientists in the late 1940s." 2 The U.S. Government also ran an experiment where "62 teenagers labeled retarded, 'were fed radioactive meals at the Fernald State School in Waltham, Massachusetts; 131 inmates at Oregon and Washington state prisons had their testicles X-rayed to measure the effects of radiation on fertility."
At least 800 people were victimized by this Federal radiation terror 3 Afterwards, many of these government-terror victims died. In most of these tests, no long-term follow-up has occurred and some victims did not even know they were radiated. "Workers at a Paducah, Kentucky uranium enrichment plant 'Intentionally released radioactive gas into the air' in 1955 and 1974 to see how it would be carried by the wind...The Government did not warn anyone living in the area about the releases...From January, 1954 to September, 1955, Government records show that the plant discharged more than 14,000 pounds of uranium into the air, on about 650 pounds a month." 4
Federal Agents run Terror Deception Operations Inside U.S.A.: On February 11, 1976, the late Congressman Larry McDonald inserted evidence into the Congressional Record 1 documenting how "various U.S. terrorist groups were actually being funded and controlled by the Federal Government." The government secretly funded a section of the Weather Underground Organization 2. A January 10, 1976 Associated Press report stated: "The FBI created and funded a...group called the Secret Army Organization (S.A.O.)...in the early 1970s the 'San Diego Union' reports."
The newspaper described the S.A.O. as a "centrally designed and 'externally financed infrastructure designed for terror and sabotage...These acts were sanctioned by the nation's most powerful and highly respected Law Enforcement Agency: The FBI."
In 1971 and 1972, the S.A.O. "waged protracted guerrilla warfare..." and was "heavily armed with automatic weapons and explosives." The group engaged in "burglary, firebombing cars, kidnaping, and shootings." 3
The San Diego Union also reported that the top S.A.O. leader was Howard Berry Godfrey, who "paid the expenses of the secret army, recruited new members, supplied the explosives, and picked out targets."
The newspaper further reported that Godfrey was also a paid FBI informer. Godfrey testified before a grand jury in 1972, admitting that "he had helped found the S.A.O. on orders from the FBI. While he led the S.A.O. Godfrey testified, he was in constant touch with his FBI supervisor ...making daily reports on his activities."
Another example of Federal-engineered terrorism was demonstrated in the 1965 murder of civil rights marcher, Viola Liuzzo. After being gunned down, allegedly by three klansmen who were riding in a car, those three Klansmen were quickly arrested. The fourth Klansman in that car was Gary Rowe, a paid FBI informer.
The National Review reported on a 1978 examination of the background of Gary Row: "The 1978 investigation implicated (Rowe) as an 'Agent Provocateur,' and he was accused of 'helping plant the bomb' that killed four Black girls in a Birmingham church in 1963." 4
The Klansmen accused in the Liuzzo case, later admitted that they had been in the car, and that they had seen Rowe kill Viola Liuzzo.
In 1978, an Alabama grand jury indicted Rowe for first-degree murder in the killing of Liuzzo. At tat time Rowe had moved to Georgia and in 1980 a Federal Judge blocked extradition to Alabama, asserting that "a Federal 'agent' has rights that protect him when 'placed in a compromising position because of his undercover work.'" The Federal Judge's ruling (upheld by a Federal appeals court) "exempted Rowe from any number of possible criminal charges in Alabama. In 1980, an internal FBI file came to light which acknowledged that Roe had led attacks on Freedom Riders, clubbing them with a lead-weighted baseball bat. The FBI paid the medical bills for Rowe's own injuries and gave him a $125 bonus."
In 1979, at Greensboro, North Carolina, a combined group of Klansmen and Nazis were involved in a shootout with members of the Communist Workers Party, which resulted in five dead Reds. In the 1980 trial that followed, it was revealed that Bernard Butkovich, an agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) had infiltrated the Klan-Nazi group. Many witnesses from inside the Klan-Nazi group swore that "on several occasions, before the shootout, Butkovich suggested a variety of illegal acts." Witnesses said that the BATF agent "suggested the 'Murder' of a rival Klan leader, urged members to buy equipment to convert semi-automatic guns to fully automatic weapons, and offered to procure explosives (including hand grenades)...None of the acts was carried out." 5
The New York Times reported witnesses swore that Butkovich also offered to "train them in such activities such as 'making pipe bombs and firebombs.'" 6
One witness also "recalled that Butkovich had suggested, during the planning meeting, that the Nazis take weapons to the (Communist) rally in the trunks of their cars."
Because of filmed evidence showing that the heavily armed Communists fired many shots, "members of the Klan-Nazi agent Butkovich, was indeed working undercover in the Winston-Salem-Greensboro area" during the fall of 1979.1
An internal Treasury Department investigation that followed, resulted in "Exactly the same kind of whitewash and cover-up that followed the later Government-Engineered Terror actions at Ruby Ridge, Waco and at Oklahoma City."
Such Federal-engineered terrorism proceeded right up to the period immediately before the Oklahoma bombing. The New York Times described how an FBI-BATF informer, named Eric Maloney, infiltrated a tiny unit of the Michigan Militia. That militia brigade had obtained photographs of Russian tanks that were being stockpiled for the New World Order U.N. occupation forces at Camp Grayling, a National Guard base.
Maloney claims that in late January, 1995, his local group of about 20 militia members created a plan to attack and blow up the tanks on February 10. "The attack never took place." On February 8, Maloney met with and "alerted...agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms." 2
State and higher militia leaders had not approved of the scheme and didn't even know about it at that time. In his written statement to the FBI, Maloney alleged that the plan called for killing the base defenders and "blowing up" the entire camp. The newspaper interviewed members who had attended the original planning session. Some witnesses say that "it was Maloney who pushed the actual violence."
These members broadly confirm Maloney's story, "but differ on some important details. One says it was Mr. Maloney himself who helped devise the scheme and pushed hardest for it."
Kevin Shane, a brigade leader "accused Mr. Maloney of 'promoting the assault' and aid brigade leaders had spent several days trying to dissuade him. Mr. Shane has sued Mr. Maloney for slander."
Another member of the brigade pointed to Maloney as a chief architect of the plan.
McVeigh's 666 Microchip Implant: Timothy McVeigh told people in Decker, Michigan that his government-implanted microchip was causing a real sharp pain in his buttocks. McVeigh said that the biochip was implanted "so the all-seeing eye of the government" could watch him and know his location. After he was arrested, one of the few things McVeigh spoke about was to complain about the continuing pain from his implant.
Martin Anderson, a former top advisor to President Reagan, stated: "There is an identification system made by the Hughes Aircraft Company that you can't lose. it is the syringe implantable transponder...It is an ingenious, safe, inexpensive, foolproof and permanent method of... identification using radio waves...A tiny microchip the size of a grain of rice is simply placed under the skin. It is so designed as to be injected simultaneously with a vaccination or alone. The chip contains a 10 character alphanumeric identification code that is never duplicated. When a scanner is passed over the chip, the scanner emits a 'beep' and your... number flashes in the scanner's digital display." 3
The 1988 book, Journey Into Madness: The True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse, by Gordon Thomas, stated: "Beginning in 1969, a team of CIA scientists from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) ran a number of bizarre and far-reaching experiments on mind control."
Head CIA mind control researcher, Dr. Sidney Gottlieg, told the agency director that "research findings by scientists demonstrated that humans could finally be programmed to attack and kill on command...Using the latest computer technology, CIA scientists built a system based on earlier work in radio telemetry, and the unfulfilled dream...of a world of electronically monitored people became that much more of a reality."
The system utilized a Schwitzgebel Machine (developed by Ralph K. Schwitzgebel at the Harvard Medical School). This device "consisted of a Behavior Transmitter-Reinforcer (BT-R) fitted to a body belt that received from and transmitted signals to a radio module. In the official description of the machine, the module was 'linked to a modified missile-tracking device which graph's the wearer's location and displays it on a screen.'"
The Schwitzgebel Machine was able to record all physical and neurological signs in a subject from up to a quarter mile!
The November 23, 1994 issue of Relevance Magazine described similar devices that are greatly improved: "When implanted under the skin of the subject, the biochip will emit a low frequency FM radio wave that can travel great distances - e.g., several miles up into space to an orbiting satellite." 1
This explains how the government has been able to track and monitor Timothy McVeigh around the clock since his biochip was implanted.
Reliance Magazine reported that: "biochips are already being used in Smartcards and are progressing to non-implantable biochips attached to the clothing or worn in bracelets... According to microchip researcher Terry Cook, U.S. military recruits are also being introduced to the bracelet, just as marine recruits at Paris Island helped test the military's Smartcard prototype." 2
The May 22, 1995 Washington Times reported: "Prince William, 12, second in line to the British throne, is to be electronically 'tagged' when he enters Eton this fall. Officials decided that in order to give William as much freedom of movement as possible in the 'security nightmare' of such a big school, an electronic tag was the answer. It was not specified whether the boy would wear an electronic device or have one implanted." 3
The August 17, 1994 Los Angeles Times described the implantable microchip called Smart-Device, which is manufactured by Hughes Identification Devices:"The device is designed to be inserted within the 6 million-odd surgical implants placed throughout the world each year...The doctor can retrieve the data by using a radio-frequency decoder. The information on the chip would also be recorded on a computer-linked global registry." 4
Americans who receive a surgical implant may now find themselves implanted with a biochip without their knowledge.
Reliance Magazine reported that: "more sophisticated biochips have been developed, including behavior modification type biochips, where they were being used on inmates Chino Prison. We have been told, off the record, by sources in the military, that chips have been used by the Special Forces and by pilots in the Persian Gulf War." Timothy McVeigh was preparing to join the Special Forces, immediately before his sudden change in personality.
The May, 1995 Planetary Association for Clean Energy (P.A.C.E.) Newsletter described biochip brain transmitters: "...governments and private companies are permitting enslavement of humans...with sophisticated electronic methods...Transponders as small as 2.2 x 12 mm can be injected...The radio-frequency device, consisting of a microchip and a ferrite antenna, is sealed together in a tubular 'bio-compatible glass enclosure.'" 5
Relevance Magazine stated: "...an engineer who worked on the biochip implant program reports that 'trial runs' of biochip implants 'in children' have been conducted 'in Florida daycare centers.'"
The June/July, 1994 Nexus Magazine carried an article titled "The Microchip and the Mark of the Beast" which stated: "The microchip is recharged by body temperature changes." Early research discovered that "the frequency of the chip had a great effect upon behavior."
A group of scientists found that behavioral change can be induced via such implanted biochips. "One of the programs was called the 'Phoenix Project,' which had to do with Vietnam veterans." It employed a chip called "the Rambo Chip. This chip would actually cause extra adrenaline flow." Microchips can be used for migraine headaches, behavior modification, etc. "There are 250,000 components in the microchip, including a tiny lithium battery." A doctor at Boston Medical Center was asked what that concentration of lithium in the body could do if the chip broke down. He said that you would get a boil or grievous sore. This information adds weight to McVeigh's complaint about suffering great pain from his microchip implant, because the negative physiological effects of such implants are not widely known.
The May 4, 1995 New York Times reported: "...the FBI and Justice Department had been negotiating since November, 1994 (long before the Oklahoma bombing) to loosen standards for investigating, infiltrating and conducting broad surveillance against targeted groups and individuals. These New World Order Totalitarian guidelines are based on what people say, write, or advocate. 'There would be no need to find an imminent violation of the law' (as required under the previous guidelines) 'but simply any conduct which might violate federal law. That interpretation has never been given to these guidelines before,' stated FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.'"
Targeted groups include fundamentalist Christians, militias, anti-environmental regulation protesters, right-to-life activists, gun owners, and anyone else who fights for our national sovereignty and Constitutional rights.
These new FBI guidelines establish a vast increase in federal informers, provocateurs and KGB/MOSSAD/BATF-style saboteurs. It is no mere coincidence that FBI Director Freeh has a very close working relationship with the revamped KGB in Russia and the Israeli Mossad. Also, a number of dictatorial anti-terrorist bills were introduced at the beginning of the current session of Congress, long before the April 19th Oklahoma bombing.
Bill Clinton became very frustrated because no action was taken on most of this totalitarian legislation. The bombing achieved Clinton's goal. Immediately afterwards, the New World Republican Congress put the police-state legislation on a fast track for quick passage.
Writing in the July 10, 1995 National Review Professor Angelo Codevilla stated: "President Clinton's 'rhetoric' (immediately after the bombing) 'made it perfectly clear who, in his view, this country's potential terrorists are, and hence who the targets of the governments attentions will be. The standard developed after Oklahoma City, namely that possession of literature and frequent expression of opinions similar to those involved in violence constitutes a 'link' to violence (that) will enable the Clinton Administration to threat a wide variety of conservatives as a threat to national security.
Government officials, consider opposition to big government, to abortion, to high taxes, etc., to be the matrix out of which 'right-wing terrorism' grows...Clinton is making a clean break with the American tradition...to move away from the principle that the only people responsible for a crime are the ones who committed it, and to involve whole political parties and social categories as enemies in blood quarrels with the state is the first step down a well-worn path to civil war."
The 1985 book, The Body Electric, by Robert O. Becker, M.D. and Gary Selden, reported: "In 1973, Dr. Joseph C. Sharp of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, conducted research wherein subjects heard and understood spoken words delivered...in an echo-free insolation chamber, via a pulsed-microwave audiogram (an analog of the words' sound vibrations), beamed into their heads. Such a device has obvious applications in covert operations, designed to drive a target crazy with 'voice,' or deliver undetectable instructions to a programmed assassin."
The October/November 1994 Nexus Magazine described declassified documents on the CIA's MK-ULTRA behavior-modification program, where "tests were conducted on...servicemen, using...hypnosis...electronic brain stimulation (ESB), electronic brain implants, electromagnetic radio-frequency energy, and many other techniques. They were applied to subjects in any combination that showed promise for influencing or controlling human behavior." "Why would the Federal Government do such things, you ask?" It is because; after President Clinton encountered strong opposition to his political plans, he vowed to come up with a way to "silence" his political opposition, especially radio talk shows. In late February, 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno issued a confidential memo to the Justice Department and U.S. Attorneys, calling for a series of investigations of anti-Clinton political groups. As a result, the FBI began intensive "surveillance" of patriotic and fundamentalist religious individuals and organizations.
The New York Times reported that new FBI guidelines "tip the balance against the protection of citizen rights by removing the criminal predicate for investigation and 'inviting inquiry into all manner of speech,' some possibly hateful and irresponsible, but not necessarily illegal. It give the FBI an opportunity to slip into abuses that infringe on political dissent and the support of unpopular ideas." These new guidelines; "would grant Federal agents 'intrusive new license to investigate constitutionally protected activities.'" 1
The Washington Times reported on recent FBI statistics on terrorist incidents in the United States from 1989 to 1994: "There were all of 31 such incidents in that whole period. In 1993, there were 11, most due to some petty violence by animal-rights activists. In 1994, there were no terrorist incidents in the United States at all. There is no terrorism in this country...and no need for 'Counter-Terrorist' laws that expand Federal Power." 2
On January 4, 1994, H.R. 97 was introduced calling for a Rapid deployment strike force in the FBI to create roving units to attack and round-up loyal Americans who resist the New World Order dictatorship. Under this bill, Attorney General Janet Reno would be given 2,500 special agents, including units of the military for actions against any group of citizens refusing to kow-tow to Federal edicts.
Congressional Republican globalists voted to collaborate with Clinton when they tore up part of the bill of Rights by passing H.R. 666, "allowing prosecutors to use evidence obtained without a search warrant." The Marxist Big-Lie media has played a key role in pushing anti-terrorist legislation. Immediately after the Oklahoma bombing, the media launched an "obviously well-planned and well-coordinated" Hate Month Campaign (based upon organized hate propaganda campaigns under Stalin and described in George Orwell's totalitarian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four).
A series of so-called "experts" appeared on TV and in major newspapers across America. Each of these alleged "experts," voiced the identically "ADL-Scripted Comments," directing their hate-venom against militias, Christians, and gun owners - even though no guns were involved in the bombing. Some of these hate propaganda shows even displayed charts and maps of militia locations, which the TV announcers admitted were prepared by the ADL. This propaganda campaign involved phony polls which claimed; "up to 80 percent of the American people are willing to surrender their personal freedom and liberties in order to be more secure from terrorist attacks."
Anti-Terrorist Bill. So there was an anti-terrorist bill recently passed by Congress, that had as its stated purpose "To improve the ability of the United States to respond to the international terrorist threat." But a study of the bill proves it is more concerned with the United States and its citizens than it is about international terrorists.
It provides:
* Investigations of American citizens can be carried on by any agency of the Federal Government.
* Any and all evidence obtained by these agencies can and in most cases will be withheld from the defendants.
* The prosecution is not required to prove knowledge by any defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the indictment.
* Any evidence which the prosecution obtains will not be given to the defendant; in fact the defendant may not even know that he/she is under investigation until an indictment is handed down. And then they may not know what evidence is being used against them, which will make it an almost impossibility to defend oneself against the government's charges.
* Controls Over Terrorist Fund-Raising can mean any funds to any organization which the President may declare a terrorist organization, which can mean any religious, political, or other organization the President may wish to put on the hit list, and can be seized and confiscated.
* Even the court is denied all the evidence, and is to receive only a written statement as to what evidence the government has; if any. The government merely has to say it has evidence: It does not have to produce it!
* No protections for the defendant's right of a fair and just trial.
Media Complicity: It was only after the media demanded anti-terrorist legislation that the New York Trade Tower was bombed. The Arab "terrorists" arrested for that bombing quickly realized that they had been "set up." It was then that they played their "ace in the hole." They produced tapes of a U.S. FBI agent urging them to blow up the very Trade Towers that were attacked. Why is the U.S. Government so interested in having someone blow up something in America? Is it the FDR Pearl Harbor ploy once again - an excuse for doing what could not be done otherwise?
After the Oklahoma City bombing, the International Trade Cartel's (ITC) media sprang into action. They were told to fight "terrorism." The identity of the terrorists to be fought is of no consequence - there are repressive laws that the ITC wants to put on the books and it needs to fight "terrorism" in order to get Congress to pass them quickly.
In lock-step the media went after Islamic terrorists in a feeding frenzy. They discussed ways to retaliate against various mid-east countries. Experts were brought forward who suggested air strikes, economic boycotts, strategic assassination, and SWAT team actions. Sketches were produced demonstrating the feasibility of such acts. The FBI, the supposed target of the attack, pointed their finger at conservative, White, militia-connected, home-grown avengers. Media indecision and confusion lasted less than five minutes. Pointed in the right direction with new prey in their sights, they quickly came to the conclusion that since the attack took place on the anniversary of the Waco Massacre, the bombing must be in retaliation for it.
Waco Recap: For those with short memories, at Waco, scores of ATF agents (trained by the U.S. Government Delta Teams) appeared at the entrance to the Davidian church demanding audience with the church leader, David Koresh.
When he appeared in the door with some of his followers, male and female, the ATF opened fire, wounding Koresh and severely wounding several standing near him. Immediately, an ATF assault was launched against the wooden complex. The attack was supported by helicopters which flew back and forth overhead, spraying bullets into the building that contained women and children, several of whom were killed in these attacks.
The ATF assault team was repulsed with four troopers killed and something like 38 wounded. The remaining ATF assault team surrendered. The Davidains, in a charitable gesture, allowed the ATF to take their dead and wounded and, hands in the air, retire to the safety of their own lines instead of holding them as hostages for their own safety. By this time an unknown number of men, women and children in the church had been killed. No one inside or outside the church complex knew the reason for the attack. They still don't.
An FBI respect recovery team arrived and took over from the ATF. Their first act was to ban the press so that the world would not see the carnage inside the wooden church buildings. They brought up heavy tanks containing flame-throwers, the driver of one being the sniper who had just recently killed Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, while she held her nine-month-old baby in her arms.
The media daily reported the exaggerations, falsehoods, and deceptions of the FBI spokesmen who accused those trapped inside the church complex of all sorts of things - accusations later proven to be false. The media quoted every word making no complaints over the censorship. The condemned in the church were prevented a chance to tell the public what was being done to them. We do know this much - the FBI denied bandages and medical assistance to the wounded women and children - and they did this after the mercy shown the survivors of the ATF storming party who had been allowed to return to the safety of their own lines.
After taking more than a month to indoctrinate the American public by demonizing the Davidians, it was time to hide the evidence. The 87 men, women, and children were incinerated. Heavy U.S. Army tanks first immobilized those trapped inside by spraying banned CS poison gas into the church so that their victims would be paralyzed and unable to escape. Then, lying helpless, the church was torched over them.
Autopsies Denied: What was left of the burned bodies was taken to refrigerated morgues to await autopsies. Family members of the victims asked for a court order allowing for independent autopsies to be performed. Federal obstructionism delayed the autopsy paperwork. After several months of sparring in court, the plaintiffs prevailed. Elated family members and survivors then began the task of securing the necessary investigators and pathologists, to aid them in the inquest. While this was going on, the FBI had turned off the refrigeration. The bodies decomposed in the hot Texas weather beyond the ability of the medical examiners to achieve anything by autopsy. This act destroyed the last shreds of proof of government wrongdoing. The bodies were then pushed into a mass grave. Their families weren't notified, and only a handful were able to attend the burials on that rainy Saturday morning.
Instead of bringing those of the ATF and FBI responsible for the massacre to trial, trials were held for the few Davidian survivors. They were found innocent of all but minor charges, but had the book thrown at them by the federal judge who handed out forty-year terms.
“Tears In Heaven:" That's the title of the media picture showing the fireman removing the body of the child from the ruins of the Oklahoma City Federal Compound.
President Clinton, "Waco Bill" to his detractors, proclaimed a "National Day of Mourning." Headlines proclaimed: "Flag Half-Mast;" "Day of prayer;" "Suspect's Lawyers Don't Want Case;" "Right-Wing Militia Suspected;" "Rage of America." when asked by a reporter if "Oklahoma City" didn't compare with "Waco," the President dropped his mask and exclaimed: "No! The people at Waco were killers!" How many murders do you think 3, 4 and 5 year old children committed???
So much for the President's concern for the 17 Waco children who were burned to death at the hands of Government Terrorists. The President had a solution for the disaster: "Stop criticizing the government," no more "Waco talk;" "Commence wire tamps," "Infiltrate organizations suspected of anti-government bias," and, instead of disbanding the agencies causing the trouble, he recommended hiring one thousand more terrorists to act as "anti-terrorist government agents." Preventing future Wacos is seemingly far from his mind.
Mini-Wacos: Samuel Francis writes for the Washington Times. A recent article of his criticizes the continuing "mini-Wacos" that have occurred - mini-Wacos not reported in the national media - incidents revealing a government wolf preying on the sheep they are supposed to protect.
* On August 25, 1992, Donald Carison's home in California was invaded by Drug Enforcement Administration agents after midnight. Mr. Carlson reached for his hand gun to defend his home - the DEA shot him dead. No drugs were found.
* The DEA visited Donald Scott in October, bringing along the L.A. Sheriff's Department. Breaking into his house at night, the deputy sheriff shot Scott and killed him. No illegal drugs were found. The DA found that the raid was motivated by the desire of the officers to seize the Scott's ranch under federal asset-forfeiture laws.
* During a Bible Study meeting at Art and Louise Tingley's home on June 6, 1995, shortly before 5:00 p.m. in Federal Way, Washington, when the King County Police force swat team converged with other officials to "tactically secure the home of 70 year old retired Northwest Airline pilot and W.W. II Veteran. The King County swat team had 'no arrest warrant, no paperwork at all,'" the Tingleys did have a case pending in King County Superior court, which included a jurisdictional challenge of a pending writ of restitution. The Tingleys had no guns on the premises, nor own guns, neither did any of the people who were at the Bible Study, all were unarmed. "There were no warrants or papers ever served by the King County Police or the swat team on the Tingleys June 6, 1995. No charges were ever mentioned by the King County police on the swat team, nor was any probable cause for the raid ever given!"
* On September 1991, 60 agents from the DEA, ATF, National Guard, and the U.S. Forest Service stormed the home of Mrs. Sina Brush and two neighbors at dawn. She and her daughter were made to kneel and were handcuffed while dressed only in their underwear. No drugs were found.
* On August 25, 1992 at about 10:30 p.m. Donald Carlson returned to his home in Poway, California, opened his garage door with a remote control device, simultaneously illuminating the garage so that Drug Enforcement Administration agents conducting surveillance from nearby could see inside. Just after midnight, when Carlson was asleep, a group of DEA agents burst into his house. Thinking they were robbers, Carlson grabbed his pistol to defend himself. He also dialed 911 for help. The agents shot Carlson three times, twice after he was down and clearly disabled. Carlson spent seven weeks in intensive care, fighting for his life. No drugs were found on the premises.
It was later learned that the Federal Customs Service, the DEA and the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego had relied on an informant who was known to be untrustworthy and who claimed Carlson's garage contained 2,500 kilograms of cocaine (a large amount which would have taken up most of the garage) and four armed guards. The agents conducted the raid in spite of the fact they could see the informant's information was erroneous. As of this writing, none of the federal agents involved in the incident have been sanctioned nor has Mr. Carlson been compensated for his injuries.
* Janice Hart pulled up to her house from grocery shopping with her daughters to find her house being ransacked by ATF agents who had kicked in the door. Agents searched her home, throwing dishes, pulling clothing from hangers and emptying drawers on the floor (she photographed the damage). Some eight ATF agents interrogated her in the basement for an hour before reading her her rights. She asked to call an attorney and the agents refused to allow her to do so. When they finally asked her if she was Janice Marie Harrell, she told them no, that she was Janice Hart. ATF agents mocked her, accused her of selling firearms and cocaine, then arrested her. The Portland Police, who she commended for their professional demeanor, took her downtown for booking and, Within thirty minutes of fingerprinting here, realized ATF had the wrong person!
* Last summer (1994) the ATF visited Harry Lumplugh in Pennsylvania. Twenty of the ATF force his wife and him to open safes and hand over private papers while holding a machine gun on them. Bored, they stomped the Lumplughs cat to death. No charges were ever brought against the Lumplughs.
* Last year (1994) four ATF agents raided the bedroom of Monique Montgomery at 4:00 a.m. She reached for a gun and was shot to death. Nothing illegal was found.
* The ATF raided the home of Louis Katona III in Ohio. They roughed up his pregnant wife causing her to miscarry. Nothing illegal was found.
There is also the death of John Singer, at the hands of government agents, the homes-schooler in Utah; Gordon Kahl; Arthur Kirk, the Nebraska farmer; Robert Matthews; and recently Tigerto, Wisconsin.
Mr. Francis comments: "In none of the cases I know about have any of the federal agents been charged; few have been disciplined; almost none made the national news."
He goes on: "Congress...should find out who authorized these and similar raids and who committed these atrocities against law-abiding citizens. It should abolish the agencies responsible, and it should make certain that the tyrants and murderers in federal uniform who planned, authorized or committed these crimes are brought to justice."
If the out-of-control FBI and ATF had been disbanded following Waco, there would have been no "mini-Wacos" and no reason for an Oklahoma City payback.
Anti-Christ Media: The basic need of the International Trade Cartel is to have orderly markets peopled with orderly populations: populations trained to accept foreign merchants, foreign products, and foreign workers who arrive with their foreign gods. Anything less hinders trade. One reason the Christian religion has always been a media target is that the Christian religion:
* Forbids trade with strangers.1
* Does not permit strangers to live in Christian lands.2
* Does not accept foreign gods.3
* Teaches separatism.4
To open the land to free trade (Which, upon study, is found not to be free after all) and free travel by merchant-strangers and their gods, the priests, and the king and his soldiers reward those obedient to their wishes and punish the disobedient. This is the key to understanding Waco and Ruby Creek, Idaho.
A "separatist" is guilty by his mere act of trying to be separate. Weaver lived on a mountain top, Davidians lived a separated lifestyle in a Texas church complex; black separatists lived apart in Philadelphia and all were exterminated. All separatists must be reeducated, or marked for death. To discover separatists the king incites the people. Those who will not accept the king's (President's) edicts must be suppressed or exterminated. This is the final stage on the road to empire.
Civil disorders uncover disaffected separatists. People trying to protect themselves from a government-gone-wild are branded as separatists "rebels." It is in this context that one must look at the foreigners quarter at U.S. military bases.
At the proper time they will be given their own military equipment that has been stored for them in government warehouses, and they will help the ITC restore order in America - another U.N. police operation. The precedent has been set. So who is this Timothy James McVeigh? Is he a patriot seeking to put a stop to future Wacos, a government agent, or a fall guy? We remember that the media was beating the drum for "anti-terrorist" legislation BEFORE there were terrorists in the USA.
Pulling It Together: It is interesting to note how fast the government held "anti-terrorist" hearings on the Oklahoma City bombing. Compare this with their absolute lack of interest in holding hearings on the Ruby Ride or Waco Massacres. It is also interesting to watch politicians and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and others like him, when queried about comparing Waco with Oklahoma City - they fidget and refuse to talk about Waco. They are media-elected and don't dare antagonize their masters. Other things point to government involvement in the bombing:
* The FBI, the ones who ordered the final assault on the Davidians, should have been the logical target. They didn't have offices in the federal building that was attacked.
* Who placed the bombs that were disarmed within the Oklahoma federal compound?
* What about the seismograph story; that there were two separate explosions, ten seconds apart? Engineers tell that 4800 pounds of fertilizer explosive is a lot of explosive, but fertilizer bombs are very inefficient, and, there was an awful lot of damage done to that building. That amount of damage would be far more likely if an inefficient outside bomb were helped by an efficient one inside. Then, too, the YMCA building just across the street was still standing. Window washers weren't even blown off their scaffolding.
* Why was McVeigh driving a car without a license plate - an open invitation to be stopped?
* Lastly, and most interesting, of the 20 employees of the ATF in the bombed building, guess how many were hurt in the explosion? Absolutely none of them!
Neutralizing the Enemy: What is happening brings to mind one very particular scenario that, in the terms of the political environment and effect, was very similar to the Oklahoma City bombing. It was the early-1960s. The ultra-conservative movement was very active and rapidly gaining in popularity all around the country. In the South, Southwest, and West, especially, the conservative movement was making bold strokes against liberal, centralized government.
In homes, churches and business all over the nation one found patriotic literature. People were devoting their free time to the movement. They were organizing and conducting meetings in their own homes and businesses and churches. These people were not led by political party leaders or politicians. No just like today, they took the initiative themselves. They hooked-up with everyone they knew, and because they spoke and taught the truth, the movement snowballed.
In the early 1960s, American politics as we know it was about to be changed forever. The ultra-conservative movement - what many of its enemies call "the far right" - was on a roll. And then that terrible, tragic thing happened that stopped the political and spiritual move to the right dead in its tracks - the assassination of President Kennedy. Suddenly, a marginally popular president, in many circles a despised, pro-socialist liberal, was turned into a national hero.
From the very day of the Kennedy assassination, the so-called "far right" was blamed. It was the so-called "conspiratorial far right," the government and the lap-dog media said, that killed Kennedy. It was said that those crazy right-wingers in Dallas had gone too far. It was said that money from the right-wing Hunt Brothers had something to do with Kennedy's killing. To this day, Dallas still suffers from the reputation as an enclave of murderous right-wingers.
None of these allegations held water, of course, but the damage had been done. For the government and the controlled media, allegations are enough to convince the general public. Allegations are all it takes to dirty one's political and spiritual enemies. And once again we see it happening today in the political and media fall-out of the Oklahoma City bombing.
One of the first, sure signs of a genuine conspiracy is when an out-of-power but rising group of political enemies is blamed for some terrible event. It happened with the Kennedy murder and it is happening with Oklahoma City. Today we are being told by the government and the media that right-wing extremists are roaming the countryside; getting ready to kill people just like the victims who were annihilated in Oklahoma City. That message is a lie! But it is the most effective tool the government and the media have to hurt the genuine, lawful, Christian conservative movement.
The second sure sign of a genuine conspiracy is this: A well-known and controversial figure close to the blamed political enemy is implicated. In this case, that figure is Mark Koernke, also known as "Mark from Michigan," and Koernke lives in Dexter, Michigan - the same hometown as James Nichols.
We know that Nichols and his brother, Terry, have been arrested and charged for setting off small bombs on their own property. And it is said that materials resembling those of the bomb fragments in Oklahoma City have been found on the Nichols' farm. And according to the U.S. Attorney in Michigan, the Nichols brothers were also arrested on the information that they "made numerous negative statements about the government."
Thought Police: Of course, making negative statements is not a crime but no matter. However, it is alarming that just two days before their arrest, President Clinton warned that those who made negative statements about the government must be stopped.
And what is worse, he said he would take the necessary steps to stop the negative speech. And brothers and sisters, this is the third sure sign of a genuine government conspiracy. The national news media immediately jumped all over Mark Koernke and it was claimed that he sent a so-called "cryptic fax" to Texas Congressman Steve Stockman before the bombing.
The fax supposedly communicated details of the bombing, and so it was supposed that Koernke had a hand in it. But the fax was sent, you guessed it, after the bombing and was itself based on news reports available to everyone.
So, it appears that Koernke was smeared by this coordinated media campaign, and so was Congressman Stockman. Congressman Stockman, it should be said, was newly elected in 1994. He is sympathetic to conservative Christians and has been repeatedly attacked, already, by the ACLU and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, or ADL.
Even after Koernke was proven innocent in the matter of the fax, the same ole lie continues to be passed around by Morris Dees (according to his divorce papers is a Pedophile, Queer, degenerate, and pervert), the Jewish civil rights attorney from Montgomery, Alabama. Dees appeared on the "Donahue" TV show on April 25, 1995, and accused Koernke of being on the run from the Government for having sent the so-called "cryptic fax." Folks, Koernke was never on the run and he personally appeared before the media to refute these claims, yet the lap-dog media never admitted they had been duped, and Dees insisted on repeating them on national television.
But who and what is Morris Dees 1? Well, he runs a professional fund raising machine out of Montgomery, called the Southern Poverty Law Center. The local Montgomery press reported that Dees raises millions of dollars from scared Jews and minorities. His technique? He sends out hate letters, identifying false targets like Mark Koerenke and the State Militias. He then warns of impending violence, and says that money is needed to fight these made-up enemies. This is how Dees has become a multi-millionaire; by playing on the fears of uninformed minorities and Jews. And so we see that from the very beginning and early on in the official investigation, the government and the media used dirty lying tactics to associate Koernke and all Christian conservatives with the bombing. Their goal? Stop the surging, populist, White, Christian conservative movement dead in its tracks.
Many believe it is fair to say, because of such government actions, that President Bill Clinton is a fascist. A fascist is a strange, hybrid creature who combines the most effective - and most virulent - strains of both Nazism and Communism. The fascist believes in a totalitarian government, but one ruled behind the scenes by a wealthy elite, such as the CFR and Trilateral Commission clique. The fascist despises God for he believes himself to be divine. The fascist deceitfully uses and manipulates the masses. From the rich he privately obtains his awesome power. From the deluded people he obtains his authority, which he wields with cruel and terrible effectiveness.
Today it is the fascists who stalk America. The modern day fascist tyrants, however, have not changed much from those of the past. President Clinton, like Hitler and Mussolini before him, tells outrageous lies. He lies about what really happened in Waco, and he cynically uses the Oklahoma City tragedy to arouse public fear and incite public anger toward perceived "enemies." He manipulates this fear and anger to achieve the hidden agenda of the Illuminati elite: the granting of the dictatorial police powers and the setting aside of our nation's Bill of Rights.
In London's Daily Telegraph newspaper, historian John Keegan recently penned an article under the title, "Who Says a Hitler Could Never Happen Again?" Keegan observed, "People...cannot tolerate chronic insecurity. They crave civil peace almost as much as they need food. If denied it, they will give their loyalty to anyone who can assure it; they will also sanction any measures this Leviathan - as Hobbes called this bringer of security - deems necessary to restore order."
"Hitler's genius," Keegan continues, "was for playing on the fears and anxieties of ordinary men and women" who, frightened and desperate for order, agreed "to the whole apparatus of social control that Hitler installed, when he achieved power - with their votes." Keegan points out that the people, feeling themselves under pressure from a "collection of terrorists, fanatics, and criminals assented to police state tactics, deprivation of civil rights, imprisonment without trial, judicial murder, and, eventually, mass extermination of the enemies of the people."
To those who say that it couldn't happen today, not with an enlightened media, Keegan responds by reminding us that, in fact, the media were the greatest promoters of Nazi fascism and were among the warmest advocates of Adolf Hitler's totalitarian program. "Hitler's real genius," says Keegan, "was in public relations...The German press, radio, and cinema applauded the Nazi assault on 'anti-social and criminal elements' every step of the way."
And so we return to 1995, to President Bill Clinton and to an anxious and fearful America. Clinton's unconstitutional agenda, as was Hitler's, is applauded by the media. Even the gassing and burning to death of the 17 children inside the Branch Davidian compound in Waco is described as a righteous act by an honest and virtuous President and Attorney-General. The German people had their Reichstag. The Americans now have their Oklahoma City. Apparently, the devil never changes his ways, and neither do his fascist agents here on planet Earth.
Who Profits?: No one but an insane sadist, or a scheming totalitarian, would have participated in or applauded the Oklahoma City bombing. Who, then, did profit from this otherwise senseless act of sheer terror? You know, and I know, the answer. In a manner frighteningly reminiscent of Josef Stalin's purges in Soviet Russia and Hitler's propagandistic, Nazi era, Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and their totalitarian comrades are cynically and hyprociticaly using this tragedy to demand special, dictatorial police powers.
How disgustingly convenient, how cruelly perfect, how devilishly advantageous to the long-cherished agenda of Bill Clinton and his New World Order superiors was this monstrous firebombing and massacre in Oklahoma City! Truly God's Word is astute, for we read in Proverbs 8:36: "All they that hate me love death."
Enemies of the State: Both the government and the media agree: certain, designated "enemies" must be stopped. Federal law enforcement agencies, we are told, must be given the maximum authority to shut the mouths of dissidents. Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress seem determined to give to federal authorities dictatorial tools to end what the media describes as "the threat to public security posed by dangerous, anti-government factions."
America is being told that so-called "extremist, right-wing" groups must be thoroughly investigated, even if they are not suspected of actual crimes. For the good of the nation, they MUST be confronted with far-reaching, police state tactics. Among the extremist groups identified by the media and the government as threats to national security are the following; look and see if you or someone you know could be on Big Brother's enemy hit list. Check to see if you are a designated "enemy of the state:"
* Pro-lifers, who oppose abortion, all of whom, the government and media claim, are guilty of a national conspiracy to firebomb abortion clinics and murder abortion doctors.
* Christian Fundamentalists, especially those who believe in a coming apocalypse, a literal Armageddon, the last days' rise of Mystery Babylon, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
* Conspiracy Theorists, especially those who warn of a "New World Order" or who criticize the United Nations.
* Farmers and Ranchers, because they oppose the "wisdom" of new environmental regulations and the government's management of their lands and homesteads. Of course, only the little farmers and ranchers are threats, the big, "agribusiness" titans are government-approved!!!
* Internet and Fax users, because they are supposedly guilty of spreading so-called "hate" messages by computer and over the fax lines.
* Gun Owners, vilified because they allege that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees to the citizenry "the right to keep and bear arms." This, we are told, is a dangerous and inflammatory idea.
* Militia Members, targeted because they expose the heinous and murderous acts perpetrated by the FBI and BATF in Waco, and Ruby Creek, things that the national media and the government prefer the American people not find out.
* Conservative Talk Show Hosts, because they provide forums where the enslaved working classes, American patriots, Biblical Christians, and other anti-New World Order voices stir up discontent and distrust of Big Brother Government - which, of course, is a decided no-no as far as the elitists are concerned.
* Tax Protesters, because they simply don't understand that it is a "good thing" for our friends at the IRS to exercise such massive and unconstitutional police powers over the suffering and ever more paying citizenry. How else can we pay for the police state, for all those much-needed government welfare programs, and for all that foreign aid?
* Constitutionalists, because of their unacceptable belief that the wording of the Bill of Rights is to be taken literally. Constitutionalists are also said to be extreme because they oppose the New World Order and warn of a coming, one world government system which would make obsolete the need for our "old and antiquated" national constitutional.
* Tenth Amendment Advocates, especially to be watched and beaten down are those who believe in the Tenth Amendment, which states that those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government, "are reserved to the states or to the people." This, say the media and the politicians in Washington, D.C. (District of Corruption) is a disturbing and revolutionary notion!
* Patriots, because they cherish the "Old America" the land that once belonged to the brave and the free, before today's socialist rot set in.
* Armed Forces Personnel, because they despise their "heroic," draft-dodging, U.S. military-loathing, Commander-in-chief. These men and women oppose PDD-25, the government's directive to turn over command of the U.S. military forces to United Nations' controllers. Many uniformed personnel are also "America Firsters," and this presents a roadblock to the glorious, soon coming New Age of one-worldism.
* Right-Wing Extremists, all of the people in the above categories, plus many more "anti-government" agitators, for example, home schoolers, objectors to homosexual conduct, etc., are lumped together and labeled as "right-wing extremists." The nation is being encouraged to distrust, investigate, watch, despise, and quarantine these terrible people.
Ten years ago Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984, which provides that if the police have "probable cause" to believe that your car, say, or your home has been "used to facilitate" a crime, law enforcement agents are free to confiscate your property without having to bother with a trial.
Suppose, for example, the government has you confused with somebody else and thinks you're printing bogus stock certificates in the attic. Acting on suspicion alone, law enforcement personnel can seize your home and pitch you and your family into the street! Or suppose you're stopped for speeding and the cops find a marijuana butt left on the floorboard by a garage mechanic. If they wish, and they probably will, they can confiscate your car, and they have a lot of incentive to do so because the profits are split between the arresting officers, the judge, the officers budgets and the government.
Oh sure you can get a lawyer and try to get your property back, but there's no presumption of innocence, and retrieving your belongings may cost you thousands of dollars in legal fees. One man in Houston, Texas had $50,000 seized and he went to court to redeem his money, after spending $75,000 on lawyer fees he finally got $20,000 back.
United Nations: Contrary to popular belief, the United Nations was not "born" in San Francisco, in July 1945 according to information revealed during a debate between Lt. Col. Archibald Roberts and Congressman Richard Ottinger, former Director of the United States Committee on the United Nations. Col. Roberts said, "...the United Nations was spawned two weeks after Pearl Harbor in the office of Secretary of State, Cordell Hull. In a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt dated 22 Dec., 1941, Secretary Hull, at the direction of faceless sponsors...recommended the founding of a Presidential Advisory Committee on Post War Foreign Policy. This...was the planning commission for the United Nations and its Charter."
Col. Roberts also identified the committee, including various State Department advisors and staff, leaders in education, media and foreign policy research. Ten of fourteen members belonged to the CFR. Roberts said, "Each member of the committee was, without exception, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, or under the control of the CFR." "We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." 1
Swat teams raids upon the homes of citizens resulting in the killing of entire families are taking place all across the nation, but the national media is only reporting on the ones in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Several individuals in various patriot, militia, and Christian Identity groups believe that the bombing was perpetrated by the government agents in order to give it cause to disarm society and to bring about a "national emergency" in which all constitutional rights would be abolished.
Many believe the recent historical reports about the so-called Una-bomber are nothing but clandestine threats by government to Congress that they are not passing the anti-terrorist bills fast enough, and if they don't hurry and get on with the program there will be more bombings and more killings!
Now, let us turn to the front page of the Patriot Report which carries this head line, "Clinton Bashes Patriots." As if the patriots and the Militias were the worst terrorists in the U.S., when really they are the ones who want to protect our nation from terrorism, and are the best of the patriots. "Clinton spoke at a college graduation ceremony in Michigan Friday, May 5th, using the opportunity to demonize militias and American patriots. Quotes from AP: 'How dare you suggest that we, in the freest nation on Earth, live in tyranny,' Clinton said. 'How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes.' The President has sent Congress legislation to hire 1,000 more federal gents and to give the FBI broader powers to infiltrate and investigate paramilitary groups...Clinton said his comment were directed not only at paramilitary groups but at others 'who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from within our country or beyond our borders, but from our own government.' In the past the President has also denounced people who spread hate and division 'regularly over the airwaves.'
This is the latest installment of statements made by Clinton in his campaign to vilify American patriots. Clinton and his devious political cohorts are trying to tie in all militias and patriots with the Oklahoma bombing. This is blatantly unfair and paints millions of law abiding Americans as terrorists and hate-filled aggressors. The real fact is that Clinton and his socialist dreamers are the ones trying to aggressively change America!
They are the ones trying to dismantle and replace the U.S. Constitution, destroy morality in the armed forces and in the nation, destroy our economy through NAFTA and GATT and force our nation into a one-world government. These are facts.
Clinton is painting socialist dreamers as true patriots and the true Americas as hateful terrorists. In a recent speech, Clinton said, 'We must purge the nation of the origins of this hate.' Purge! Where have we herd that word before? Russia? China? Bosnia? All of the above. And just who is it the noble Federal Government wants to purge from this nation? American Patriots and Militias who want to defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. True Americans are the designated enemy now, not the Soviet Union, or Red China, or Communist Vietnam.
This is how far our nation has fallen, until the average citizen does not know good from evil. Any citizen who believes that militias and patriots are the enemy fully deserves the tyranny they are going to get.
The CFR and Trilateral members in the federal government caused Americans to wake up. Aggressive and offensive un-American activities by conspirators for a one-world government opened our eyes. Because of traitorous acts to destroy the U.S. Constitution, Americans began to see treason in our nation. And now, since Americans are waking up and recognizing the downfall of our nation, speaking out against the actions, Clinton begins to cry, 'Foul!' He does not want Americans to speak the truth over the radio waves, or to publish the things that are happening to our nation.
He wants us to go back to sleep and not to worry about anything. After all, the federal government with their IRS, ATF, and FBI agents are the real patriots and heroes. They are here to help us. We remember how they helped that family in Idaho - by shooting the 14 year old boy in the back and shooting the nursing mother in the head while she was holding her baby. We remember how the federal government came to Waco to help save the little children - they burned to death 18 children and murdered nearly a hundred people.
Who is it really that is terrorizing America? Who is getting laws passed to validate tyranny? The federal government has become a monstrous, corrupt system that is feeding on the weak and innocent. This is much worse than the taxation without representation that our forefathers faced in 1776. This is slightly more a problem than taxes on tea. This is a battle for the minds and lives of American citizens.
Clinton is using the media like a master politician to destroy the reputations and integrity of True American Patriots. He is utilizing a billion dollar news media to vilify true defenders of liberty. Then he complains about those on short wave radio. For Clinton to take the time to complain about radio talk shows that present a diverse viewpoint only proves how well the patriot movement has been growing, how wide-spread the message of liberty truly is across our nation. The Clinton's socialist and communist contacts and agenda are common knowledge. For Clinton to strike out against patriots is actually a validation of the patriot movement.
The office of the President is a position of honor, integrity, and most of all, true leadership. This office deserves respect, whether or not as Americans we always agree with the President's policies. But when the President uses the blood of innocent children to further his own political ambitions and agenda, respect for him is lost.
The fact that Clinton is publicly bashing militias and patriots has exposed his agenda to control all opposition and further erode our Constitution. This is waking up more Americans than any one patriot group could have done. thank God Clinton is so over confident! The more the conspirators lash out at the patriots, the more Americans will know the truth.
Truth is in short supply in our nation today. We must stand as a pillar of truth in a world full of lies. As Americans, we must unite against the brainwashing of an all powerful news media and make a rational stand for liberty. Patriots do not react irresponsibly, we respond with wisdom and common sense.
The conspirators for a one-world government have aggressively attacked our culture and nation. We have responded by exposing the truth and waking up America. we make no apologies for defending America and standing for liberty. If the socialist schemers continue to undermine our once great nation and attack the constitutional militias, they will once and for all expose their intentions. The military and police officers of America will see the conspirators for what they are, treasonous revolutionaries that are hell bent on destroying our constitutional Republic."
When someone breaks into your house and ransacks the place, taking all they want, we call that theft, and it is a theft of tangible assets. However, the eighth commandment, "thou slat not steal," refers to more than just tangible or physical property, it also refers to intangible things.
So let us give you just one example. If you were arrested by a policeman and incarcerated in jail without just cause, that is referred to as unlawful imprisonment. Most arrests in conjunction with traffic stops fall into this category as, in most states, the policeman only has authority to take you before a magistrate, not to jail.
But what, then, is unlawful imprisonment? It is stealing your liberty or your freedom. It is kidnaping and imprisonment by officers of the state. But freedom is something a Freeman enjoys and something that slaves do not enjoy, for slaves are not free. Any dictionary will tell you that freedom is defined as: "A state of exemption from the power or control of another..."
When your parents get a birth certificate, and fill it out, from that moment on you belong to the state. You are a slave of the Federal Government. Even now in Texas there are court cases wherein the Texas Education Association states: "A parent has no right to know, or to control, what is being taught to their children in the public school system!"
But what was the purpose of freedom? We know, from Genesis 1:26, that man's mission was to subdue and have dominion over the earth. Now if you steal a man, thus robbing him of his freedom, then that man comes under the control of another, and when that happens, how can he fulfill the prime directive given by God? Obviously he cannot. We should point out that some men, perhaps even most men, are slaves by nature. They prefer to be controlled to some degree by man or state, rather than being in absolute 100% control of themselves under God. In fact, these men will tell you that we need to be controlled for the good of society.
However, in Scripture slavery was voluntary, and a dissatisfied slave could leave, and he could not be compelled to return, and other men were forbidden to deliver him to his master. We find this law in Deuteronomy 23:15-16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou salt not oppress him."
Notice that this implies a certain amount of liberty on the part of slaves, and also a duty of just treatment by their masters. And, for the most part, so it was in the pre-Civil War South as slaves lived in their own quarters, had guns to hunt with, and a patch of ground on which to grow crops. Although they had a great deal of liberty, unlike slaves in the Scriptures they could not leave their master as they were considered a form of personal property. But, some were given their freedom and others were allowed to purchase their freedom.
However, in the Scriptures, a man who abuses his freedom can be sold into slavery in order to work out his restitution. We know this from Exodus 22:3: "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
The principle seems to be that if a man cannot use his freedom for its true purpose, godly dominion, reconstruction, and restoration, he must then work towards restitution in his bondage. But masters were required to be fair in their dealings with their slaves, and this was confirmed by Paul in Colossians 4:1 where he stated: "Master, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." The prohibition of stealing referred originally to kidnaping as well. For example, we read in Genesis 40:15 of Joseph's removal from the land of Canaan. Joseph stated: "For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews..." Joseph seemed to understand that to kidnap a man was a stealing of that man and to enslave him is to rob him of his freedom.
We would also point out that Scripturally, kidnaping was punished by death for Exodus 21:16 states: "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
Likewise we read in Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."
Certain things clearly appear in these two laws. First, they forbad the kidnaping of any man, whether Israelite or foreigner.
Second, the selling of slaves was forbidden, and so a slave-market could not exist in Israel. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master, slavery was on a different basis under the laws of God than in non-Biblical cultures.
Scripturally, the slave was a member of the household, having certain rights in that family. And the slave who was working out a restitution for theft had no incentive to escape, for to do so would make him an incorrigible criminal and subject to death. We have already seen that the death penalty is mandatory for kidnaping. No discretion is allowed the court, and so, to rob a man of his freedom requires death.
Fourth, Deuteronomy 24:7 forbids stealing a man by anyone who "maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him." Likewise in 2 Peter 2:3, Peter tells us that we will be as merchandise: "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." Notice that this will be done, not with shackles, but by feigned words. In other words you will be enticed into becoming a slave for the good of society.
And the best way to entice a man into slavery is to control his assets, for if we cannot use our property without permission, then we are slaves to those who control the conditions under which we can use our property. So property is basic to man's freedom and a tyrannical state always limits a man's use of his property. For example, the state taxes it, or confiscates it, which is a highly effective means of enslaving a man without putting him in shackles. The control or theft of personal property must be viewed as more than the lawless seizure or destruction of property: it is an assault on a man's freedom, and even his very life.
Neither the state nor any individual has any right to transgress this law. However, the state transgress this law all the time, not only by acts of confiscation, manipulation of money, and by taxation, but also by any and every undercutting of Biblical faith and education. For example, State supported and controlled education is theft, not only in its taxation plan, but also by virtue of its destruction of public character, so that a godly society is turned into a thieves' market.
During the law-abiding time of Israel's history, houses lacked doors. A curtain was hung in place of a door. Pagan dwellings in surrounding areas had heavy doors, sometimes of stone, carefully fitted into the stone wall, as a necessary protection against other men.
This difference, discovered by archeological work, is a striking one. When morality was the norm, when men were at peace with their neighbors, and when the law was obeyed and enforced, then the purpose of a door was merely to insure privacy, and a curtain, in a moderate climate, was sufficient. In lawless neighboring countries, stone doors were required, and men lived as prisoners within their own homes, in effect besieged by a lawless world.
Up until the 50s and 60s people in most parts of America didn't lock their doors, but now this same lawless siege-living condition again prevails in our society. By their destruction of godly education and of Biblical law, the nations have robbed their people of freedom, and the people, by their apostasy, have denied themselves freedom.
But to return again to the definition of theft as the stealing of freedom, the implication is clearly that property is freedom. A man is free if his person and his possessions are under his control. But if the state can prohibit you from using your own property or if the state can take it away from you if you fail to perform, such as by paying real or personal property taxes, then you are not free, they may not have you in shackles but they don't need to shackle you because you are a willing slave.
Guatemala and Other CIA murders: It is a great pity that the US people have never been allowed to read or hear or learn of the actual machinations of their leaders, particularly their industrial, political, media and security organizations (which of course decide who can afford to pay the huge financial costs needed to become President). The thoughtful people know that "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword," or “Violence breeds Violence.” Actually it is quite a relief to hear of deaths that are not of foreigners, not Iraqis, nor Iranians, not of dissidents against US Interests and their policies.
In the case of Guatemala, R. Torricelli has uncovered the US secret that the CIA arm of US Administration actually kills people, mostly foreign people and mostly in places like Guatemala. R. MacNamara also has finally admitted to the unnecessary US killing of about three million people in Vietnam‑Laos area. The US people can be assured that all those deaths are just the tip of the iceberg when considering the other unnecessary deaths in Latin America, Africa, Timor, Cambodia, etc. Or is it quite acceptable when foreign people are killed en masse for US trade profits? In 1845 USA annexed the territories of Texas and California
Uruguayan writer of Latin American history, Eduardo Galeano has much to tell you if you are prepared to imagine that history books supplied by all colonialist powers, especially including the USA, should be scrapped in favor of the truth. Here are some excerpts from the "Open Veins of Latin America." etc. His books are a must!
In the middle of the 19th Century William Walker on behalf of US Bankers invaded Central America at the head of a band of assassins and with the support of the US Government, robbed, killed and burned in successive expeditions till proclaiming himself president of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras. He restored slavery in these States seized from Mexico, and was welcomed back home as a national hero. In 1912 President W. H. Taft declared that the whole of the hemisphere from the North Pole to the South Pole would be ‘ours, by virtue of our superiority of race, as it is already ours, morally!'
U.S. Companies like United Fruit, Associated Press became the operators and catalysts for US takeovers. In 1933, Nicaraguan peoples' hero Sandino was invited to Managua to meet his President Somoza under US Good Neighbor Policy. He was murdered along the way. Somoza, the murderer, confirmed later that the US Ambassador had ordered the execution. With this power and the massacres that followed, Somoza, in 25 years, accumulated 46 coffee plantations, 51 cattle haciendas, the Cross of Valor, Medal of Distinction and Presidential Medal of Merit. Such are the US favorite corrupted friends. US control and profits magnified. Wall Street applauded.
In Guatemala in 1933 Pres. Jorge Ubico shot 100 Trade Union, Student and Political leaders who protested against laws forcing Indians to carry a book detailing hours worked each day at 30 cents per day. Readers Digest eulogized 'his efforts to avoid inflation.' Coffee and banana plantation foremen were exempt from Indian killing charges. This was the harbinger of the I.M.Fund. Ubico was followed by Presidents Arevalo and Jacobo Arbenz both of whom managed to break United Fruit's monopoly on unused land, allowing 100,000 peasant families to benefit. US media screamed 'communism.' US trained Colonel Armas, with troops and US F-47 bombers supplied by US President Eisenhower and CIA boss Allen Dulles, invaded Guatemala. Dulles was a Director of United Fruit. Both were shareholders. The land was returned to United Fruit.
Arbenz's fall started a conflagration in Guatemala which has never been extinguished. The same forces which bombed Guatemala City, San Jose in 1954 are in power today. New leader Mendez allowed his terror groups to murder at will. 'In 1967, expelled US Catholic Priest, Thomas Melville confirmed that 2800 intellectuals, students, trade‑union leaders and peasants were murdered for trying to combat the sickness of Guatemalan society'.
Hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans were disposed of in systematic butchery with US approval, torture equipment and advanced weaponry. United Fruit and others needed their land to claim US protection as US interests. All the men of hundreds of villages were exterminated in Tituque; their intestines were gouged out with knives; in Piedra Parada they were flayed alive; in Agua Blanca they were burned alive after being shot in the legs; in San Jorge's plaza heads of the rebellious were displayed on poles; in Cerro Gordo the eyes of Jaime Velasquez were filled with pins; the head of Ricardo Miranda had thirty-eight holes and with it the head of Haroldo Silva were found beside the San Salvador Highway. The head of Jose Guzman was chopped into a mass of tiny pieces and scattered along the road.(Do you understand what US terrorism has encouraged?) Men in other villages greeted the dawn without hands or feet. All this fury began in 1954 and has not yet ceased. The slaughter that is greater but more hidden ‑the daily genocide of poverty‑ also continues.
In 1968 another expelled Priest, Father Blase Bonpane reported in the Washington Post: "Of the 70,000 people who die each year in Guatemala, 30,000 are children. The infant mortality rate in Guatemala is forty times higher than in the USA.”
In the 1820's, Independence from Spain did not reward the Indians. The Latin American Nation‑ as the gentry, landowners (oligarchies) and businessmen conceived it‑ looked too much like a busy port, inhabited by the mercantile and financial clientele of the British Empire. Free trade opened the doors to an avalanche of British merchandise. In 1824, Simon Bolivar assisted by British finance, arms and soldiers (as well as Germans French and mounted Indians) defeated the Spanish at the silent (no guns) battle of Junin Plain. Bolivar sold Potosi mountain of silver and all holdings of land and other assets in that part of Peru (name changed to Bolivia) to repay the 20 million English pounds. Bolivar was a warrior, not politician. In 1823 the adopting by the US of the Monroe Doctrine to preserve all Latin America for US interests, has led to 172 years of US hegemony, murder and repression of indigenous races."
And so, the voice of Rigoberta Menchu. "One little brother died from malnutrition. Nicolas died from pesticide spray fumes. When we were 14 my friend also died from cotton spray poisoning.
In every village, hundreds of young girls and women were being raped by the military, so I slept in the trees and rain each night with others. My father refused to part with our land so he was tortured regularly in jail. My mother said that when a woman sees her son being tortured, burnt alive, she is incapable of not hating.
In 1979 my younger brother died under torture at age 16. His name was Petrocinio Menchu Tum. He was made to walk away, kicked incessantly until he fell, then kicked in the face. When they had done with him he didn't look like a person anymore. He was kept in a well with many bodies. They forced stones into his eyes, cut off his skin and burned him. The wounds were infected. They shaved his head then cut the skin and pulled it down over his face, then cut off the fleshy part of his face.
Two weeks later they announced that all parents would have to come to the village to see their sons punished. We all, including my father, brothers and sisters had to walk all night to get to that place. Hundreds of peasants were there and machine guns and helicopters (US) threatened them. Soldiers had to cut the clothing from the prisoners as the officer told details of each type of torture for these 'guerillas. My brother had no soles left on his feet. Women had had their breasts or nipples slashed off, tongues and ears were missing everywhere. The Captain explained that the Government was democratic. What else do you want you are led by communists! All the sufferers were then doused in petrol and set alight. "Long Live Guatemala", said the Captain."
Wealth and power seems to turn men into brutes and animals. The US should consider the Oklahoma slaughter as a sign of the decay of morals and feelings especially by its successive sickening Administrations. Latin America and the Caribbean can never belong to such people. The whole world may die while America searches the stars for another sign of life. Even if life was found, people like the CIA, Pentagon and the Presidents with their deformed idea of “democracy” will only destroy that life too.
Gentle Jesus
God has been depicted as a pantywaist and only a God of love and compassion. He is visualized by most Christians and non‑Christians as a sort of mild‑mannered Clark Kent who never turns into Superman. However, the Scripture tells quite another story. Scripture records that God is a God of Wrath; a God of Vengeance; a Jealous God; and an Angry God. As a God of Wrath.1 As a God of Vengeance.2 As a Jealous God.3 As an Angry God.4 It was our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ who drove the money‑changers from the temple. 5
If our God has all these traits, are we greater than He? God forbid. God made us in His image and therefore, we have all the traits of God. If our God can be an angry God, cannot we also be angry? "Be ye angry...let not the sun go down on your wrath." 6 God knows we are going to get angry, but when we do He plainly tells us to get rid of it before we hit the sack.
Biblical Use of Force
Violence is not new to society and has been with us from the beginning. In Genesis it is recorded that when Cain and Abel were in the field: "...Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." 1 The Scripture is silent on how this feat was accomplished. It is possible that they fought without weapons and Cain was the victor, or maybe Abel made the mistake of turning his back on his brother. It is more than likely that Cain used some sort of instrument. He may have picked up some stone and caved Abel's head in. He may have used a large stick.
Since they were somehow tilling the soil, maybe Cain used a type of shovel and then dug a hole and buried Abel. As it is not logical that he would kill Abel and not dispose of the body. Could the outcome have been different had Abel been armed with a gun? Would Cain have been a little more hesitant to rise up against his brother had he been armed? Skeptics would say that if Abel would have had a gun then so would Cain. That may have been true but there would have been a big difference. For example, when the store keeper or the banker walks around the facility carrying a big shot gun, few armed or unarmed men want to have a confrontation. There is a defense mechanism somewhere in the brain that goes off, even in the brain of a violent man, when he sees another man armed or packing a gun. Things got so bad on earth that God had to cleanse it with water. It is recorded That: "...the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord said, I will destroy man..." 2
God Himself found it necessary to become violent, when men became excessively evil. And when God become violent with man no amount of guns can suffice.
Abraham
Later on in the Scriptures Abram (Abraham) is roaming around Palestine where the war of the kings was going on, and one of them invaded Sodom and Gomorrah and kidnaped Lot. Needless to say Abram wasn't too happy with the situation and: "...he led forth his Trained men...And he divided himself against them by night...and smote them..." 3
Abram had been roaming around the desert for years with his family and now all of a sudden he has 318 Trained men to take into war. What is even more interesting is the fact, these men were Trained. It is doubtful that they were trained in hop scotch or knitting, No it is obvious they were trained in the ways of war! They also did not fight with their hands. They had instruments of war, such as knives, swords, axes and etc.
It would take a separate book to relate all the stories in Scripture that involve violence and weapons. For example, a look at Strong's Concordance reveals that the word "armed" is used 30 times; "armies" 41 times; "armour" 23 times; "armour‑bearer" 18 times; "armory" 3 times; "arms" 29 times; and "army" 80 times. That is a total of 224 references, and all on one page of Strong's.
Now, if you consider words like sword, chariot, dagger, saber rod, sling, bow, arrows, spear, lance, javelin, dart, shield, helmet, mail, graves and girdle there is no accounting for the violence and the instruments of violence referred in the Scriptures. How many sermons have you hear on weapons and violence? In contradistinction, the word "antichrist" is only used four times in Scripture and we will bet you have heard more than a sermon or two on that subject.
War Preparedness
The 20th century is not a safer place to live than during the times of Christ. In fact it is more dangerous which means there is more need for personal security and protection. Therefore, let us bear arms. Howard B. Rand, in his book "Digest of the Divine Law," addressees the issue of war and the fact that in the present order war is inescapable and we have a national responsibility to be prepared. We quote the following: "We are living at a time when our nation must give heed to Joel's proclamation, 'Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up. Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.' The Hebrew word 'qudesh' - translated 'prepare' ‑ is sometimes translated 'sanctify.'
It means set apart in singleness of purpose. And thus the nations are in singleness of purpose making war. Let the pacifists take careful note that this injunction (to prepare and make war, beating plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears), is the order of the present age and not until its consummation will that order be recalled. While Isaiah may be quoted as to the reverse, it is well to remember that unless chronology is taken into consideration in the timing of events, the proclamation of Joel and the statement of Isaiah bring only confusion. Isaiah declares, 'They shall beat their swords into plowshares,' as the ideal condition that will yet come when nations will cease making or learning war any more. But he prefaces this statement with the timing of the event as taking place in the day when 'The mountain of the Lord's House (His Kingdom) shall be established in the tops of the mountains (over other kingdoms), and shall be exalted above the hills (all governments); and all nations shall flow unto it.'1
This is confirmed later by the prophet when, of the exalted Kingdom, he says, 'And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.' 2
Joel is thus describing the conditions preceding the exaltation of His Kingdom when the nations and kingdoms of this world would be arrayed in battle against her and in opposition to the establishment of her administration and righteousness. Until the age closes and that Kingdom has been exalted through the defeat of all her enemies, war is inescapable and the beating of plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears is the order of the day. Already Joel has prayed a prayer for the protection of His people in that day, for Joel witnesses the nations moving to destroy His (Christ's) heritage as the heathen assemble and gather together against His Kingdom. He exclaims in that prayer, 'Thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O Lord. 'For Israel, His people, needs their protection and he says, 'But the Lord will be the hope of His people, and the strength of the children of Israel.' In their extremity His Kingdom people turn unto Him and at the critical moment the 'Mighty Ones' are ordered to Israel's assistance in according with the answer to Joel's prayer: which answer is given by Isaiah, 'I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones.' The prophet then describes the tumult and noise of battle as the Lord moves against His foes with the weapons of His indignation, 'For the day of the Lord is at hand and it will come as a destruction from the Almighty.' The Coming of Peace: When this day comes and passes the need of preparing for war will have passed and the laws governing armed conflict will have served their purpose. Then in the establishment of universal peace, following the last and final conflict of the ages, the blessings of Kingdom supremacy and rule will be acknowledged by all peoples."
Zechariah relates: "In that day will I (God) make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (America) do not magnify themselves against Judah (Germany). In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem (America ‑‑ New Jerusalem); and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." 3
That we are to learn to war, until the return of Christ, is made abundantly clear by the following: "Now these are the nations which the Lord left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan; Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, TO TEACH THEM WAR, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof." 4
The Scripture tells us, "The law is good if a man use it lawfully," 5 and we know that "the sum of thy word is true." The law says to love our children and not to murder,6 yet the law also says: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." 7
On one hand Scripture states children are to be loved but it also states that under certain circumstances they are to be put to death. If children are put to death under those circumstances, are they not still loved by their parents? Murder or killing?
Is there a difference between "murder" and "killing" or "put to death?" Could murder be the will of man, while killing or put to death be the will of God? Remember that: "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name." 8
To be a man of war requires that lives will be lost. The Lord seldom fights his own battles. We are His people and we are to do His will. In Deuteronomy we are told: "Thou shall not abhor an Edomite..." 9 Edomites were of Esau and yet God said: "But Esau I hated..."10
The Israelites are destined to fight the Edomites. Saul fought against them 11, and David conquered them.12 Is it possible to not hate, and yet to kill in the name of God as an executor of God's laws? Scripture plainly says: "When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies...thou shalt not be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee..." 1
Obviously, there are times when a person must bear arms to "lawfully" protect the nation. When the nation is being protected killing cannot be against the laws of God. Likewise, if the penalty of violating a law is death, someone must carry out the sentence and the person who does cannot be accused of murder. Love or Hate thy neighbor? "Ye have heard it said, Thou shall love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy: But I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you." 2
We certainly would like for someone to show the Scriptures in the Old Testament where it says to "hate thine enemy." For we have failed to find it. What is being said here is nothing new. We are to love and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. However, when the law is broken the penalty must be paid. Just because one executes a penalty does not mean that one does not love the person receiving the penalty. We are told that to spare the rod is to spoil the child. Doesn't the mother or father love the child even when inflicting the rod? Remember, "The law is good if a man use it lawfully."
The Word of God leaves no doubt that He is a God who expects His people to arm and defend themselves from all aggression. From God comes life, liberty, and property. God has made us responsible for our families, and in accomplishing that we are not to live by the sword (gun) nor are we to live without one. I don't know about you, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." 3 And if they will have to pry my cold dead fingers from around the butt of my gun, if and when it comes to that, then SO BE IT!
May 24, 1939: “Mr. Speaker, the first consideration of all patriotic citizens is the security of all the people in the United States, no matter what race or creed. I make this statement because I do not desire to be misunderstood or misquoted.
In taking this view, I hold that each and every law-abiding citizen is entitled to the same rights and the same protection guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution of the United States, and no more. I for one will be the first to stand forth in the protection of such rights, no matter who is threatened.
For those who are engaged in socialistic and communistic activity to label anyone "Nazi" who holds the fundamental
principles of the founders of the Republic in reverence, is an injustice. Our Nation more than ever needs men who believe in the fundamental principles laid down by the founders of the Republic, and the expression of such principles should not be a cause for investigation, but, instead, a reason for admiration. It is upon the observance of these principles that we stand or fall.
I am not a victim of split personality, and when I voice apprehension it is not because of personal beliefs or opinions, but is instead based upon our departure from a republican form of government, and its conversion into a democracy or a socialistic state. The best evidence of this is in Federal invasion of States and usurpation of industry and business by Federal-owned competitive corporations.
The fact that I say that our Nation is undermined with subversive activities in the form of socialism and communism
is again not only based upon my personal opinion, but also upon previous investigation by the Dies committee; communistic publications which deliberately and boldly come out and acclaim themselves as such, even to the point where they endorse candidates for office. It is also based upon articles in magazines, such as of the recent meetings in
Mexico City, in Europe, and demonstrations in the United States. These publications have actually expressed fear that
communistic activities are rampant in the Army, and not long ago I saw fear expressed that the same activities are
invading the Navy. After reading these articles, to have someone say, ‘Why worry?’ sets me thinking of Russia, Spain,
and China as they were in the past and as they are now. I picture destruction of life and property, killing of innocent and defenseless men, women and children, which is so graphically headlined in newspapers, over radio, in pictures, and on the screen. I ask myself, what sinister power is behind this evil which is now overtaking the world? Is it a repetition of the past, because of adherence to such philosophy as this?
Protocol XIX. In order to destroy the prestige of heroism fur political crime, we shall send it for trial in the category of thieving, murder, and every kind of abominable and filthy crime. Public opinion will then confuse in its conception this category of crime with the disgrace attaching to every other and will brand it with the same contempt.
In my mind's eye I lift the curtain and I see the horrors of past wars, from the time of the Pharaohs to the wanton
destruction of innocent life today. As this picture takes shape, I shudder for the safety of a civilization we have built for 2,000 years. I recall persecutions and the wars in Asia and Europe, when Christians were tortured and died for their faith; when Christian principles and rights stood firmly and unflinchingly against gold and might. Principle won then and it will today. This is a factual history, which anyone may learn if he so desires.
It is time for all patriotic citizens to recognize the enemy within our Nation, so that we may set our own house in order before it is too late. Recognition of danger and preparation may save embarrassment on some future day. We have many examples of this. If China had recognized internal deterioration, she might have escaped the destruction now facing her. If China had realized the danger of socialism and communism - a "Russian" gift - and in the recognition of
that set her own house in order millions of people now dead might have been alive and happy. The great Chinese Empire is now partitioned between the Soviets and Japan. This happened because no one worried.
If the people in Spain had recognized the danger of socialism and communism under the red flag, a regime which
destroyed churches, convents, and cherished sanctuaries, destruction of this property could have been avoided. Spain
has paid the greatest price of all in the destruction of many innocent lives because she did not worry.
It is not my intention and I cannot mention all the destruction for which socialism and communism are responsible, and it is not necessary for me to remind you that these subversive activities are here. There are hundreds of publications in the United States which proclaim themselves communistic, and are recognized as such by everyone who can read. So, I say, Why shut our eyes to the greatest danger of all?
Washington recognized not only the dangers of parties but the inherent danger in the philosophies to which they
subscribe and he warned us in these words: ‘There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.’
It is also well for us to bear in mind that Washington said, "Despots arise on the ruins of public liberty." This is clearly evident as we bear in mind the despotic and imperialistic rulers today. Congress helps this conversion of government when it restricts free speech and when it allows capitalistic control of the press by the invisible interest. Evidence of attempted control of free speech may be found in H. R. 5791, in which restrictions are placed upon broadcasting which might ultimately end in complete Government censorship. This is another method of subversive interest to destroy a valuable means of communication, now already to a certain extent restricted. The queer part is that the same interest is using the radio constantly, often on the expense of the taxpayers, to peddle bedside stories for the gullible.
Congress should, in respect to the glory of freedom of speech, throw House bill 5791 in an ash can. It is difficult today to get facts before the people for the invisible government is so well intrenched and is wielding such control of all gold that it locks the door to truth.
To have a clearer understanding of communism, I quote from ‘Wolves in Sheep's Clothing,’ not because of the book but because of facts stated in the comparison: ‘Christianity is love; communism is hate. Christianity is morality; communism is depravity. Christianity is loyalty; communism is treachery. Christianity extends mercy; communism is merciless. Christianity liberates; communism enslaves. Christianity builds civilization; communism substitutes barbarism. Christianity is truth; communism is falsehood.
It was for the investigation of this un-American activity; namely, socialism and communism - that Congress appropriated $1OO,OOO to the Dies committee. It was appropriated to get the facts before the people; and in the establishing of such facts not to shield race, creed, or color. The hundred thousand dollars appropriated by Congress, at the expense of the taxpayers of the United States, was not to buy whitewash for the higher-ups and those actually responsible; it was instead to investigate socialism and communism as they exist in the United States. It is for that reason that all evidence should be admitted, no matter who the guilty may be. It does not matter whether the offender is Scandinavian, Englishman, Occidental, or Asiatic. Guilt should not be established upon creed or race, but upon such subversive activities with which such creed or race may be connected. A lead to this may be found in hundreds of communistic publications throughout the country.
If such organizations as these exist - American Civil Liberties Union, American Society for Cultural Relations With Russia, the Progressive Political Action Conference to Elect Roosevelt, or others - investigations should be made of them for the general welfare of the taxpayers who are paying for the Dies investigation. It would also be well to investigate the personnel of the Harmonie Club and to ascertain if the membership's names did not pass over the press wires a few days ago.
I note in the ‘Evening Star’ that the gentlemen are accusing each other of smearing, and that is no more than may be expected when interest is lost in the finding of facts. I quote: "Hammering constantly at the motives of an Indiana Republican leader in sending a purveyor of anti-Semitism seeking a 90-minute interview with the Republican National
Committee Chairman John D. M. Hamilton, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was accused by one of its own members this afternoon of trying to ‘smear’ the Republican Party.’
This is not a surprise to me, for I have attended a couple of hearings for a short while and in each instance listened
to a cross-examination of witnesses who had no information but which the gentleman on the committee attempted to
connect with the Republican Party. As a listener it occurred to me that the examiner did not attempt to establish facts
in respect to socialism and communism but instead wasted time to establish contradictory evidence by the witness. This attempted smearing of the Republican Party cannot be helped because the Democratic Party is now a front for the Socialists and openly supported by the Communist Party in the United States in its own publications and also in the daily press. I have already quoted evidence of this a few days ago when the Communist Party said they would support President Roosevelt for the third term. It is therefore only reasonable that the Democrats on the committee are not going to bite the hand that will support them in the next election.
The Dies committee investigating un-American activities, and for which the taxpayers are putting up $100,000, should, in respect to the American people and in honor to their own position in Congress, spare no one from the top to the bottom. The very idea of excluding one particular group because of power in the administration, or because of underground connection with the invisible government, is disgusting and discouraging to those who know the truth.
There is much evidence to be had, and I am sure many patriotic citizens will be glad to testify before the Dies Committee if they are not mislabeled in giving such testimony. The Dies committee must first decide which of the European philosophies is not for the better interest of the United States. That is all, and it is as simple as that, which the committee should know.
It is useless to look for a Nazi or Fascist plot, because both of these governments are socialistic, and if there is any plot it is one of socialism. The next thing for the committee to bear in mind is that socialism has been in existence for many years. As a matter of fact it has been recognized in the United States for many years. The only philosophy in government that is new is communism, and that brand is found only in Russia.
It is communism that has undermined China. It is communism that undermined Spain. The ‘red’ regime was the government in Spain that destroyed churches, convents, and sacred places of worship. It is communism which has upset the Government of France, and it is communism that is going to upset the Government of the United States today, and that is the point for the Dies committee to bear in mind in this investigation.
A patriotic citizen who willingly testifies before the committee should not be treated as though he were an enemy of the United States, for his reason in being connected with an organization opposed to communism is in itself evidence that he is a patriotic citizen, because he recognizes a danger that many of us are fearful of today.
It is useless to cross-examine a witness to establish connections with individuals of no importance and let the ringleaders sit at the top. What the committee should find out is who the ringleaders are and call them in for investigation. Let us destroy the root of the evil instead of chasing around the fringes where nothing can be found. The Dies committee can obtain evidence in regard to communism from their own publications and from other people who are connected with Communist organizations. The papers have already published the fact that communism is within the Army and beginning to infiltrate the Navy. I know from personal contact with members of the C.C.C. camps that
communism and radicalism are found in such organizations. The Congress of the United States appropriated $100,000 to investigate un-American activities, and the most dangerous un-American activity is communism. It is here, and the
committee knows it.
I have received a letter, and I shall not mention the names because I know many patrons of the organization are innocent and well-meaning members. ‘The Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to Champion Human Rights, Inc.,’ is imprinted on the letterhead, and at the bottom of the page I find, in red letters: ‘Nazi Germany Is the Enemy of Civilization. Refuse to Trade With the Enemy.’
If this organization is investigated, it will be found that some member is at heart a Communist, and it is he, or they, who wield the control in this organization, and this is my reason for this statement: ‘How can anyone be a champion of human rights, Christian rights, if you please, and at the same time preach hatreds toward any nation? How can the same individual preach boycott and retaliation and call a nation an enemy without having a good reason for it? The committee should call the organization to task and ask; why one nation has been selected and set aside as an enemy to the United States, and their reason for it.
As I said, there must be some reason for forming this organization, and there must be a good cause for setting one nation aside as an enemy to civilization, and certainly an equally good reason for advocating ‘Refuse to trade with the
enemy.’ Let the Dies committee call the members of this organization up for investigation, and let them give their reason for making the statements that they have made in the letter which I shall be glad to give to the Dies committee. Let these members explain why they call themselves Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to Champion Human Rights, Inc. I am not interested in any particular people, but I am interested in the opinions they hold, particularly if such opinions are un-American or communistic. As I have said in the first part of my speech, no one would step to the defense of anyone sooner than I. We are, however, faced with a problem, and that problem is communism, and Congress appropriated $100,000 to find out about it. It is up to the Dies committee to set this thing right, and they can do so by examination of this organization first. Let them give the reason for their attitude, and then the Dies committee might
get to the bottom of the un-American activities.” 1
John Bright, 1811‑1889 was an English Statesman credited with having exercised a greater influence upon the conduct of public affairs of England and abroad than perhaps any other man. He was, perhaps, the greatest English orator of modern times.
On page 396 of "Air Power," by Al Williams, we find the following by John Bright in response to pleas to help the North in our Civil War: "I have sympathy with the three millions of slaves in the United States; but it is not a question of sympathy that I dare involve this country, or any country, in a war which must cost an incalculable amount of treasure and of blood. It is not my duty to make this country the knight errant of the human race, and to take upon herself the protection of the thousand millions of human beings who have been permitted by the Creator of all things to people this planet."; "It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism. All that is in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews." 2
Would to God that we had Americans in leadership of the United States, today, who would express such and oppose the works of those, such as President (king) George Bush in trying with all his might to bring America under the total control of the internationalists; under the auspices of the United Nations.
War Guilt and Warmongers
The Evidence-The War Psychosis-To Start World War II
World War II was one of the Major crimes of History, the First Being the Crucifixion of our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ by the Jews. "Apparent success is not the measure of real success; and besides God has not commanded us to succeed, but to work. It is of our work that He will require an account, and not of our success; why, then, take thought about it before the time? It is for us to sow the seed ‑‑ it is for God to gather the fruit; if not today, it will be tomorrow; if not by us, it will be by others. Even when success is granted us, it is always dangerous to let our eyes rest upon it complacently: on the one hand, we are tempted to attribute something of it to ourselves; on the other hand, we thus accustom ourselves to give way to relaxing our zeal when we fail to perceive its effects ‑‑ that is to say, at the very time that we ought to redouble our energy. To look to success is to walk by sight; to look to Jesus and to preserve in following and serving Him in spite of all discouragements, is to walk by faith. Thy work shall be rewarded, saith Jehovah." 1
A United States Senator who had not, at the time, realized the almost absolute control of the press in America once said: "Thank God, we have no censor for the press in this country. No mistakes of derelictions in the expression of editorial opinion could ever approach in danger to the Republic the suppression of the right to print the facts and to comment on them as the press may see fit." 2
He had not yet realized that a definite campaign has been conducted, for many years, to smear every one who dares to tell the truth on certain issues of the day.
Propaganda For War
It is a safe statement to make that not one citizen in ten thousand of these United States knows who was responsible for the start of World War II. Those having a partial knowledge has reported that Germany admitted guilt when she executed certain documents after the war, but the aver American does not know that Germany was compelled to make this admission or have her country overrun and totally destroyed by the victors.
If one is inclined to challenge this statement that person should obtain a copy of "The Russian Imperial Conspiracy, 1892‑1914," written by Senator Robert L. Owen. Next to the Foreword, Senator Owen said: "The Russian Imperial Conspiracy of 1892‑1914. The Most Gigantic Intrigue of All Time. The Germans did not will the war. It was forced on them by the Russian Imperialists ‑‑ Grand Duke Nicholas, Isvolski, Sazonoff, Sukhomlinoff, and associates in control of Russia. The German, Russian, French, Belgian and allied peoples became alike the sorrowful victims."
Recent evidence of the inner secrets of European diplomacy prove this. "In the summer of 1923 in Europe there fell into my hands at Paris the work of Rene Marchand ‑‑ Un Livre Noir ‑‑ containing the secret dispatches between the Russian Foreign Office and Isvolski, the Ambassador of Russia at Paris immediately preceding the World War.
In London I obtained de Siebert's publication of the like secret dispatches between the Russian Foreign Office and Becnckendorf, the Ambassador of Russia at London. My interest was thus aroused and every book available on the subject was studied because it was perceived that the Allied Propaganda that they had fought unselfishly for democratic principles and to establish justice and right in international affairs had greatly deceived the people of the United States. It became perfectly obvious that the theory that the Czar was leading the fight to make the world safe for Democracy was ludicrous. These Secret Dispatches showed that the theory that the war was waged in defense of American ideals was untrue. They also proved that the theory that the Entente Allies were fighting a war to defend themselves and the United States from the criminal design of William II to dominate the world by military force was false.
It became clear that a few leaders of the Entente Allies had instigated and launched the war inspired by the mixed motives of imperialistic ambitions, greed for commercial and political power, future security, revenge, hate, love of secret diplomacy and intrigue, believing that the war would be quickly ended, that the profit would be great and the future enjoyment of such illicit gains well protected. When the records had been studied, the evidence and my conclusions were presented to the American People in the Unites States Senate, December 18, 1923. My action was moved alone by my love for the people of the United States, feeling that it was my duty as a matter of loyalty, to disclose to them the truth, even if I seemed quite alone. Now that European interests are vigorously declaring by a second great American Propaganda that it was 'OUR WAR,' as a basis for canceling the War Debts, it has seemed worth while to put in a compact form the evidence to show IT WAS NOT 'OUR WAR,' and to show the common people of all the nations that they have been the victims of imperial intrigue and unwise leadership, and that they should, by democratic processes, defined themselves in the future against the secret diplomacy and intrigue of unintelligent officials." 3
Senator Owens went on to say: "...It is doubtful if one Frenchman in ten thousand had any knowledge that Poincare was deliberately leading France into war. Neither the Russian nor French government really believed that the German government intended aggressive war on them but the military preparedness of Germany and the bombast of some of its chauvinists laid a convenient but false foundation for the French and British propaganda that the German leaders had plotted the brutal military conquest of the world. The reconciliation of the French and German people, their mutual heartfelt moral disarmament is essential to physical disarmament; their mutual respect and good will are vital to their future peace and the future peace of Europe and the world. Valiant Coutourier, member of the French House of Delegates, in accusing Raymond Poincare of having been responsible with the Russian leaders for having caused the war, did so 'on his honor as an old French soldier;' and so 'on my honor as a long‑time member of the United States Senate,' I record the accusing evidence in this book and my profound conviction that the conclusions are absolutely sound, assuring those who read these lines that they have been written as the result of careful study, entirely free from any conscious prejudice or ill‑will, even against those believed directly responsible for unloosing the World War, without any desire to stigmatize them, but with the purpose of making the truth known in order that the people may be ultimately reconciled to each other when they can better understand each other. With this book goes the prayer that it will be of some use in establishing understanding, truth and good will. 1
There is no competent and informed historian in any country who has studied the problem of the genesis of the World War (WW I) in a thorough fashion who does not regard the theory of war guilt held in Articles 227 and 231 in the Versailles Treaty to be wholly false, misleading and unjust." 2; "Never before in the whole history of historical writing has there been so rapid and complete a change in the opinions of historians concerning an event of major importance as has been witnessed in the revision of our conceptions concerning the causes of the outbreak of the World War in August, 1914." 3
In Senator Owen's Introduction he gives a large list of historians and scholars from different countries who concur in his conclusions. Among these were Charles E. Tansill, historical expert, Library of Congress, and adds: "Under the United States Senate Resolution (1925) to collage the evidence on the origin of the World War, Charles E Tansill, expert historian, was assigned the task and is now convinced of the Russian and French responsibility. His book has not been published as a Government document for reasons of diplomatic amity."
Why The Truth Is Unknown
A natural question arises: "How is it that a truth of such gigantic consequence has not been made known to all the world and freely recognized?"
The answer is quite simple ‑‑ The most secret archives were not published or known until some years after the war, and, when they were disclosed, naturally those who had carried on the pre‑war propaganda, and the war‑ time propaganda in which not only the German Government but the German people were bitterly denounced as the enemies of mankind, were not disposed to confess that they had been parties to an unsound, lying propaganda against the German people.
The international press, totally controlled by the Jews, who hate the German People with a hatred exceeded only by their hatred of the Lord Jesus Christ, had denounced the Germans as guilty of the crime of unloosing the war, and then charged the German troops with every crime on the book ‑‑ cutting off the hands of babies, bayoneting women with children, crucifying soldiers, committing massacres on non‑combatants; boiling their own dead to make glycerine for explosives, etc. Which is, and many more, the crimes committed by the Jews against Christians since they crucified Christ. So they accuse the German people of their crimes, in order to hide their own guilt. Every artifice was used to make all the world hate the German name. The same was true after World War II, with the Jews fake "Holocaust" stories. These war‑time atrocities are no longer believed by informed people. All armies contain some individuals who exhibit atrocity during the terrible excitement of war.
The story of cutting off the children's hands was thoroughly investigated and found to be untrue. The story of the boiling of the German dead to get the fat from their bodies was proved to be the confessed invention of a British officer. The press of the world, finding it embarrassing to reverse the views previously reported, and by which the world was misled, preferred the position that the question of war guilt was steeled by the Treaty of Versailles and the Nuremberg Trials.
They, therefore, deliberately have failed to give publicity to the recently discovered facts or to take the labor and pains to investigate. For this reason, the people of the world have not had access to the truth except through books (such as this one) whose circulation is small.
Bearing out the truth of the above by Senator Owen, in the pamphlet "The Truth about England," p. 15, shows that these charges (World War I charges) were carefully investigated by a group of war correspondents who telegraphed their findings to the Associated Press, which afterwards never saw the light of day: "In spirit of fairness we united in declaring German atrocity stories groundless, as far as we are able to observe; after spending two weeks accompanying German army for upward a hundred miles we report not one single incident of unprovoked reprisal...No mistreatment of prisoners or non‑combatants...numerous rumors prove groundless...discipline German troops excellent...no drunkenness. To the truth of these statements we pledge our word." 1
The pamphlet just named said that this dispatch was NEVER PRINTED because the channels of information were subsidized by English money which suppressed the truth.
"The American press is a giant and has a giant's responsibility. Ultimately, when it knows the truth, it will do its full duty. 2 Another obstacle to the knowledge of the evidence is Entente official opposition. The Treaty of Versailles (Article 231) had compelled the German leaders to accept complete responsibility for the war. It was not a treaty of agreement. It was a treaty dictated by the victors, and the conquered Germans (over their vehement protests) were compelled to sign the confession of guilt under the threat, after they had disarmed, of being invaded and devastated by war by the allies. The German women and children were suffering the extremities of death by starvation under an Allied embargo as a means of coercing German consent to the dictated treaty. The Germans still strenuously protest that they did not will the war. The Treaty of Versailles violated many of the 14 points under which President Wilson and the Entente Allies obtained the German consent to the Armistice. For these reasons, the governmental powers of Europe, outside of Germany, were unwilling to have any publicity given to the truth that a few (Jewish) Russian and French leaders had willed the war and forced it on the German leaders, on Europe and the world. Therefore, the evidence has been largely suppressed by the leaders of the Entente nations. But the truth disclosed by the evidence cannot be kept permanently concealed, and the scholars of the whole world are now quite well advised with regard to the evidence.
The facts set forth in this book are based on the evidence of the official records of the belligerent governments, and the particular records listed in Exhibit A, will be found to completely justify every important statement made in this work...The evidence shows that the German leaders made a strenuous effort to prevent the local conflict between Austria and Serbia from leading to a general European war, and that the German leaders were not supported either in St. Petersburg, or Paris in this attempt to prevent a European war, but were prevented from localizing the war, or adjusting it by a concert of the powers, by the Russian leaders. Austria intended a local war and was opposed to a general war. The war against Serbia, into which Austria was deliberately incited by the ruinous intrigues of Serbia at the instigation of Russia, was a trap into which Austria fell, not knowing it was fomented by Russia to create the pretext of general mobilization and war to make Austria and Germany appear to the world as the wilful instigators of the great conflict. But the Russian Imperialists are convicted by the secret treaties, military conventions, dispatches, documents and by the confession of their own mouths ‑‑ for example. (Here Senator Owen gives eight citations. From them we take the last) Colonel E.M. House wrote to the President of the United States, from Europe, May 29, 1914, (House, II, 248): 'Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria.'"
Count Julius Andrassy said: "When on July 29th the German Chancellor tries to negotiate with Goschen, the British Ambassador, in the interest of British neutrality, the Ambassador says that, according to his belief, his government would not bind itself to anything; not on account of the individual conditions which Germany placed in view, but generally. At that time Grey warns Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador, that as soon as France would be embroiled in the war, England would have to interfere...On July 31st Grey announces to Lichnowsky that if it comes to war between Germany and France, he would be involved...The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs expresses, in the presence of the British Ambassador, has conviction that 'England would in the end be dragged into war.' He repeats his statement on July 25th and 30th, and again says so to the President of the French Republic...Grey cannot conceal his actual conviction and inner resolution to take part in the war, as is evident from his telegram to Buchanan, British Ambassador to Russian, of the 25th, stating, 'If, however, war should break out, then its developments would force us to participate.'" 3
Senator Owen's book contains 209 pages plus a Bibliography of official documents, 78 in number. It is convincing and conclusive. From the Congressional Record, April 25, 1939, Senator Nye is reported as having said: "This work, Propaganda in the Next War (Already World War has been planned and known to some in Congress: Some of which tried valiantly to warn America? But was the warning taken? Absolutely not. Why? Because of the power the Jews have over public opinion through the news media), staggers the imagination. It amazes me that men could be so brazen in laying down the plans which ARE TO ENTRAP US, publish them, and give them, at least for a few days, to the world.
I understand that this particular volume, Propaganda in the Next War, published last fall and put in circulation, instead of having its circulation enlarged, now is suffering at the hands of those who desire to retire it from circulation. A few days ago I came on the floor of the Senate with the volume itself. I am sorry that I have not it with me today. I am told that it is the only copy of Propaganda in the Next War available in the United States. It can be had: I can borrow it again if there is occasion and need for it in the Senate; but it is no longer easy to obtain. I wish the entire work could be read by every member of the Senate. One particular chapter, however, is one which every Member of the Senate ought to be required to read. It is the chapter entitled 'Enemies, Neutrals and Allies,' a large portion of which is given over to a description of just how they are going to manage their propaganda upon the United States in the event of the next war; and in the light of what we are seeing happen day after day in this country, I am given to wonder, if perchance that propaganda is not already under way."
The following is taken from the Public Ledger, Inc., and is captioned: "Boake Carter...SAYS ‑‑ Look What's Coming! Tip From London. Creating 'Sentiment.'" "The details of the business of convincing United States citizens that they should sally forth once more as the savers of the world's democracy is explained in a somewhat unique book just published in London. The man who wrote it is Sidney Rogerson, publicity manager of Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., the vast British dye and explosives trust. Prior to his present post Rogerson was counsel for the Federation of British Industries, composed of 90 percent of manufacturers of England...The author continues in this vein:
Though we are not unfavorably placed, we shall require to do much propaganda to keep the United States benevolently neutral (When is it neutral? When is it benevolent!). It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home to every citizen before the Republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. This position will naturally be considered eased if Japan were involved...At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the great war they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany...'
Fortunately ‑‑ in America our propaganda is on firm ground. We can be entirely sincere (!) as our main plank will be the old democratic one. We must clearly enunciate our belief in the democratic form of government...Our minor propaganda will aim at attaching the support of important sections, such as the Jews, probably by the clear‑cut policy on Palestine, and of our intention, if victorious, to put an end to anti‑ Semitic persecution and of Roman Catholic community in similar terms.
These should not be difficult to pursue, not to put over to the American public. We shall, as before, send over our leading literary lights and other men with names well known in the United States."
"Look At What's Coming" closes with these words: "My only hope is that we may come to the realization (propaganda control) before it is too late. If I advocate the necessity of propaganda in the present (1939) state of affairs, I value our democratic privileges none the less. As I see it, the privileges will be at stake in a future war, and it is because I do not want to risk their being lost permanently that I recommend we should surrender some of them temporarily. Just as I value democratic liberty, I dislike democratic license, and am fearful of its consequences in a world so tense and brittle with organization. To quote H.G. Wells, (who, he writes on page 36, was entrusted with conducting the propaganda against Germany in World War I) 'I suppose that the last of the dinosaurs to survive thought it was muddling through quite nicely.' It would be a tragedy if democracy entertained the same thought today."
If you desires to read a book that is packed with information on the Jewish question, we recommend "Where Now Little Jew?" published in 1938 by The Albert Bonnier Publishing House, New York City. From that we take the following as explaining part of the racial troubles in Palestine before World War II: "And above all: the 'blessings' conferred by the Zionists on the Arabs are not the result of love but, as an Arab leader expressed, 'because they want to bribe us to keep quiet as long as they are the minority.' And he showed his interviewer, Albert Viton (the American journalist whose two instructive articles collateral to this appeared in The Nation, December, 1936) masses of Jewish newspaper articles, from which it was clear that the Jews were already trying to push the Arabs out of their jobs to make room for additional immigrants. Not a day passes without Davar (a Jewish labor daily) campaigning for exclusively Jewish labor in all Jewish enterprises.
A few examples: On October 26, 1935, the paper stated that in Petakh‑Tivah, the efforts of the Histadruth (Jewish labor organization) to conquer for the Jewish worker a place in agriculture had borne fruit, and letters had been sent to Jewish orange grove owners demanding the employment of purely Jewish labor. The following day Davar reported a battle between Histadruth pickets and Arab laborers, and said that they could not understand 'why the government had to warn the Histadruth leaders against disturbing the peace.' The same day the front‑page editorial states: 'The attempt to smuggle in Arab laborers at Ranaana...has indeed been successfully nipped in the bud, but only after our workers lost time and strength, after arrests and trials.' On October 13, 1935, Davar expressed satisfaction at the fact that Kiosk owners had decided to use juices from fruit grown in groves employing Jewish labor only. On November 1, 1935, the paper reported the arrest of two members of the Communist settlement Makhar for driving Arab workers from a Jewish grove against the wishes of the owner. As stated above, all this is Kibush Avodah, and it shows only too clearly that the methods used by the Jews can under no circumstances be condoned. (But these same Jews hold up their hands in righteous horror when similar methods are used in Poland or Germany against their fellow Jews)."
To the student of history, and who is interested in seeing how British propaganda has operated against the American people and the United States for more than one hundred years, we recommend a book titled: "England ‑‑ Her Treatment of America," by George Hanry Payne.
The Foreword to this was written by George Higgins Moses, former Senator from New Hampshire. Its fifteen chapters deal with "The Beginnings of Trouble," the "War of 1812," the "Monroe Doctrine," "The Mexican Intrigue," "The Threat in the Civil War," "The pirates of Panama," "Our Fate in the Pacific," "Restricting Our Navy." This is very interesting as it shows the duplicity which persuaded this country to sink its battleships under an idealism utterly inconsistent with the world situation.
Propaganda At Work
We are indebted to the late Senator Lundeen for inserting two articles into the Congressional Record that throw much light on pre‑World War II propaganda efforts. One is found in that Record for June 19, 1940, and the other, the report of the speech which he delivered in the Senate, July 11, 1940. The former gives us an appraisal of the late British Ambassador in these significant words: "Philip Henry Kerr, Marquess of Lothian, who also bears up under the titles of Lord Newbattle, Earl of Ancrus, and Viscount of Drien, is in many respects a typical member of the British ruling class..."
In his capacity as Secretary to the Honorable Lloyd George 'he was on the inside of the peace conference which framed the Treaty of Versailles, of unhappy memory, and he is supposed to have been the author of the Covering Note of July 16, 1919, which laid on Germany the sole guilt of the war of 1914‑1918.' We shall see that he later recanted this thesis.
Indeed, in later years, especially after coming into his title and taking his seat in the House of Lords, Lothian demonstrated his mental pliancy by becoming an assiduous and eloquent apologist for the German point of view. After the National Socialist Part and Adolf Hitler came to power, Lothian specifically gives the steps taken by the Nazis to undo the evil work of Versailles, and persuasively urged that British policy should conform with German ideas for the reconstruction of Europe. The writings and speeches of Lord Lothian during this period reveal he believed:
(1) That Germany was badly treated at Versailles;
(2) That French efforts to keep Germany in vassalage were cruel and unwise;
(3) That Britain and the United States share the guilt of France in this respect;
(4) That these three are responsible for the triumph of national socialism:
'America's entrance into the (world) war was disastrous not only for your country (United States) but for the Allies as well, because had you stayed at home and minded your own business we would have made peace with the Central Powers in the spring of 1917, and then there would have been no collapse in Russia, followed by Communism; no break‑down in Italy, followed by Fascism; and Nazism would not at present be enthroned in Germany. If American had stayed out of the war and minded her own business, none of these 'Isms' would today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government.' 1
(5) That National Socialism had been good for Germany;
(6) That Germany was justified in rearming;
(7) That there were too many small nations in post‑Versailles Europe and that hegemony in south‑eastern Europe naturally belongs to Germany;
(8) That the German demands for reunion with Austria, the Sudetenland, and Memel, and for possession of Danzig were justified;
(9) That Britain belongs in a 'World System' not in the 'European System,' that accordingly Britain should not make commitments in Europe, and should not try to dominate Europe, should not go to war over any European issue; and
(10) That one of the prime causes of war danger which then overhung Europe, and has since taken such tragic reality, was British meddling in eastern Europe.
No one reading the noble lord's words can doubt that he spoke his sincere convictions. The discrepancy between his own views and those which, as British Ambassador, he is now daily urging upon the American Government and people cannot but recall Talleyrand's famous definition of an Ambassador's duty ‑‑ 'to lie for his country.' Today Ambassador Lothian must try to persuade Americans that Hitler is a monster, nazi‑ism an unmitigated evil, and the German people essentially barbarous; that Germany breaks treaties in mere cynical wantonness; that the reunion of Germany with territories inhabited by Germans which were cut off from the main body at Versailles is a crime against democracy; that the German war with Poland made it Britain's sacred duty to war on Germany, and that, in fact, the preservation of civilization, as we have known it, requires that American might, money and men shall be freely offered to Britain to save her from defeat in that war which Lord Lothian, before he became Ambassador, warned his countrymen to shun."
Senator Lundeen's speech of July 11, 1940, is in pamphlet form titled: "Six Men And War." From page 4 of that pamphlet: In a letter of November 21, 1938, the Polish Ambassador to the United States, Count Jerzy Potocki, tells the Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw of the importance and influence of Bullitt: "About Germany and Hitler he spoke vehemently and with great hatred. He said that only energy at the end of the war would put an end to the future great German expansionism.
To my question asking how he visualized this future war, he replied that above all the United States, France and England must rearm tremendously in order to be in a position to cope with German power. Only then, when the moment is ripe, declared Bullitt further, will one be ready for the final decision. In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said: 'Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had made the first move. Shortly after Mr. Bullitt's return to Paris, the Polish Ambassador to Paris, Mr Jules Lukasiewcz, sent a communication to the Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw in which he declared that Mr. Bullitt had told him: 'Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.'"
Then on page 6, Senator Lundeen, quoting from the documents referred to, says that Ambassador Lukasiewicz wrote his Foreign Minister at Warsaw and said that Mr. Bullitt had, "...communicated with Ambassador Kennedy in London, urging him to get in contact with Prime Minister Chamberlain and to request the latter to guarantee British support of Poland.
On page 7, it is reported that March 29, 1939, Count Edward Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London, wrote to the Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw of his conversations with Ambassador Kennedy, indicating that the latter was actively meddling in Polish‑British relations.' On page 8, it states: 'That Kennedy remained active in promoting British support of Poland is evident from a note by the Polish Commercial Counselor, Jan Wszelski, regarding an interview which he had with Mr. Kennedy on June 16, 1939. Mr. Kennedy had been urging the British to make a cash loan to Poland. This they did shortly afterward, thus helping to prepare for war."
Then, on page 10, Senator Lundeen produces evidence to show that the plans of the Administration, through Bullitt, Kennedy and the six men named in his speech, President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull, Under‑Secretaries of States Welles and Berle, "is dangerously likely to lead us to war." Then follows with this significant statement: "The invasion of Holland and Belgium and the victory over France will provide them with more powerful aid in this campaign than anything which has happened since the Chicago speech of 1937. 1 We, too, have a stake in world affairs."
The importance of war as an issue in the political campaign which closed in November was revealed in one of the polls which showed that but for this issue Mr. Willkie would have had a majority of the electoral votes. Three‑fourths of the press of this country was in favor of Mr. Roosevelt, and with a carefully planned publicity campaign, sold the idea to many unthinking people that it was unwise to swap horses while crossing the stream. John T. Flynn, on page 113 of his "Country Squire in the White House," shows how effectively the war "scare" would be used: "And when an election approaches, Americans are thinking of the eleven million people unemployed, of the farm problem unsolved; of the utter paralysis of private investment, of the mounting public debt, of the scandals in Washington and local political foes. And the war, the menace to our security, the call to national defense; all this will take the minds of our people off the failure to solve our own problems and will furnish a new excuse to spend another ten to fifteen billion dollars to return his party to power."
President Roosevelt, in his address at Philadelphia, October 23, 1940, said: "I give to you and the people of this country this most solemn assurance: there is no secret treaty, no secret obligation, no secret commitment, no secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any other government, or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve; no such secrecy that might or could, in any shape, involve, this nation in any war or for any other purpose. Is that clear?"
Previously we directed your attention to what was in the President's mind as revealed in three of his speeches proving the truth of the proverb ‑‑ "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Thus it is very clear that Franklin D. Roosevelt was A Liar and A Traitor!
On page 137 of Herring's book "And So To War," the comment is made most significantly upon the incident of the speech at Chicago, on October 5, 1937, and he says: "The bulk of the speech had been prepared in the State Department, but in his last minute enthusiasm (when his Jewish heart and mind was overflowing with zeal for the killing of millions of Christians which lay ahead), and in one of those flashes of genius which make Mr. Roosevelt dangerous, he inserted the sentence advocating 'quarantines,' a word which brought consternation to the more cautious officials in the State Department."
Again, on page 145, Mr. Herring said: "...To Wilson, however, belongs the chief responsibility for departure from our traditional American doctrine of the exclusive right of Congress to initiate and declare war. From first to last, he withheld from Congress vital knowledge of his purposes and commitments, and told them such things, and only such things, as he thought suitable for their ears."
In explanation of this procedure you should know, however, that both Wilson and Roosevelt were tutored by Colonel E.M. House, who was charged by the late Senator Lawrence Y. Sherman with having published a book which "solves the conundrum how to get rid of the Constitution...Philip Dru (the hero of Col. House's book) becomes a dictator with a clean slate." 1 President Roosevelt's speech in Philadelphia, to which we are referring, shows that he was not only following in the footsteps of former President Wilson but that he had passed from the stage of a novice to that of an adept for ex‑Senator Owen in his book to which we have already referred, says on page 39: "Great Britain's foreign affairs are directed in like fashion (to that of Russian and France) by the British Foreign Office, No. 10 Downing Street, without necessarily being directed by or even disclosed to the British Parliament. Sir Edward Grey, in his agreements with the government of France and Russia, contemplating naval and military cooperation between Russia, France and Great Britain along the lines worked out by the military and naval staffs of the three countries, was able to do so in absolute secrecy. He did not submit these records to Parliament until after the war had been entered into by Great Britain. Six times the British Parliament was advised that there were no commitments made." 2
Because of this duplicity, Senator Owen tells us on p. 92 of the same book, that John Burns, Lord Morley and others about August 1st, 1914, withdrew from Asquith's Cabinet, when they discovered the truth. Then on page 45 Senator Owen says of the treaty which the French and Russian leaders had signed: "The very existence of this secret treaty was denied, and Article 7 of the agreement itself provided: 'All the clauses enumerated above shall be kept absolutely secret.'"
These quotations should be carefully borne in mind when citations are taken from Mr. Stanton B. Leed's book: "These Rule France," which will follow in due course here in. In Mr. Flynn's book, p. 109, he comments on the "quarantine" speech of Mr. Roosevelt as follows: "Then came the quarantine speech in which he advocated international action to quarantine aggressors. If that policy had been adopted, it would have meant that England, France, the United States and possibly Russia would have used military power to strangle Japan and Germany economically. That meant the President was actually talking about war under these euphemistic phrases."
He then adds, on page 113: "What is more serious than all this, of course, is that the President has been 'meddling in' on the European situation for two years, and is increasing his meddling."
Demaree Bess in the Saturday Evening Post of May 11, 1940, wrote: "Americans who lived in Europe could see that Mr. Roosevelt's eloquent phrases, combined with certain obscure diplomatic moves that he began to make, were creating exaggerated hopes of American support in England and France. At that time I...suggested that unless the American people were really prepared to join England and France in a war against Germany, when and if such a war came, their President was raising False Hopes which eventually would prove humiliating...
It is curious to observe that while Americans were thinking of the President's moves in terms of peace, Europeans were estimating them almost entirely in terms of war...I was in America when Roosevelt made his famous 'quarantine' speech in 1937, and I recall Americans were not much excited I came back to Europe that autumn, I was amazed to discover what a sensation that speech had created. It was hailed as a death blow to American isolationism and a return of the United States to World Politics."
Then Mr. Bess cites two British publications: "President Roosevelt has issued the same warning that the United States would be aligned with Great Britain and France in the event of a major European war, although, of course, the nature of the American participation cannot be defined in advance. 3 President Roosevelt is using the full power of his leadership to hurry along the change to a strong foreign policy." 4
J.L. Garvin wrote in the London Observer: "Now for the first time Hitler and Mussolini have no doubts. They know it is a certainty that America will be upon them if they strike again at any independent nation whatsoever."
In an article published in the Baltimore Sun of August 25, 1940, written by a correspondent of the Sun in France, it was stated: "'Our government (France) unfortunately believed that the United States would enter the war almost immediately after we declared war on Germany,' a number of Frenchmen have said to me. 'If our government had not believed it, perhaps we would not be where we are.' The implication is unescapable.
Many Frenchmen believed that we, either directly through the heads of our State, or through our accredited representatives, encouraged these foreign powers to go to war, and worse, raised their hope that it would not be long before armed forces of the United States would be crossing the Atlantic. Upon returning to Europe about the time that the French army was defeated, I was not, however, unprepared for accusations of this character.
Long before the war I, as an American living in France, was increasingly worried over the assurance, growing in many minds to the certainty that the sympathy of the United States for the Allied cause, openly expressed by our highest spokesman, meant nothing short of an avowed intention of going to war on their side...
I did not realize, however, until very recently during a visit to the temporary French capital at Vichy how widespread is the belief in France that the United States encouraged France to declare war against Germany, and that our accredited representatives in France had promised almost immediate armed aid...I found that thy all considered that the United States by its official statements, acts and general conduct toward the European states during the past few years had on the whole and to a large degree led Europe to believe that it would again intervene in a European War on the side of Britain and France against Nazi Germany."
In a rush despatch to President Roosevelt on June 10, 1940, Paul Reynaud, President of the French Council of Ministers, stated, among other things: "'Mr. President: I wish first to express to you my gratitude for the generous aid that you have decided to give is in aviation and armament. We shall fight and if necessary in our American possessions...I beseech you to declare publicly that the United States will give the Allies aid...I know the gravity of such a gesture. 'You said to us yourself on the 5th of October, 1937: 'I am compelled and you are compelled to look ahead. The hour has now come for these.'"
The Times Herald of Washington on June 12, 1940, contained a dispatch from London, which was headed "British stirred by hope U.S. will enter war ‑‑ full conscription of men, materials soon is predicted. The article states: London, June 11, (C.T.P.S.) ‑‑ Diplomatic sources in London today, after close study of President Roosevelt's latest speech, expressed the view America has now moved from benevolent neutrality to the status of 'prebelligerency.' The question is raised as to how long it will be before American pilots, American planes and American warships will be actively engaged in the European war.
This interpretation of the President's pronouncement is being actively propagated in the press here. C.V.R. Thompson, Daily Express correspondent in New York, in an article in Wednesday's issue, announces jubilantly, 'the United States is coming in,' and predicts American conscription within a month.
Not only will manpower be conscripted but money, materials, factory space and everything else.'...Admitting America's inability to send an expeditionary force abroad for some months at least, the correspondent points out that she could send a highly efficient air force and vital supplies to aid the Allies and 'build up her vast striking power for a decisive blow early next year.'"
On August 26, 1940, Senator Wheeler charged on the floor of the Senate that Sir George Paish, a guest at the White House on August 16th: "...had been lobbying among Senators in favor of legislation that would aid Great Britain although not registered as an alien agent at the State Department."
Senator Wheeler declared that Sir George had said to him: "'I am responsible for getting the United States into the last war. I am over here now and I am going to cross the United States on a speaking tour. I am going to get this country into this war.'"
On October 6, 1940, Col. Robert McCormic, editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune, analyzed the cost of an American invasion of Europe. Col. McCormic said: "Such an invasion would cost the United States at least 400 billion dollars, a million deaths, and several million ruined lives."
General Hugh Johnson, writing in the New York World Telegram during the debates on the Bloom "Neutrality" (?) bill, said that the public utterances and actions of this administration at one time indicate involvement in war and another time assurance against it, adding: "They don't make sense when read together. 'In 1937, the President wanted to join with the 'peace‑loving nations' to 'quarantine the aggressors.' In April, 1939, he (Roosevelt) hinted that we couldn't stay out, and promptly approved a Washington Post editorial which so interpreted him and openly insisted that when he said at Warm Springs, 'If we don't have war...;' he meant by 'we' to include this country."
General Johnson pointed out that: "...these open utterances tie in with others...denied or not confirmed, like 'our frontier is in France' the public must take to mean that sooner or later we will have a stake in the outcome of Europe's troubles."
In the Baltimore Sun, H.L. Mencken stated: "The Hon. Mr. Roosevelt has been engaged upon this double‑headed enterprise (war‑scare) ever since the current war began: indeed he launched it so long ago as the time of his Chicago speech. The White House and the State Department, at this moment, are busy agencies of English propaganda, and so effective that the English have almost given up propaganda of their own. It would take only a half dozen fireside chats to finish the job. In a few short weeks the plain people would be convinced that Hitler was about to seize South America, blockade New York, and bomb Miami. And in another week or two Congress would be panicked into wiping out the English war debt and starting a new one."
In the Senate reports for June 12, 1940, Senator Holt was reported as saying that it was well known here in Washington, "...the social lobby controlled by the dictates of the British Embassy has enlisted for the duration of the war."
Senator Millard E. Tydings (D), of Maryland, denounced President Roosevelt's speech accusing Premier Mussolini of stabbing France in the back. Senator Tydings observed that the business of making war is not a one‑way street, agreeing with Senator Holt that bluffing may cause others to declare war on us. Another incident which elicited expressions of amazement was a radio broadcast Tuesday night by Edwin C. Hill, a commercial commentator.
Senator Holt quoted Hill as saying that the President had discussed the question of getting this country into the war with certain individuals who called at the White House. Senator Wheeler said he, too, had been informed that Hill, "...made a statement over the radio to the effect that the President of the United States called in some people last evening and questioned them as to whether or not we should have a declaration of war at the present time. It seems to me that a statement of that kind, given out by a radio commentator, if it was not true should certainly be sufficient reason for not permitting him to speak further over the radio as a commentator in this country."
Noting that Mr. Roosevelt had endorsed the advertisement of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, Holt submitted data as to its background and origin.
"Of course they have a front, a stuffed shirt, William Allen White, but let us see where that committee started." Holt said. "Eighteen prominent bankers and others met secretly on the 29th day of April in New York to set up this committee. They were called by Frederick R. Coudert. Do Senators know who he is? He was the legal advisor of the British Embassy who helped lead us into the last World War. Frederick Coudert was the man who helped generate the propaganda that took American boys to their death in 1917 and 1918, while he was on the payroll of the British government."
In Colonel Lindberg's address of June 15, 1940, he said: "Arming for the defense of America is compatible with normal life, commerce and culture...But arming to attack the continent of Europe would necessitate that the lives and thoughts of every man, woman and child in this country be directed toward war for the next generation, probably for the next several generations. We cannot continue for long to follow the course our government has taken without becoming involved in war with Germany...There are some who already advocate our entry into such a war. There are many perfectly sincere men and women who believe that we can send weapons to kill people in Europe without becoming involved in war with those people...This dabbling we have been doing in European affairs can lead only to failure in the future as it has in the past...We demand that foreign nations refrain from interfering in our hemisphere, yet we constantly interfere in theirs. And while we have been taking an ineffective part in the war abroad, we have inexcusably neglected our defenses at home. In fact we have let our own affairs drift along until we have not even a plan of defense for the continent of North America."
In Herring's book "And So To War," already quoted, he states: "These three chapters in American, and British, history served the two nations in different degrees. The first, the Monroe doctrine, served both Britain and America. The second, our entrance into the Far East and our espousal of the Open Door policy, served Britain greatly, America little. The third, our participation in the World War, served Britain and cheated America. The record reveals the ineptitude of American diplomacy." 1
Because of the appointment of Admiral Leahy to the French Court at Vichy, the following from page 52 of this same book is of interest in indicating that our Congress is certainly not informed as to some phases of international intrigue: "On the question of an 'agreement' with Great Britain, it was revealed that Captain Ingersoll, the naval chief of war plans, had recently (February 1938) spent some days in London. His visit was kept a great secret, and was only accidently revealed. Congressman Brewster of Maine and others demanded the meaning of that visit. Admiral Leahy refused to say what had transpired."
The French Press
From voluminous press clippings taken from French papers we select a few to show the challenge which they make to the emphatic statements made by President Roosevelt in his address at Philadelphia, October 23, 1940. "L'anatheme de la Maison Blance" (The Anathema of the White House), on January 13, 1939, in "Je Suis Partout:" "Once more Mr. Roosevelt has spoken. Once more he has pronounced his praise of democracy. Once more he has excommunicated the wicked dictators...the speech of President Roosevelt has singularly reinforced all these gentlemen of the war parties. Here they are all sprightly and blooming, calling more loudly the citizens to arms to the cry 'Roosevelt with us.' And that appears to be the clearest result of this harangue.
Israel. One must not be deceived by the pacific humanitarianism of the vocabulary of the White House. Mr. Roosevelt has perfectly understood that war is the one opportunity of allowing the little Hebrew comrades of his Brain Trust to revenge themselves and to reconquer Central Europe. Another war in which America would take the initiative or even active participation ...The events of September were, in fact, for the Jewish camarilla of the White House, a great disappointment. Mr. Roosevelt was so sure of war that during all the Anglo‑German negotiations up to the point where his words might have carried weight, he was careful to be silent. Then seeing that the French and English were weakening he took the trouble to telephone personally Sir John Simon and said to him; 'Go ahead, we will support you.'...The encouragements which Mr. Roosevelt gives so prodigally today to the crusades of the democracies have no other object but that of provoking Munich's revenge...One might be taken in by this vocabulary. The annoying thing is that Mr. Roosevelt, who anathematized the wicked Fascists, has taken the initiative of renewing diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. and that every year in the month of October he send congratulations to Mr. Stalin. Mr. Stalin's love of religion is well known ‑‑ Mr. Stalin's government by democracy ‑‑ Mr. Stalin dearly loved the Jews and Messrs. Hitler and Mussolini do not like them. A simple little difference which explains the whole policy of Mr. Roosevelt, for, in short, Mr. Roosevelt has never tired to mobilize the 'universal conscience' when they were disemboweling the White Russians and the Spanish Christians including the clergy and nuns."
From "Je Suis Partout," Paris, January 20, 1939: "Le Gouverment Amaricain ne veut pas faire la guerre, Il y pousse l'Europe." 1 As you read this it should be kept in mind this last phrase when the evidence is presented as to the part which Wm. C. Bullitt played, as charged by the French press, in starting World War II.
"American will never forget, I hope, that the fundamental cause of this entry into war on the side of the allies was its appetite for gain. This appetite for gain 'from the beginning of hostilities, was so devouring that the Americans clamored for war against Great Britain, when the English blockade put an end to the American commerce of the Central Empires.
These exigencies ended when England and France compensated the losses by doubling their orders.'...War is inevitable but the United States will not escape participation. Go ahead, they say, we are backing you! Perhaps, but at what a distance. The President has decided to give an entirely new complexion to the fourth New Deal. The first two were social‑economic; the third was widening the power of the executive and the elimination of the political minority. The fourth, based on popular hostility against the dictators, followed the program of massive rearmament and practices a strange and purely oratorical policy to fight 'Fascism.' 'Let us hope,' says the Daily News, 'that it will not change in character.'...In creating this war cycle, says the reactionaries, the President makes sure of maintaining his power, prepares for a possible dictatorship in time of war."
The Patriot, London, March 23, 1939, p. 231, published an article which appeared first in Action Francaise the 7th of March, 1939, from the pen of J. Delebecque, who was formerly in the French Department of Foreign Affairs. Action Francaise in a daily paper still being published while most of la grande presse, which deceived the people, had been closed by the Petain regime. The New France is being shaped to a considerable extent by the views of Charles Maurras, political editor of Action Francaise, who was made a member of the French Academy in 1939. Delebecue's article shows that there are Frenchmen who are wise as to who wants war. Its translation follows: "The Assault of The Warmongers. For a long time the warmongers have tried to conceal themselves and to act by indirection. All are pressing for war, while affirming their love for peace. That position is impossible to maintain today. The truth is that the Jews and their friends cannot contain themselves any longer. They must have their war which will avenge their race, and which will insure, they hope, its domination. A phenomena which is not new in history. Israel loses all prudence. The passion which ferments in its veins needs an outlet. Its influence in the parties called progressive permits them to mislead the 'masses.'
In the democratic countries it controls a great number of commanding positions. In Russia it (Jewish domination) is all powerful. Why will it not deem this the favorable moment? The very fact which it uses to screen its purpose is of a nature to dissipate its hesitation. Let us burn our bridges. Without doubt it is a large order, but, ad M. Zyromski said, one must 'run the risk.' These men, to steer well their great scheme, rely very much on America, or more precisely on American Jewry. (I must make that distinction because it is necessary). President Roosevelt, surrounded by Jews, led by them, or following them willingly, (we have before us a reprint from the New York Times which says that the philosophy of the New Deal is that of Justice Brandeis) the result is the same, in each one of his oratorical outbursts, he gives the impression, more and more violent, that he adheres to the crusade. The correspondent of the Paris Midi in the United States, M. Fransales half‑Jew and mouthpiece of world Jewry in New York, has declared without shame 'It is no longer a question of politics, this is a question of faith.' No doubt that faith, we are assured, is democratic faith, but that faith is strangely mingled with Jewish faith."
The following is a translation from "Action Francaise," July 11, 1939, titled "Firmness Does Not Exclude Prudence," by J. Delebecque: "England's resolution and determination are excellent. One should beware of the intrigue of those who are doubting and those who would like to assume an air of bravery of a kind to precipitate the desired conflict. In the critical period we are passing through the chiefs of state in England, as in France, are literally walking on eggs. There are people who advise them to put on iron‑shod boots because, for various reasons ‑‑ personal interests, fanaticism, total bewilderment ‑‑ they desire the 'bloody omelette.' The Poles have in hand a blank cheque signed by London and Paris.
They are urged to use it. It is sought to incite and intimidate the British and French ministers by shouting into their ears, 'Munich.' The holy war in which they seek to plunge us is not a war for an endangered fatherland; it a war of 'ideas,' the religious war in a new guise; that is to say, a war truly frightful and criminal. Any such affected patriotism is to us terribly suspicious. The perfect statesman needs a cool head and a strong heart. And in these days we need more than ever a perfect statesman."
The following appeared in the Herald Tribune, New York, in a dispatch from Paris dated September 14, 1940. Jacques Doriot, Fascist leader, former Deputy, former mayor of St. Denis, now cooperating with marshal Petain, wrote a significant article in his weekly "L'Emancipation Nationale." He has been a steel worker. He is an orator. He demands that the Government "settle definitely the Jewish problem." He favors a Germany victory and in a "letter to an Anglophile," he said that in the event of a British victory, "...the big authors of the war and the present catastrophe, Mandel, Blum and Reynaud would once more become masters of France. Jewish finance would choke us with its corruption. Freemasonry would re‑establish its dictatorship. Plutocracy would reign as master, and our national independence would not be re‑established. For France would officially become the first dominion of his British majesty, whereas yesterday we were that on unofficially. In the Herald Tribune (N.Y.) appeared the following article, dated, Vichy, November 28, 1940: 'Vichy Discards Old Tie, Liberalism with U.S. Says lasting Relations Hinge on New Europe Economy. The idealological relationship which linked America and France as twin democracies and upholders of political and economic liberalism must henceforth be discarded.'"
This phrase "twin democracies" just quoted, has been, as stated, discarded by France and no wonder for at last they had proven the truth of what Lenin said: "The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it ceases to be necessary...the more rapidly does every form of the state begin to decay."
What we have witnessed in our own country during the last eight years also proves the diagnosis given by Lenin and yet we observe two incidents in which President Roosevelt, in using this word "democracy," or its equivalent, has in his "facon de parler," been guilty of a "faux pas." You will doubtless recall that the Empress Catherine of Russia adopted certain ideas which found their expression in the French Revolution towards which she was also quite sympathetic. It required one hundred and twenty‑five years for the seed so sown to crucify but in 1917 the revolution in Russia proved the accuracy of the prophet Hosea's prediction, applied, primarily to Israel: "They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind."
Witness, therefore, the deliberate affront committed by President Roosevelt against the decent people of this country when he sent on November 7, 1934, the following cable to Soviet Russia: "Please accept on this anniversary of the establishment of the Soviet government the assurance of my best wishes for the welfare and prosperity of your country."
Congratulations of like nature followed on each anniversary date until 1938. Was it your congratulations, that were so submitted? If not, may we not find our reply in what Mr. Amos Pinchot wrote to the Hon. Harold L. Ickes, October 14, 1936: "H.G. Wells in the spring of 1934 spent a good part of four days at the White House talking with the President...upon the New Deal. He talked with Berle, Tugwell and Frankfurter...He returned to England and flew to Moscow, visited Stalin...then went home and wrote his book...Wells came to the opinion that Roosevelt and Stalin had so much in common that it would be advisable for them to work together for a socialist world state...One thing more. And this seems to me important and relevant at this time. Will you ask the President what was said, in the now famous talks at the White House, that made Mr. Wells conclude, after his visits to Washington and Moscow, that Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin are moving in the same direction?"
The second incident follows. During the week which ended January 11, 1941, President Roosevelt sent a cable congratulating Marshal Petain. In it he referred to "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity," the former slogan of France, but which has been discarded since the occupation. It is a marvel of history that it stood as long as it did, for it was a product of the French Revolution and of this incident Mrs. Nesta Webster tells us in her "World Revolution," p. 36: "It was not, however, until after the overthrow of the monarchy on the 10th of August, 1792, when the mob attacked the Tuileries and massacred the Swiss guards that the work of demolition began on the vast scale planned by Weishaupt. From this moment the role of Illuminism (read 'The Roosevelt Saga' and see how Clinton Roosevelt, born in 1804, advocated a dictatorship for the United States (he was an Illuminati) can be clearly traced through the succeeding phases of the Revolution. Thus it is from the 10th of August onwards that we find the tri‑color, banner of the usurper, replaced by the red flag of the social revolution, whilst the cry of 'Vive notre roi d'Orleans!' gives way to the Masonic watchword of 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'"
As we examine history to learn something about this thing so recently congratulated by the sage of the White House, our attention is directed to a sermon preached by Timothy Dwight, President of Yale, to the people of New Haven in July, 1798: "No personal or national interest of man has been uninvaded; no impious sentiment of action against God has been spared; no malignant hostility against Christ and His religion has been unattempted. Justice, truth, kindness, piety, and moral obligation universally have not been merely trodden under foot...but ridiculed, spurned, and insulted as the childish bugbears of drivelling idiocy...For what end shall we be connected with men of whom this is the character and conduct? Is it that our churches may become temples of reason, our Sabbath a decade, and our Psalms of praise Marseillaise hymns?...Is it that we may see our Bibles cast into a bonfire, the vessels of the sacramental supper borne by an ass in public procession, and our children either wheedled or terrified, uniting in the mob, chanting mockeries against God, and hailing in the sound of the 'Ca ira' the ruin of their religion and the loss of their souls? Shall our sons become the disciples of Voltaire and the dragoons of Marat, or our daughters the concubines of the Illuminati?"
In response to this question by Dr. Dwight, the following is taken from page 15 of "The Roosevelt Saga:" "And what is the plan of the Illuminati? It is the plan which the admitted leaders of the French Revolution established: it is the exact plan of the Soviet ‑‑ a hierarchy and its dictator. It is that set forth in Philip Dru (written by Colonel House who was an advisor to Candidate Roosevelt) in Clinton Roosevelt's New Dynasty, and it is the plan almost established under the New Deal. It has only a short distance to go before becoming a complete dictatorship."
Clinton Roosevelt was born in 1804. In his "New Dynasty," with chart shown in "The Roosevelt Saga," the author of this latter pamphlet states most appropriately on page 15: "This partial comparison of the philosophy and plans of reform of the two Roosevelts, Franklin D. and Clinton, and the tracing of their identity with that of the Illuminati which made so much trouble for Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton in the name of 'democracy,' throws a great light upon the present situation.
Now, as of old, many sincere people; preachers, social workers, and other idealists‑who rightly disapprove of the blunders and corruption of our time, are embracing these age‑old dangerous theories, without knowledge of their background.
The propaganda is cleverly devised to appeal to these fine people, who are often without experience in practical matters and who believe they could do a much better job. Yet these same people are the very ones who cry loudest against 'Fascism,' while saying far less against its twin sisters 'Communism' and the 'New Deal,' whereas, if they will dig deeply enough into the matter they will ALWAYS discover a hierarchical form of Government, under one name or another, with its inevitable Dictator. Today, we in these United States are close to experiencing the achievement of that form of Government. Participation in any War will complete the achievement."
The reply to Mr. Roosevelt comes in the form of a belated dispatch from Paris, dated December 19, 1940, but which appeared in the Herold Tribune, January 11, 1941. This was entitled: "Jews Forbidden To Do Business in Nazi France. Anti‑Semitism started in June:" "The collapse of the Third Republic brought anti‑Semitism to France in the occupied and also the unoccupied zones. After Nazi troops marched into Paris last June the Paris press became strongly anti‑Semantic, blaming the Jews for the French debacle and suggesting they be dealt with 'Nazi fashion.'...Meanwhile, the government of Premier Marshal Henri Petain ordered Jews classed in an 'inferior category.' It ordered the legal, medical, entertainment, educational and journalistic professions 'purified' of Jews. A number of Jewish government officials and employees have been retired.
Jews in unoccupied France, North Africa and the Near East have been disenfranchised. The press of the unoccupied zone has blamed the French defeat on Jews." From the same paper but by wireless from Vichy of January 14th, 1941, appeared another article, entitled: "Collaboration Held Desired."
"'Collaboration' with Germany, especially in the economic field, is desired by Pierre‑Etienne Flandin who replaced Pierre Laval as Minister of Foreign Affairs, according to well‑informed sources here."
The New York Times, January 15, 1941. "Britain Is Assailed In Vichy Broadcast" France Cast on Side of Italy, Spain and Portugal, Against London and its Empire.
"Vicy, France, Jan. 14 (UP) French Government propagandists tonight fired at Britain their harshest criticism since the Dakkar incident and the naval battle at Mers el‑Kebir, shattering any hope that the breach between the former allies might be narrowing.
It was the first clear‑cut statement of the French policy toward Britain since Pierre‑Etienne Flandin succeeded Pierre Laval as Foreign Minister a month ago. The official propaganda service took as its occasion for the blast a radio speech by Alfred Duff Cooper, British Minister of Information, to Latin America.
The entire propaganda handout tonight was devoted to a French rebuttal of Mr. Duff Cooper's speech. It definitely cast France on the side of Italy, Spain and Portugal as against Britain.
Britain was accused of having despoiled the Latin powers' colonial empires for the grandeur of the British Empire. Mr. Duff Cooper was charged with bad faith, the propagandists insisting that the Latins have been perpetual victims of the British from the sixteenth century.
Inasmuch as M. Flandin is head of propaganda activities as well as Foreign Minister, there could be no doubt that no change had occurred in Vichy feeling for Britain since the departure of M. Laval from the government...After having fought the Portuguese through the centuries, the British ended by making Portugal a virtual vassal state after having studied a plan to divide the Portuguese colonies shortly before the World War."
Elsewhere the reader's attention was directed to what would come from the pen of Mr. Stanton B. Leeds in his book "These Rule France," published by Bobbs, Merrill Co., N.Y., in 1940. Mr. Leeds is a journalist who spent sixteen years in France. He is an American. Mr. Leeds shows that democracy, introduced by President Wilson and misused since his day as it applies to these United States, has failed to protect France in the one hundred and fifty years since 1789, in which period France has been invaded by foreign armies five times, while under its Kings, Louis XIII to XVI, there had been no invasion in 170 years. On pages 236‑237, he says: "No one can form a sound conclusion without knowing the facts, and the facts are never published, at least not at the psychological moment. If any American doubts this, let him ask the President a specific question: Why the dispatches sent to Washington, or the messages telephoned there, on September 29th and 30th, 1938, by the American Ambassador in Paris, William C. Bullitt, were not published? If all that is claimed for democracy were true, the American people should have been informed immediately of what Bullitt knew or guessed, and of what he wanted done. The American people ran the risk at that moment of being involved in a foreign war again, but this sort of thing is never made public. To do so would disturb international relations."
On page 281 Mr. Leeds with precision, shows that Mr. Bullitt is a Bolshevik going back twenty years, for at that time was he not appointed one of the committee of three to wait on Lenin to learn on what terms the latter would make peace? (See what follows, taken from New Masses, a Communist periodical). On page 280 he shows some of Mr. Bullitt's tactics. (The use of the word "Fascist" was necessary to get the book published, so substitute "Bolshevist" when reading the following): "...so Daladier denounced these Communists and broke the general strike they understood as 'protest against Munich.' This fight cut deep, so deep that scars refused to heal. It has been replete with incidents also, of which two were typical. For one thing, it was reported that the American Ambassador, William C. Bullitt, had been close to Daladier during all this. Visiting him constantly, he had given him advice, a dangerous thing for an Ambassador to do, if he did it. For another, the Action Francaise had been seized for printing a parody of the Internationale, saying that Blum, Mandel and Reynaud should be the first to die if they forced war on France.
Naturally this did not please these statesmen and the Minister of the Interior, Albert Sarraut, confiscated the Royalist paper for that day. As for the American Ambassador ‑‑ but what of the Ambassador? What of this 'high‑hatted' millionaire, this 'adviser' to more governments than one, who tiptoed around Europe for years before he was sent first to Moscow, then to Paris as representative of the American President? Had he gone too far? Many thought so, but the wish, I fear, fathered the thought.
They could never prove what they suspected. To begin with, what they suspected was that Bullitt some time before this had told the French that with war a Fascist (Bolshevist) dictatorship would take over American lives and property completely. At that time it was not known generally that this plan was being hatched in Washington, and Fascist (Bolshevist) was an unpleasant word to apply to a dictatorship intended to defend America. But that was not all that the French had been told about it.
This plan contemplated raising a very large army ‑‑ one that America did not need if America was going to limit military activates solely to the defense of the American mainland. But how did the French learn of this plan long before Americans did? From whom could they have learned it, except from a man close to those in power in America ‑‑ and who was closer than Bullitt? No one, admittedly! But Bullitt's long career had aroused a certain type of unfriendliness. Certain financiers, like certain politicians, favored the Left, so Bullitt's personal wealth did not prove that he was conservative, nor even that he was moderate. What, then, did explain his position? For the most part, his critics insisted that the Ambassador's real viewpoint could be deduced from the fact that he had quarreled with Woodrow Wilson over what should be done to Russia and Lenin."
In the light of the foregoing, and the statement, so emphatically given by Roosevelt at Philadelphia October 23, 1940, that there was nothing to involve this nation in any war, we are moved to say that Bynyan's character, "Facing ‑ Both ‑ Ways," is still alive. This Janus‑faced personality sits in the White House. If any should doubt this, let them read again carefully what appears above, keeping before his eyes that portion of the Philadelphia address from which we have quoted.
If that is not sufficient to make our charge, then read the following which we take from President Roosevelt's address to the nation September 3, 1939: "You are, I believe, the most enlightened and the best informed people in all the world at this moment. You are subjected to no censorship of news, and I want to add that your government has no information which it hesitates to withhold from you or which it has any thought of withholding from you...I myself cannot and do not prophecy the course of events abroad ‑‑ and the reason is that because I have of necessity such a complete picture of what is going on in every part of the world, I do not dare to do so. And the other reason is that I think it is honest for me to be honest with the people of the United States...We seek to keep war from our firesides by keeping war from coming to the Americas. For that we have historic precedent that goes back to the days of the administration of President George Washington...I hope the United States will keep out of this war. I believe that it will. And I give you assurances that every effort of your government will be directed toward that end."
Let us examine the evidence in the light of these postulations. The average voter has been led to believe that when political parties met in their conventions it was for the purpose of writing a platform and then nominating a candidate to run on that platform.
In the case of Governor Roosevelt at Albany in April, 1932, he stated that the old order in this country had apparently run its course and if a change was coming ‑‑ why not now? We are left in doubt as to the direction he was facing on that occasion, for Emile Gauvreau, in his book "What So Proudly We Hailed," says the preface, referring to the election returns in November, 1932: "The Chief New Nealer TO BE of the New Deal blew a curling cyclone of smoke...'I am going to recognize Russia. I am going to send people there to see what the Russians are doing.'"
Mr. Tugwell, an ardent New Dealer, when persona grata with Mr. Roosevelt, delivered an address in California in which he said: "The Future (for the United States) is becoming Visible in Russia."
From a pamphlet titled: "Revolution and the Real Fifth Column," page 8, we relate: "From Advance Copy, on stationery of the Bureau of Publicity, Democratic National Committee, 1066 National Press Bldg., Washington, D.C., there is found the statement made by Mr. Farley, June 27, 1934, before the Rotary International Convention at Detroit: To listen to our critics, one would think that the various elements of the recovery program were haphazard adventures made on the spur of the moment because some professor whispered to him (F.D.R., author) the professor's favored views of political economy. Let me tell you that there is nothing sporadic about this program. It was worked out in Mr. Roosevelt's mind even before he was nominated for the Presidency. He knew exactly what he was going to be faced with when he came to the White House. He had studied every phase of the impending situation. From the histories and from living authorities, he learned all that one man can learn of the crises that have beset nations: of the methods that have succeeded and those that have failed.' The substance of this address appeared in the Herald Tribune the following day."
Inasmuch as President Roosevelt, in his address of September 3, 1939, referred favorably to an "historic precedent" established by George Washington, it would seem appropriate to direct his attention to a quotation taken from a letter sent by General Washington to C.C. Pinckney July 8, 1796: "It is a fact too notorious to be denied that the greatest embarrassments under which the administration of this Government labors proceed from the counter action of people among themselves, who are more disposed to promote the views of another nation than to establish national character of their own."
We are confident that if Congressional persuasion, with pressure, is brought to bear upon Mr. Bullitt, that not only would the charges made by Mr. Leeds and others be vindicated, but that, in its train, this country would doubtless learn that the beginning of the intrigue coincides with the moving of Mr. Bullitt from Russia to France as our Ambassador. In support of this statement following are articles taken from the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times and The Herald Tribune of New York.
"Bullitt Accused Of War Guilt In New Paris Paper ‑‑ Encouraged Resistance to Nazis, It Charges. By Alex Small. (Chicago Tribune Press Service). Paris, Nov. 4 (By Courier to Berlin, Delayed). The four day old newspaper Le Nouveau Temps today accused William C. Bullitt, American ambassador to France, of playing a role which helped plunge France into the losing war against Germany. The paper, resembling somewhat the old Le Temps and having a staff consisting mostly of editors from that formerly semi‑official organ, declared: 'Few people know, for example, that if M. Daladier (Eduard Daladier, then French premier) was disposed at 14 o'clock (2 p.m.) on Aug. 31, 1939, to accept unconditionally the Italian proposition of a European conference and if on the same day at 18 o'clock (6 p.m.) he put off French adhesion to M. Duce's offer, it was because in the interval he had conversations with Mr. Bullitt and with Bullitt's friend, Lukasiewicz (Juljusz Lukasiewicz, then Polish ambassador to France).' Based on Interview. The editorial was based on an interview recently given in unoccupied territory by the former French foreign minister, Georges Bonnet. The editorial asked for serious reflection on the part of 'the numerous friends which France possesses beyond the Atlantic, sincere and objective friends as well as too zealous friends who sometimes are false friends.' Among the latter are people who often gave, the leaders of our country extremely bad advice,' the editorial charged.
The paper then accused certain Parisian journalists, notably Genevieve Tabouis and Henri de Kerillis, of getting encouragement from two Americans, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. and Bernard Baruch. It declared: 'The truth is that the American circles which even today favor some sort of military support of the United States in favor of Britain bear a heavy responsibility in that noxious psychosis which pushed our country first into war and then to a resistance carried beyond the limits of reason. Asserts Promises Made.
Too many spokesmen of Washington, D.C., did not cease repeating before September, 1939, 'Stand up to the German claims and America will help.' These same men, once the conflict began, promised each week and for the following month, American intervention. Without these illusory encouragements, numerous French politicians would not have dared to combat the pacific policy of M. Bonnet.
The appearance of Le Nouveau Temps was interpreted as a certain sign of the return of the French government at Vichy to the region of Paris in the near future." 1
"Flandin Expected To Aid Riom Trial ‑‑ Quoted as Accusing Daladier of Chief Responsibility in Outbreak of War; Lies to people alleged ‑‑ Nazi Radio Summarizes His Charges in Vindication of Germany's Course,2Paris, Dec. 10 (Delayed, via Berlin) The prospect that former Premier Pierre‑Etiene Flandin will indirectly appear against former Premiers Leon Blum and Eduard Daladier and other defendants approaching trial before the Riom high court was held out in today's Matin. It reported imminent publication of 'sensational revelations' on war guilt by M. Flandin and other prominent politicians. The paper announces publication of a series of articles by M. Flandin and others entitled 'Veterans Accuse.' The Matin ways the revelations will prove damaging evidence against 'war mongers,' specifying M. Blum, M. Daladier, former Generalissimo Maurice Gustave Gamelin and former Air Minister Guy La Chambre.
Flandin Accuses Daladier: Pierre‑Etienne Flandin, in an interview in the Matin, accused the then Premier Edouard Daladier of 'the greater part of the responsibility' for the war, according to a broadcast of the German‑controlled Amsterdam radio recorded Friday at the Columbia Broadcasting System's short‑wave listening station. The broadcast added: 'Flandin declared that he had visited Daladier on the 27th of August of last year. Flandin then said to Daladier that this war would be a crime ‑‑ it had to be prevented by all means.
If you are willing to prevent war,' said Flandin to Daladier, 'then we shall support you regardless. But you have to go to real negotiation. The German Government has taken resolute decisions. Hitler will not give way. He will not stop until he has reached his object.' Daladier, however, was of another opinion. Daladier had the conviction that Hitler would not be able to stand up against the British‑French military cooperation. Moreover, the French Ambassador to Berlin (Robert) Coulondre, reported that Hitler did not want to go farther. Flandin declared that Daladier received his information almost exclusively from the British Intelligence Service, and from certain evidence. It was proved further that Jewish influences had put aside every one of those men who would have had a good influence for the peaceful solution.
Henderson Contracted: In contradiction to the declaration of (Sir Nevile) Henderson, the British Ambassador to Berlin, Flandin said that the British Ambassador had understood very well the German proposals referring to Poland. Flandin guaranteed further that the Polish Government never saw these proposals, since neither the French nor the British governments had communicated these proposals to them.
Flandin stated that Germany awaited the Polish negotiators in vain. These negotiators could not come. The Polish Government did not know anything about Germany's proposals. Flandin stressed that the then French Government had strong intentions not to tell the French people the real state of affairs. Daladier had sent a private message to Hitler to which the latter answered on the Twenty‑seventh of August, 1939. They had agreed that these letters would not be published.
In spite of this, certain French papers published Daladier's letters but not the letters written by Hitler. The German Ambassador in Paris protested against this publication, and demanded that the replies of the Fuehrer should be published also, so that the French people would be informed, honestly and justly.
Then, declared Flandin, the credit demanded by Daladier was approved of by the French Parliament because of two great lies ‑‑ the government had declared in the first place that negotiations were being carried on between London, Paris, Rome and Berlin; and secondly that the government would appeal to the Parliament if it intended to declare war." 1
"Bullitt Accused Of Helping Pull France Into War ‑‑ 'Gringoire' Writer Says He Egged Poles On, Fought Mussolini's Peace Offer ‑‑ By John Elliot (By Wireless to the Herald Tribune, Copyright, 1940, New York Tribune Inc.) Vichy, Dec. 21. ‑‑ William C. Bullitt, former American Ambassador to France, is pictured as a leading warmonger who helped plunge France into war by pressure on Premier Edouard Daladier and Julius Lukasiewicz, Polish Ambassador at Paris, in an article on 'War Responsibilities,' by Phillippe Henroit, Published in the current number of the weekly 'Gringoire.' Bullitt has been frequently accused through inference by the French anti‑war party of having been largely instrumental in getting France involved in war. Notably, Fernand de Brinon, now French Ambassador at Paris, has accused a 'high American personality' of having had a bad influence on Daladier by his 'ill‑founded reports and bad advice.' This is the first time, however, that this accusation has been directed against Bullitt by name.
Henriot wrote that on the eve of war, in August, 1939, Lukasiewicz, 'powerfully and noisily shoved along by William Bullitt, stirred up bellicism among journalists and parliamentarians whom he met.' Bullitt was described as urging Daladier to turn down Italian Premiere Benito Mussolini's eleventh‑hour proposal for another Munich conference to save peace.
Ferociously Hostile: 'During this time,' wrote the 'Gringoire' writer, 'Daladier had his consultations. Gen. Maurice Gamelin (former Allied Commander‑in‑chief) and the Ambassadors Bullitt and Lukaziewicz parade before him. One can easily guess that these last two at least have shown themselves ferociously hostile to the Italian propositions.'
At 5 p.m. on Sept. 2, the day before Great Britain and France declared war, Lukaslewics was pictured as rushing into the office of Georges Bonnet, Foreign Minister, and reproaching him for temporizing and not declaring war on Germany, crying 'You do not keep your word!' 'He used even stronger language,' reported Henriot. 'At the Embassy Bullitt had heated him white hot.' Finally, Bullitt was accused of being one of the persons who persuaded Daladier to declare war against Germany at 5 p.m. Sunday, Sept. 3, instead of giving Hitler until 5 a.m. Monday, as Bonnet desired. Bonnet was on the point of telephoning Coulondre (Robert Coulondre, French ambassador to Germany),' said the 'Gringoire' article, 'when Daladier called him to say that he had changed his mind and fixed the expiration time at 5 o'clock the same day. Bullitt, Lukasiewicz and Mandel (Georges Mandel, Minister of Interior) had won him over.'
Hoped for Army's Veto: Henriot published the text of the minutes of a meeting of principal war leaders of France with Daladier and Bonnet on Aug. 23 to decide whether France was prepared, from a military point of view, to carry out her obligations to Poland. This meeting was said to have been held at the demand of Bonnet, who hoped that French military men would reply in the negative and so aid him in his anti‑war policy. But Gamelin advocated France's standing by her engagements if necessary and declared that the French Army was ready. Asked how long Poland could resist a German attack, Gamelin replied: 'An honorable resistance on the part of Poland would prevent the mass of German forces being turned against us before the following spring. By that moment England would be at our sides.'
The Allied generalissimo expressed the view that while France would be more prepared after some months. Germany would be even more so because she would possess the Polish and Rumanian resources. 'Consequently,' he declared, 'France has no choice. The only solution is to hold to our engagements vis‑a‑vis Poland, which, besides, are anterior to the opening of negotiations with Soviet Russia.' (A reference to the Anglo‑French discussions with Moscow for the formation of a peace front, which had just broken down because of the signing of the Nazi‑Bolshevik pact).
Air Minister Was Confident: Guy LaChambre, Air Minister, gave the Cabinet an optimistic account of the French air force, which events were to belie the following spring. He told his colleagues that in pursuit planes France possessed 'a great number.' 'The Anglo‑French planes balance fairly the Italo‑German planes,' he added.
He admitted that France was not yet turning out bombers on a large scale and would not be until the beginning of 1940. But, he added: 'England will look after the massive bombardments of northern Germany. Co‑operation with the land forces can be assured under good conditions,' said the Air Minister. 'In spite of what we know of the German forces ‑‑ 4,000 warplanes of the first line, 5,000 in reserve and 3,000 planes for co‑operation ‑‑ the situation of our aviation must not weigh on the decisions of the government as it did in 1938.'
Gen. Gamelin and Admiral Jean Darian assured the Cabinet that the army and navy were ready. They said that at the beginning of the conflict they would not do much against Germany, but they could act vigorously against Italy if she came into the war. Besides, they were of the opinion that French mobilization itself would provide some relief for Poland by retaining a certain number of large German units on the French frontiers. 1 War and Dictatorship (An Editorial): Secretary Hull was asked by Representative Tinkham if Mr. Roosevelt's house bill 1776; all aid to Britain, did not 'carry the implication that our man power will eventually be sent abroad.' Mr. Hull said the bill described the aid to be given and carried no implication beyond that. He added: 'We have kept away from the man power phase.'
Congressmen questioning Mr. Hull commented on many of his answers from time to time as being evasive and unresponsive but few persons could read the questions and answers in the examination of the secretary of state without feeling that Mr. Roosevelt and he were approaching full participation in the war and that the passage of this bill by Congress would be preliminary to entering it.
Mr. Hull obviously was endeavoring to prepare the public mind for that eventuality. His picture of our national destiny without the defeat of Hitler was tragic and pathetic. He saw nothing but disaster in his land unless the Nazi war machine was destroyed and the Nazis themselves obliterated. He was unwilling to agree in any way with persons who do not take such a defeatist view and who consequently hold to the opinion that the United States can be made strong enough to defend itself with its tremendous resources and in its favorable position.
Mr. Hull's view is that of Mr. Roosevelt and of his secretaries of war and navy as well. Therefore, it is to be feared that bill 1776 is a bill to make war and to make it by removing all restraints of law from the chief executive.
The people who call this a war dictatorship bill have named it correctly. It is supported by persons who want to put the United States into the war and who will sacrifice their country to the dictatorship if that is the price to be paid for what they want; and by persons who will take the war if it is the means of getting the dictatorship.
Mr. Hull says that the law of self‑defense is paramount. Neutrality has vanished into thin air. We are about to be invaded by two great military nations, if not by a third which until recently was described as one. These and other alarming statements which picture a very strange United States are intended, first, to pass the dictatorship bill, and after that to sweep the people into full participation in war wherever a battle front can be found. Mr. Hull's evasiveness on some points and his frightfulness of prophecy on others afford proof of ultimate intentions if the bill can be passed.
If Congress yields to the pressure, it will have accepted for the people of the country the administration's foreign policy, which is that no peace will be made while Hitler and his allies are in power. The willingness of the people to give all aid to Britain which can be given without sending millions of American soldiers to foreign battlefields is being abused to put the country in the war.
Many of us have been unable to place any trust in Mr. Roosevelt's denials that American troops were to be used. He has been explicit but his acts do not bear him out. They have been the acts of a man with his mind made up, approaching his objective with increasingly provocative measures, all intended to sweep the people from one position to another until in confusion and alarm they find they have been forced to accept what they were trying to avoid. Mr. Hull described a state of war when he spoke for the bill. If Congress accepts his views and those of Mr. Roosevelt, if it passes the bill because it has accepted those views, if it declares for a policy of no peace but a peace of absolute victory, it may then later find itself so compromised by its own agreements that when Mr. Roosevelt appears before it to regret that there is no alternative to a declaration of war it may be unable to extricate itself.
Congress may have made so complete a surrender by establishing a war dictatorship intended to decide the outcome of a war that it may be too weakened to vote against full participation and the sending of millions of American soldiers into conflict to be prolonged for years. And as this conflict spreads and expends the resources and the man power of the country, the persons who want to create a new political order will have their opportunity. That is why the bill can be truly called a bill to destroy the republic." 2
Confirming evidence of the guilt of Mr. Bullitt appeared in a dispatch to the Chicago Tribune of September 21, 1940: "Swiss papers are more directly outspoken. In an article entitled 'From One Continent to Another,' the Gazette de Lausanne declares that Roosevelt 'has interfered in Europe with an extremely maladroitness,' while another Swiss paper suggests that American intrigues in European affairs conducted by William C. Bullitt, Ambassador to France, were in a measure responsible for the war."
The Baltimore Sun of August 25, 1940, in an article written by its correspondents in France, stated: "At one time Mr. Bullitt was widely quoted as saying that he did not let a day go by without having personal contact with the French government."
In the New Masses for October 29, 1940, is an article by Bruce Minton, captioned: "The Education of Ambassador Bullitt. How the dilettante of Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia became the glamour boy of the State Department. Sumner Welles and Cordell Hull don't like him, but FDR does."
From that is taken the following: "By the time he returned to the United States (from accompanying the Ford Peace Ship) he was a far greater authority on world politics than when he left. So much so that Woodrow Wilson pulled strings to have Bullitt fired from his newspaper job, and then through Colonel House invited him into the State Department to compile confidential reports on the Central Powers. Three doors down the corridor in the old State, War and Navy Building where he worked was the office of another young aristocrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, of Hyde Park, Groton, and Harvard...He realized that the greedy old men feared the people's strength and the success of the new system called 'Communism.' In exhausted Europe, the example of Russia was dangerous ‑‑ already Germany was in turmoil and Soviet had sprung up in Hungary. Through his close friend Colonel House, Bullitt passed on Steffen's sly suggestion that a secret American mission be sent to sound out the man Lenin on an agreement that would rid Russia of invading Allied and German armies, and allow the young state to live in peace and comity with the family of nations that Mr. Wilson proposed to form. Wilson agreed and Lloyd George gave grudging assent."
The article then shows how the report of Mr. Bullitt and others was repudiated by both Mr. Wilson and Lloyd George, resulting: "Bullitt experienced another deep disillusionment. Angrily he turned on the men who had disregarded his recommendations, angrily he resigned from the State Department with as much fanfare as a clever idealist can arouse at a time of violent political intrigue...He replaced the hero Wilson with the hero John Reed...For twelve years Bullitt waited. Then a good man in politics loomed on the horizon, his former colleague, Franklin D. Roosevelt."
Then follows an account of how Mr. Bullitt campaigned for the candidate Roosevelt, the latter's election, and the reward to Mr. Bullitt of a place in the State Department, his advocacy of the recognition of Russia, the preparation of the ground for the arrival of Mr. Litvinoff, resulting in recognition being effected and Mr. Bullitt's being the first American Ambassador "to the land of socialism."
Space forbids the recording of the incidents which led to this transfer to Paris. Then follows an account of the Munich Pact, and adds: "So Bullitt informed President Roosevelt that even if little Czechoslovakia perished, peace must be preserved, and Roosevelt agreed. The President's two messages to the heads of European states did their bit to prepare the love feast at Munich. Once the agreement was signed, Bullitt could safely leave for a personal visit to Washington. There he remarked, 'Up to the time of President Roosevelt's second message, every one was sure that war would come.'...Munich proved another disillusionment...In less than a year Europe was at war...He had vehemently approved Deladier's shelving of the Franco‑Soviet pact. He had promised the Polish ambassador to France (and on his excursion to Washington, the Polish ambassador to the United States) that Poland had nothing to fear. The United States, he said, would support France and Great Britain, and therefore nothing could happen to Poland. Premier Joseph Beck need not worry about his failure to come to terms with the Soviet Union. The support of the United States would more than compensate for the lack of an agreement with the Russians. When Premier Beck fled to Rumania after Poland's defeat, he took with him certain papers which he later sold to the Germans. The Germans published them as a White Paper, and most of the documents referred embarrassingly to Bullitt.
Of course, Bullitt denied their authenticity, as did his friend Roosevelt and Secretary Hull, for in the White Paper Jerzi Potocki, Polish ambassador in Washington, reputedly wrote that Bullitt had pledged American intervention on the side of Great Britain and France in the event of war; and Jules Lukasiewiecz in Paris quoted Bullitt as saying, 'Should war break out, we will certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.' Bullitt had learned much. It seemed unfair that his weighty opinions were greeted with such little respect by Senator Clark of Missouri:
'...the address of Mr. Bullitt (in Philadelphia), coming from a man in his position, at this time, is very little short of treason...the reason Mr. Bullitt is roaming around the country pleading the cause of the fascist and nazi‑controlled Petain government in France may be that he desires to keep commitments which he may have made, and remarks which he may have made in France, making material contribution to bringing about war, from coming out in the war‑guilt trials...' Such attacks were invidious. After all, Bullitt's speech had been discussed at length with the President, approved in detail by him, 'and must be taken, therefore, as an exact expression of the President's own views,' commented Alsop in the Washington Star. In fact, the speech was released and distributed by the State Department. Bullitt was serving his President well...He speaks not only for himself but also for his master, Franklin D. Roosevelt; and his master speaks for those who stand above him and who see profits in war, profits in the right kind of 'peace,' but no profits at all in the growing strength of the American people."
When Mr. Minton uses the phrase "those who stand above him" we wonder, if by chance, he was referring to the same group that Mr. Farley had in mind in his address at Detroit when he referred to the President's program of 1932, as having been "worked out before he was nominated."
What a pity that with so much at stake, Mr. Farley was not subpoenaed to testify before some Congressional Commission so that the country might be able to interpret intelligently what Mr. Roosevelt meant when he said, "We are on our way." And the group or race of people, meant when speaking of "those who stand above him."
What this "Way" was has been a mystery to many of our people. Mr. Roosevelt has introduced a new system in the political football field. He is the coach and the quarterback who not only calls the plays but who carries the ball. As he was a Jew, we can intelligently surmise who "Owns the Football Clug, Coach and Quarterback!"
His position is unique, in that, as many will recall as occurred not long ago in a real game, he was on his way to a wrong goal to make a touchdown. He was on his way to ward the destruction of millions of innocent Christians. As compared with 1936, some six millions more Americans tried to stop him from going in that direction and if his political opponent in that 1940 campaign had not subscribed to so many of the Roosevelt policies, the outcome might have been different. But then we must realize that the internationalists have totally controlled both political parties since the election of the Jew Woodrow Wilson.
In starring up unnecessary animosities, the President was guilty of using the phrase against Mussolini of stabbing France in the back. We dare to make this prediction that since the American people did not stop Roosevelt from getting us into World War II, which is much the same as letting the proverbial camel get his nose under the tent.
So future generations will journey to the shrine he had constructed at Hyde Park with the same morbid motive which prompts like people to visit the Ford Theater in Washington. It was there that the immortal Lincoln was shot in the back of the head by the Jew John Wilkes Boot (at least that is what we have been told. But actually it was Lincoln’s wife, who had been promised a life time supply of dope, who did the actual shooting and Booth, who was secretely transported to England where he spent his remaining years in affulene, although in solitude, got the credit).
Hyde Park will some day be visited to see the relics of a President who stabbed America in the back. That indistinct and undefinable odor which was barely to be detected in the summer of 1933 in the political atmosphere is a rank and pungent, a malodorous and offensive smell now to any American whose olfactory nerves are still Christian and Constitutionally sensitized. What this group now detect is the odor of brimstone. An appropriate proverb for him and his kind is: "The Road to Hell is Lined with Broken Promises."
It would be like carrying coals to Newcastle to attempt to recite the many promises which have been broken; the many lives that have been lost; the many who have been murdered by Franklin D. Roosevelt. But at the Great White Throne Judgment Seat of Christ, he will have much company.
Because Jesus the Christ; our Lord; our King, when speaking of the Jews stated: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not...if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." 1
We dare to say that if patriotism had been supplanted in Congress, at that time, an investigation would have been made of the conduct of William C. Bullitt (a half‑Jew), it would have proved that he, acting for the President, did more to precipitate World War II than any other person and we shall be surprised if this is not proven some day.
Mark said: "For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad." 2 For a second witness, Luke related: "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." 3
President Roosevelt gave an address on August 15, 1936, where he stated: "If war should break out in another continent, let us not blink the fact that we would find thousands of Americans, who would be tempted for the sake of fool's gold to break down or evade our neutrality. They would tell you, and their views would get wide publicity, that if they could produce and ship this and ship that and the other articles to belligerent nations, the unemployed of America would all find work. They would tell you that if they could extend credit to warring nations, that credit would be used in the United States to build homes and factories and pay our debts.
They would tell you that America once more would capture the trade of the world. It would be hard to resist this clamor; it would be hard for many American I fear to look beyond to realize the inevitable penalties; the inevitable day of reckoning that comes from false prosperity. To resist the clamor of that greed if war should come, would require the unswerving support of all Americans who love peace. If we face the choice of profits or peace, the nation will answer, 'we choose peace.' It is the duty of all of us to encourage such a body of public opinion in this country that the answer will be clear and for all practical purposes unanimous."
War and The Jews
"Wars are the Jews' Harvests." 1
In the September, 1940, issue of Opinion, edited by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, is an article by John Haynes Holmes, entitled "Should Jews Be Pacifists?" Holmes wrote: "And now the Jews are actually clamoring for war again, under the insane delusion that this new war can bring any different or better results than the last war! If the Jews know what is good for them, to say nothing of what is good for Europe and the world, they will do everything in their power to stop this war, and especially to keep America out of it. If this war goes on, with Jews doing their part to foment it and feed it and idealize it, Europe will be plunged a decade hence into a horror of anti‑Semitism which will make Hitler's pogroms look like a Sunday School kindergarten. If America gets into this war and is fooled again, our wealth wasted and the lives of our boys thrown away the second time for no result save that of utterly wrecking our civilization and ending democracy forever, then a wave of anti‑Semitism, already started in this country, will sweep the land with horror. Disillusioned and desperate Americans are in no way different from disillusioned and desperate Germans. They will seek a scapegoat for their own folly just as quickly and infallibly. I can hear now the cries which will be lifted a decade hence, if we go into this war today. 'The Jews did it! They took us into the war because they hated Hitler. They own the newspapers. They run the movies, They control the banks. The Jews did it. Down with the Jews!'"
He was off by a few years, but it looks like John Haynes Holmes may yet be proven to be a prophet. Quotations from the Zionist Review, London, October 26, 1939: "Nor is it only a common enemy that has linked the Jewish people with Great Britain. The Jews can never forget that, of all the nations in the world, the British was the first to recognize us as a Nation, and the first to confirm the historical connection which bind the Jewish people to its fatherland...Our entire fate is bound up with that of Great Britain. 'HER WAR IS OUR WAR!'"
Elsewhere, in citations from the press, it was stated that Mr. Bullitt expressed a bitter hatred of Germany. This would provide the motive for his acts against that country. If one will the series of articles which Mr. Coty ran in his Paris paper, entitled "Tearing Away The Veils," conclusive evidence is found to show that World War I produced a situation where it was a comparatively easy task to overthrow Russia. From page 13 of that publication is found the following: "In April, 1917, Jacob H. Schiff made a public declaration that it was thanks to his support that the Russian Revolution was a success. In the spring of 1917, Jacob H. Schiff began to commission Trotsky to bring about the actual Social Revolution in Russia; the New York Journal Forward, a Jew‑Bolshevik daily gazette, added also its own contribution to the same purpose. From Stockholm the Jew, Max Warburg, in the same way commissioned Trotsky & Co. They were also commissioned by the Westphalian Syndicate, an important Jewish concern as also by another Jew, Alf Aschberg, and the Nye Banken of Stockholm, and also by Jivotovsky, a Jew, whose daughter married Trotsky. Thus was established the relations between the Jewish multi‑millionaires and the Jewish proletarians."
Also from page 23: "Lindsay Nicholson in 'Zaharoff the Jew, Europe's Greatest Enemy' tells how Zacharias was born in Asia Minor and changed his name to Zaharoff and was mentioned at the time of his death as 'the mystery man of Europe.'...It is commonplace that international financiers, Jews, conspired the Great War. (We remind you, the reader, of the statement by Henry Ford to be found elsewhere). However, few persons understand the close association of the British armaments industry with these enemies of all white peoples. This intimacy enabled Vickers, with a guilty foreknowledge of the crime of Serajevo to promise the shareholders in March, 1914, 'a new era of prosperity' which materialized in August of that year. The Great War so filled the coffers of old Albert Vickers and his accomplices that they shared with their wandering Jew master Zaharoff a distaste for peace.
On the home front Zaharoff and his financial highwaymen decided to absorb the old established and powerful Armstrong and Whitworth interests which he had failed to subdue hitherto. At the instance of Zaharoff the Government and the Bank of England deprived these of assistance and credits when undergoing financial difficulties after the war.
Their capital, consequently, had to be reduced. Zaharoff acquired the majority of their shares and brought about an amalgamation with Vickers...Of the Great War catastrophe Jews and traitors were wholly guilty. They escaped unpunished yet they are preparing for the war in which Britain will face a world in arms, with a villainous effrontery that deserves the salutation of a firing party. Zaharoff is dead; the palsied hand has fallen from the helm; but Vickers and the Merchantmen of Death anticipate 'a new era of prosperity in the shortness of time."
In a further translation of Coty's Paris paper, published in 1932, it declared: "The activities working against us are as important and of the same type as those which were employed against Russia. France, in the hour of peril, would be even more isolated. At all events it is needful that France should know whence comes this threatening storm and that after estimating its gravity, she confront it without fear or weakness...They plan, especially in France and England, to follow the terrorist tactics which they used with such success in Russia and which prepared the double revolution in 1917. Yesterday the victim of their attack was Russia. Today it is France. England is no less threatened, strange as it may seem to our friends across the channel whose eyes are still closed, but who may find in these articles strange revelations as to what is being prepared in the British Empire."
October 9th, 1940, Senator Rush D. Holt said upon the floor of the Senate: "Let us see why Governor Lehman is helping to create hysteria throughout the country. He has actually said in private conversation; not publicly of course, that he feels we should go to war.' Mr. Holt further brought out that Lehman Corporation acquired last year, 10,000 shares of Bethlehem Steel, 6,000 shares of Republic Steel, 'all of which are making money out of army and navy contracts.' Senator Holt then commented upon a number of stock purchases by the Lehmans in corporations with large war contracts, including 12,000 shares of Chrysler (which has $54,000,000 contract), 3,000 shares of Electric‑Auto‑lite stock (increasing holdings to 6,000 shares). 7,100 shares of Firestone Rubber, 10,000 shares of Yellow Truck and Coach, 76,000 shares Aviation and Transportation Co., 900 shares Lockheed Aircraft, 2,000 of Dow Chemical, 1,000 of Dupont, 1,200 Hercules Powder, 1,500 Monsento Chemical, 8,000 Allis Chalmers, 3,000 Bridgeport Brass, 5,000 Fairbanks‑Morse, 5,000 Mueller Brass Co., 500 Aluminum Limited, 1,000 Aluminum Company of America, 8,000 Borg‑Warner, 5,000 Freeport Sulphur, 4,500 Texas Gulf Sulphur, 2,300 Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting, and 700 shares of St. Joseph Lead Company."
Benjamin Disraeli, who was the Earl of Beaconsfield and Prime Minister of England, was a Jew and gloried in it. In his book "Coningsby" there is a Jewish character named Sidonia who is made to say, with admiration, of a career that would control the secret sway of Europe. (p. 120) Then on page 249 he adds these words: "And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society that is hostile to them."
It is on pages 251‑252 that we find Sidonia in his comment saying to Coningsby: "So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
The Dearborn Independent, December 18, 1920, published the following: "And now for the most illuminating lines Disraeli ever wrote; lines which half compel the thought that maybe, after all, he was writing to warn the world of Jewish ambition for power: 'You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. That mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews. That might revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.' (p. 250)
American Jews say that the Protocols are inventions. Is Benjamin Disraeli an invention? Was this Jewish Prime Minister of Great Britain misrepresenting his people? Are not his portrayals taken as true history? And what does he say? He shows that in Russia, the very country where the Jews complained they were the least free, the Jews were in control. He shows that the Jews know the technique of revolution, foretelling in his book the revolution that later broke out in Germany. How did he foreknow it? Because that revolution was developing under the auspices of Jews, and, though it was then true that 'so little is yet known in England,' Disraeli the Jew knew it, and knew it to be Jewish in origin and development and purpose. One point is sure: Disraeli Told The Truth!"
Confirming the statement just noted, and as made by Disraeli, in Protocol No. 1, this statement is made: "In all corners of the earth the words 'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity' brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker‑worms at work boring into the well‑being of the Goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the GOYA STATES. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph."
Then from Protocol No. 3, the following: "In the hands of the States of today there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing out requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the Goyim States have not known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade; thanks to the press we have got the gold in our hands."
Scribner's Commentary for January, 1941, carried a very interesting article, entitled: "These Wrecked French." The second cut was that of Georges Mandel and under his picture, in true Protocol fashion, is this: "Georges Mandel, when Secretary to Clemenceau, learned so much about the private lives of his political rivals that they hated and feared him. As Minister of Communications under Premier Flandin, Mandel said: 'We can form opinion, inspire in people reactions which they believe originated in themselves, but which, in reality, we have suggested.'"
If one compares this statement with what we have taken from two of the Protocols and it will be noted that Mr. Ford spoke with wisdom. Your attention has been called to Winston Churchill's statement which was put into the Congressional Record, June 19, 1939, in which he charged, because of the entry of the United States in the World War, Nazism had been enthroned in Germany. What contributed to say the foundation for this was the gross injustice of the Versailles Treaty. If you will consult the book "Are These Things So?" on page 318 an article appears, entitled: "Red Campaign Grows in the German Army."
This appeared in the New York Times November 10, 1931. The situation which was foretold by Disraeli took on such alarming proportions in the early part of 1933 that it demanded a counter action on the part of loyal Germans. "The Triumph of Hitler saved Germany from Bolshevism just as the taking over of power by Mussolini preserved Italy from it. One shudders to think what would have become of Europe if to Soviet Russia had been added a Bolshevik Reich." 1
Much more could be taken from the book but history proves that Hitler came upon the scene just at the right moment to stop the plan which was stated by Disraeli. That is why the Jews hate him and Germany so much!
The late Lord Sydenham, a former Governor of Victoria and Bombay, and a member of the Committee which re‑constructed the British War Office, and the first Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defense, 1903‑08, was a man who studied life in many phases and places. He wrote an interesting letter on the Protocols which appeared in the Spectator of August 27, 1921.
In the course of this letter, Lord Sydenham mentioned that the Protocols were alleged to "embody" a forgery perpetrated by the Tsar's police, and again that they were adapted from a French "pamphlet of 1864." As we have presented herein Mrs. Nesta Webster and Pr. Lucien Wolf, Lord Sydenham said, had traced certain similarities which, he added, must be expected in a document that had, in any case, been carefully compiled.
All these allegations and similarities, said Lord Sydenham, could not remove the sinister nature of the subject matter in the compilation; neither could they "have any bearing upon the deadly accuracy of the forecasts in the Protocols, most of which have been since fulfilled to the letter."
Hilaire Belloc in his book "The Jews," (1922) wrote: "The Great War brought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public duties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had never suspect ‑‑ the complete control exercised over things absolutely necessary to the nation's survival by half a dozen Jews who were completely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive from the struggle..."
Then Col. Lane says: "Over and over again it can be proved that Jewish 'Nationalism,' camouflaged often as 'Internationalism,' adopts the Jew‑conceived Bolshevism to create chaos and terrorist control, side by side with Zionism which effect spiritual and religious chaos. So it is time that these two forces, by the aid of the evil group of Jew International financiers, will make the place, ready for the introduction of International Jewry. Whatever one's views on Hitler's methods of government may be (and you are reminded that Lord Lothian said that National Socialism was good for Germany) he did at least put the brakes on Zionist control in Germany. He also has purged Germany of most of the filth and immorality with which Jews had permeated that land in their design to bring down the Gentile order and to make money. Hitler, in fact, prevented Germany from becoming a second Russia, and thus probably saved the civilization of Europe.
That is why, also, the German states remained until during the war, 1914‑1918, a matter of wonder to many people. Jews were getting more and more control in Germany right up to the time when Hitler brought off his coup in 1933 and upset the work of the Kahal in that country. That is why, also the Jew‑controlled press of most countries has made systematic and persisting attacks on Hitler ever since."
Guardists Assail Britain
"Take The Lead In continuing Bucharest Press Attacks: ‑‑ Bucharest, Rumania, Jan. 18 ‑‑ Press attacks against Britain continue, with the Iron Guard organ Cuvantul taking the lead. Its main theme is that Britain is the protector of International Jewry and Freemasonry and that therefore Rumania stands to gain everything by the empire's defeat. The legion, say the paper, will never forget that all Carol II's beastly persecutions were organized down to the last particulars by the Jewish financiers in London during the visit of the former King to the British metropolis. The Labor Ministry has issued an order to all labor chambers to deliver no more working certificates to Jews, even if they have already been approved. The chambers are also ordered to start a general revision of all outstanding working certificates held by Jews." 1
Counting The Cost
Without doubt, Mr. Farley, in delivering that address before the International Rotary Club at Detroit, believed that President Roosevelt had "studied" all the possible contingencies that might arise during the time he would serve as President. But what Mr. Farley obviously did not know is that studying is one thing and the application of it another. That is the explanation of the depressions which are now bearing down upon us in the ninth year of Mr. Roosevelt and why they are increasing in geometrical progression. Paul, the apostle, had such an one in mind when he wrote to Timothy about certain individuals and said: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Apropos of this is an editorial which appeared in the New York Herald Tribune, March 31, 1937, entitled: "Franklin Roosevelt, Esq. ‑‑ not LL.B." said: "The jury system in England was first adopted on the theory that an accused man was entitled to a trial by his peers. And yet we now have the spectacle of the United States Supreme Court ‑‑ the tribunal with the highest judicial standing on earth ‑‑ being attacked by persons of little or no legal distinction. 'Mad world, mad kings' wrote Shakespeare of the reign of King John. Or, as W.S. Golbert described his dream of 'Topsy‑Turveydom:'
Where vice is virtue ‑‑ virtue, vice;
Where nice is nasty ‑‑ nasty, nice;
Where right is wrong and wrong is right
Where white is black and black is white.
Those who are inclined to follow the President blindly because they come from the solid South, where political reasons are usually paramount and the word 'Republican' anathema, or because they have received money that other people earned may be interested to know that the chief critic of the Supreme Court spent three years at the Columbia Law School. His record there was such that the faculty did not feel he had absorbed enough of the fundamentals of law to be entitled to the degree of Bachelor of Laws. (It is an interesting fact in this connection that the dean of the Columbia Law School at this time was Harlan F. Stone, who now sits on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States). Upon what meat this our Caesar starved we do not know, but he at least is as cocksure as a sophomore that his knowledge is superior to that of experts."
What this "Caesar" did not know when he criticized the Supreme Court and thumbed his nose at them as he had at our Constitution, and what many thought was supposed to be His Constitution, is that, in simple language, he showed that his place was with the Liliputians of the law compared to the Goliaths he dared to criticize.
In view of his proven disrespect of our Supreme Court, bearing in mind that this incident occurred in 1937, and not 1941, we bring this bombastic ego before one who demonstrated "by many infallible proofs" the wisdom of His words.
From Luke 14:28‑30, we find the following very practical advice: "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish."
Many, no doubt, will remember that one of the things which showed Mr. Roosevelt's qualification for the position which was "worked out before he was nominated," was that he had, as Governor of new York, doubled its debt. In eight years, in spite of repeated assurances about balancing the budget (Does that sound familiar?), there has been no indication that it has taken any steps which would lead in that direction.
In fact, an editorial which appeared from the pen of Col. McCormick January 6, 1936, in the Chicago Tribune, entitled: "He asked for it; Her it Is." It is worth any reader's time and effort to get a copy of this classic editorial and read all of it. Following is an excerpt: "Mr. Roosevelt asked in his speech (dealing with 'unscrupulous money changers') whether home owners are once more to be obliged to pay high interest rates. Again he conveniently forgets. This time his memory does not extend to that housing venture in the New York metropolitan area. Mr. Roosevelt has an investment there. No reduction in interest rates has been granted those who bought property in this so‑called model development. Home owners who are in debt to Mr. Roosevelt must pay their interest notes at the old rate and on the day they are due or out they go. This is the Roosevelt who now says that those who oppose him are plutocrats and the dupes and stooges of plutocrats."
Pertinent to the topic which we are now considering is another editorial which appeared in the Chicago Tribune November 26, 1940, entitled: "Trying to Crack Hitler's Empire." Following is an excerpt: "Hitler's union of Europe is almost completed from Spain to the Russian border and from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean. Where the Axis do not rule by dictate they do by influence...
At present Europe appears to be prostrate and helpless. This realm of Hitler's is controlled by the greatest military machine of the world. It would appear impossible for any external opponent to find a place on its frontiers which could be cracked with any force now available or conceivable...nearly every material for the prosecution of war that Europe can produce is at his command, and, in addition to its materials and the resources, nearly all of its man power is at his disposal for work in the factories, on the farms, and in military auxiliary functions if not in military service...
If these are the facts, as they appear to be, what prospect, then, is there of a successful military attack from without upon the regime Hitler is establishing on the continent? Is there any prospect of creating more and better military equipment than the Nazis have or of raising armies so powerful that they could make a landing and throw upon European soil an irresistible force that Hitler's armies could not defeat?...
It doesn't follow that Hitler can defeat Britain or the British Empire. Nor for that does it follow that the British Empire can find a way to destroy the thing which Hitler has created on the continent. It may endure for his lifetime, held together by the relentless methods he pursues and by the forces he can command. It may endure long enough to work out a revolutionary experiment in economic, social and political fields...The promise of any immediate overthrow of the Hitler continental system is a slight one requiring miracles but the longer view contains some hope for the people who are suffering from it."
Supplementing this is the portion of an editorial, "Strategy," which appeared in The Saturday Evening Post December 14, 1940: "We ask one question. We have asked it before. When we have saved Great Britain, who is going to reconquer Europe? Great Britain alone cannot do that. She has not the man power to do it. If she expects to do it, she is counting upon American man power in the end. Unless those who talk of going to war to save Great Britain (read that to save the power the Jews possess) are willing to visualize the spectacle of an American expeditionary force crossing the Atlantic to destroy the German thing on the soil of Europe, we say to them that they have not thought this business through. Either we are going to reconquer Europe (for the Jews) or we are not going to do it. Let us make up our minds. If we are going to do it, then our problem is to defend the Western Hemisphere where the Western Hemisphere is, and to shape our weapons accordingly."
Colonel McCormick has forcibly portrayed the situation in Europe in his editorial of last November. Reports which have been taken from American papers as well as several published in France show a desire on the part of many French leaders to effect some working plan which the Government. Had it not been for the gross injustices to Germany which grew out of the Versailles Treaty, there is no doubt but for outside intervention, such as that of Mr. Bullitt, these two countries would have found a way to adjust their differences.
In proof of the "gross injustices" referred to, Senator Owen, in his remarkable book from which we have quoted, we find on page 194, under title VII "A French Appeal to Conscience:" "Under this heading first signed by one hundred distinguished French historians, authors, men of letters, including five distinguished French Generals who had fought in the war, and since by increasing numbers, appears the following intelligent proposal from Paris, France, looking to the moral disarmament of Europe:
Only a misunderstanding keeps the world from peace, and perpetuates between the former belligerents, and particularly between France and Germany, that spirit of war which is born fatally from a sense of injustice inseparable from the instinct of revenge...It is clear that the official documents witness that Article 231 was only extorted from Germany by violence and under the threat of recommencing war to the point of complete ruin. Could we give the force of right to that proceeding so unworthy of civilization, after having declared that we were carrying on a war of right against might?
The day of summary judgments without appeal is past. It is unfair to condemn a people to dishonor without a hearing as it is an individual to death. We Frenchmen, jealous of the honor of our country, and believing also firmly that every violation of justice brings with it future catastrophe, are unwilling to face the reproach of a violation of the very principles which we ourselves have been proclaiming.
Even if there cannot be in the meantime the question of a material change in the Treaty, which belongs alone to time and the society of nations, and we can no longer act with regard to the regulation of reparations fixed by the convention of London, August, 14, yet there rests at least upon our good will a duty to see that the Treaty shall not impose greater weight upon the unstable equilibrium in which we are living.
There is no security in the future if men do not proceed first toward moral rearmament, without which there never will be material disarmament possible. Article 231 should be modified in a sense acceptable to all, as well there should be abrogated Articles 227 to 230 (title: Sanctions), which, encouraging hate with its reprisals, are not less injurious to the definite re‑establishment of peace.
We are at the cross‑roads. It is necessary to choose. One the one side all the evils of war perpetuated by the spirit of revenge; on the other, sincere reconciliation and productive labor. We invite all those who hold in their hearts love of justice and of truth, all those who ardently desire that their children should have a future free from war, to join their efforts with ours. The Nationalists of Germany must not misunderstand us. Here is no proof of weakness ‑‑ only an evidence of French sense of right; a step toward human solidarity. The Germany of Goethe will understand it. European civilization is risking in these tragic days its entire future. It is lost if the butchery recommences."
There is also grounds for a decided difference of opinion in Belgium. It is indeed unfortunate for the good of our country that we continue to tolerate a situation when it is impossible to operate under the plan of open agreements openly arrived at. Illustrating this, the Chicago Daily Tribune, January 1, 1941. This related to the letter which King Leopold sent to President Roosevelt the day of his surrender, May 28. It says: "King Leopold transmitted the letter to Mr. Roosevelt directly after the surrender, but the President never chose to inform the public of its contents. It was said that Mr. Roosevelt's secrecy was due to his belief that the letter, if known, would have an adverse effect on the morale of the allied armies."
In a wireless dispatch from Liege, German‑occupied Belgium, January 6, 1941, to the New York Times, it is stated: "Speaking before a mass meeting of 13,000 followers today, Leon Degrelle, leader of the Belgian Rexist party, declared, according to the German News agency report, that 'Belgium (several words missing) only in a close cooperation with Germany.' Belgium, he stated, must attempt to win for herself a place in a Europe united by Reichfuehrer Hitler..."
When we turn to Spain we cannot forget that it was this administration in Washington that supported the Loyalists who were fighting Franco. Is it to be presumed that Franco and his followers have forgotten that our Administration deliberately overlooked the recruiting of a battalion in Michigan that went over to fight them? Then, on their return, when arrested by a State official, was it not the influence of the Administration that caused all of these cases to be dismissed? An adaption of the old proverb: "He that hath friends must show himself friendly" would have been of service at this time.
That group of Frenchmen stated the case succinctly when they said that "We are at the cross‑roads." Our country cannot be eliminated. A good, and, an essentially vital necessity at this critical time is to regress should no longer part with any phase of authority which the Constitution put in their hands.
Our country's thanks and appreciation would be their's if, in so doing, they would put Mr. Bullitt under oath and have him disclose what was in those reports which Mr. Leeds says were in "the dispatches sent to Washington, or the messages telephoned there, on September 29th and 30th, 1938, by the American Ambassador in Paris, William C. Bullitt." Press reports tell us that it is Mr. Bullitt's friends who have been arrested by the French Government and are to be tried at Riom.
On account of the mass of evidence to be examined, we are also informed that it may be the coming February before some of the cases can start. If France attaches this much importance to what they term their "betrayer," we are confident that Congress would uncover Mr. Bullitt's intrigue and find an explanation why it has been necessary for the Administration to keep our Congress in the dark.
The evidence of guilt in our study falls into three divisions:
1). That which is known and partly presented herein.
2). That which is deliberately suppressed under administrative pressure.
3). That which should be brought to light in the trials at Riom, France.
All of these constitute a prophet, Nathan, whose accusing finger points at Franklin D. Roosevelt and says: "THOU ART THE MAN."
a). He is the man who permitted Samuel Untermeyer to boycott Germany when the latter country wished to exchange some of its goods for three hundred thousand bales of American cotton. Such an act, as well as the destructive policies of Secretary Wallace, enabled Brazil, Egypt, India and Soviet Russia to raise cotton heretofore grown by us. It was this policy which put a blight on the southland from which they will never recover although the taxpayer's money which has been scattered by this secretary has dulled the senses of the cotton farmer to this menace.
b). He is the man who professes to have taken the citizens of this country into his confidence in matters obviously referred to in his address at Philadelphia, October 23, 1940, and yet, under the immunity which is said to cover diplomatic utterances, prevents Mr. Kennedy from telling what part he had in having France and England give Poland that "blank check" and pushing Poland, by that act, into war and as a result into the cemetery of nations of the past. Poland, obviously, would not have taken the stand she did without assurance of help. Mr. Bullitt could, with Mr. Roosevelt's consent, shed a great deal of light here, although it would be reluctantly given.
c). In the appointment of Admiral Leahy to Vicy as our Ambassador, his principal qualification seems to be that he, too, has been schooled in defying Congress as to what his teacher, Ingersoll, was doing on his secret mission to Great Britain. It would appear that Admiral, now Ambassador, Leahy's chief mission to Vichy is to have the Riom trials delayed until Mr. Roosevelt has crossed the Rubicon just ahead.
d). Congress should subpoena former Representative John J. O'Connor and have him testify what Dr. Wirt was not permitted by him to disclose what that group of Brain Trusters meant when they said: "We believe that we have Mr. Roosevelt in the middle of a swift stream" and "we all think he is only the Kerensky of this revolution" and can be supplied by a Stalin.
e). President Roosevelt is the man who professes not to be seeking further authority except such as is necessary to any emergency that lies ahead. He is the man, however, who as Governor at Albany, stated that the old order in this country had run its course and if a change was coming ‑‑ why not now? In attempting to consummate what was in his mind, he had taken counsel from the Brain Trusters and New Dealers only to demonstrate that eight long years of effort have failed to find a way out of the political and economic morass into which we were plunged. Obviously a major emergency must be created with real "pump‑ priming" that would pick up some of the slack in re‑employment and also re‑elect himself to the Presidency. A war was what was needed to reach this objective.
f). Number 404 in the Roosevelt family tree was Clinton Roosevelt, born in 1804. In his "Science of Government Founded Upon Natural Law," a book giving his ideas for launching a new era, all briefly told in The Roosevelt Saga, he argues that this country made a mistake in adopting a Constitution, what we should have had was a dictator. Most appropriately does the title page says: "The Roosevelt mind one hundred years ago." Col. House, to whom Presidential candidate Roosevelt flew for instruction after the Chicago Convention in 1932, is the one who was exposed on the floor of the Senate in 1918 as having found a way to get rid of our Constitution. During the past eight years, therefore, the plan established by our founding fathers has been in reverse, removing from the states those rights expressly reserved and conveying them to the national government. This has resulted in growing centralization of power in the executive, the very thing feared by Thomas Jefferson.
g). That was a memorable day, September 17, 1787, when the thirty‑nine fathers of this republic affixed their signatures to our Constitution and in doing so after the words "in the year of our Lord," attested their belief in a Supreme Being. They gave us a great foundation upon which to build. "There were giants in those days" who shaped our course to pilot us into the harbor of freedom. Robert Walsh, born in 1782, in his book "An Appeal from the Judgments of Great Britain," says on page 175: "Lord Mansfield was quite sure that the Americans had meditated a state of independence, particularly since the Peace of Paris, and upon this ground chiefly, he rested his celebrated declaration in the House of Lords, 'if we do not kill the Americans, the Americans will kill us.'"
Walsh adds: "The inveterate design of the colonies to become independent continued to be a leading topic in the British Parliament, notwithstanding the evidence furnished in their conduct on the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766. We have a specimen in which the charge was supported, in the argument of Sir Richard Sutton, who said in the House of Commons, on the 22nd April, 1774: 'If you ask an American ‑‑ who is his master, he will tell you he has none; nor any governor but Jesus Christ.'"
On the north wall of the Lincoln memorial in Washington are two quotations which testified to Lincoln's belief in this Supreme Being. Both are taken from his second inaugural address. One is: "It must needs be that offenses come but woe unto him by whom the offense commeth."
The second: "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
After eight years of vain experiments, is it not time that we return once more to the "old order" that tried and true way which made this country the outstanding government of the world? The immortal Lincoln had great faith in the common people and results proved that his faith was not misplaced. In the orderly process of interpreting Constitutional Government our Representatives in Congress are presumed to be nearest to the "common people." If you believe, Mr. Roosevelt, that Lincoln was right, why not take Congress into your confidence and let us know through it, all the part that you played, directly or indirectly, in precipitating this situation in Europe?
h). A press report of the third inaugural speech of President Roosevelt and what we feared is now confirmed in the emphasis which he places upon the preservation of Democracy. In support of this apprehension we are fortunate to have access to the files of The Individualists, published each week by Chas. W. Phillips. From Bulletin No. 86: "The sudden concern over Mexico as a sister 'democracy, menaced by foreign ideologies,' indicates that the Mexican situation may also be exploited. An article in The Saturday Evening Post, issue of February 24, 1940, should be re‑read in the light of present developments. Entitled, 'south of the border,' it was written by Roberta Pina who related that the probabilities of Mexico becoming fascist 'are close to zero.'
He then went on to say that Mexico has adopted 'more than gestures from the Soviet' and that close to a third of the population were already on collectivist communal farms. Mr. Pina said that Mexican people were more worried over American interference than they were about Nazi domination, this part being captioned, 'The German Myth.'
The manner in which the collectivists have captured and almost destroyed our Republic by operating under the cloak of democracy was told in an address by Mr. Harry A. Jung before the Chicago Athletic Association. Mr. Jung has spent twenty‑five years of his life and most of his substance in attempting to warn the American people of what is taking place. His speech has been published and can be obtained. Mr. Jung said: 'The fellow who used to walk down Randolph Street or Michigan Avenue on May Day, with one clenched fist held aloft, and the other grasping a placard labelled 'Defend the Soviet Union,' was not a very prepossessing creature. I prefer him any day to the streamlined 'comrade' who denounces communism, swats Stalinism and the Soviet Union, but blathers about Democracy and Planned Economy, all the while plotting in his heart to set up a Marxist government in these United States.'"
From Bulletin 97: "Democracy: 'The political system in which government is directly exercised or controlled by the people Collectively.'
Republic: 'A state in which the sovereignty resides in the people and the administration is lodged in officers elected by and Representing the people: a Representative democracy: in older and less strict usage, a state in which officers of government are elected for a term by enfranchised persons; as, the Republic of The United States.'"
Most appropriately does Mr. Phillips direct attention that for a "century and a quarter" no American President failed to publicly affirm that he considered himself as President of a Republic. President Wilson is the first one to introduce this change and, "the first ten words of his inaugural address should be remembered by every student of American Government, for they were. 'My fellow citizens: There has been a Change of Government.'"
Phillips continues: "A 'Democracy' Can Sign Its Own Death Warrant: Our original Republic could not. The mere fact that representative government is based on delegated authority requires that the limitations on such authority be defined. It is the relationship of principal and agent. The Constitution is the contract between the principal (the citizen or voter) and the agent (the legislator, administrative or judicial officer). Democratic action made possible National Socialism in Germany. The abandonment of our Constitution or a failure to abide by it is rapidly bringing about National socialism in these United States. Over here, under Roosevelt, it is know as the 'New Deal.' In Germany, under Hitler, it is called 'Nazism.'
In his booklet entitled 'The History of Revolution,' written in 1931, the duke of Northumberland wrote: 'The adoption of Democracy as a form of government by all European nations is fatal to good government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise. There is no longer any essential difference between liberal and conservative; both are united in defense of their last line of fortification, Parliament and the constitution, after surrendering successive liens in the vain hope that the enemy will rest contented with the empty glory of their capture. Liberalism has depended for support on throwing sops to the wolves, on holding out hopes of something for nothing, on its appeal to the cupidity of the multitude and the multitude is as voracious and restless as ever, but Liberalism has nothing more to offer, it has had its day and ceased to be, and the fight is no longer between the old Political Parties but between the champions of Law and Order and the forces of Red Revolution.'"
Mr. H.W. Prentiss, Jr., in an address delivered in Carnegie Hall, New York, N.Y., on August 17, 1939, said: "There is no surer way to destroy our government than to champion legislation under the guise of democracy, which piece by piece undermines the checks and balances of our Republic. Hence at all costs, the difference between a republic and a democracy must be made clear to the American people. For the advocates of communism, socialism, Fascism, Nazism and New Liberalism are constantly obscuring vital issues by juggling with the favorable connotation that the word democracy possess in the mind of the masses. 'Ism' are sometimes supported by a misled majority. In Russia, however, the totalitarian regime was established by a minority. But in Germany, the present regime was established by an enraged majority who were successful to thwarting the plans of a minority. In that particular case, the minority was responsible for the so‑called 'direct action' reforms that were later to make them fugitives from their own land. Everybody lost; the majority, in their effective suppression of the minority by the placing of unlimited power in the hands of a dictator found themselves subjected by the same collectivist governmental machine. Those who drew up our Constitution in the 18th century foresaw 20th century developments. They were guarding against a minority."
In order to see this, we must read what was written in "The Federalist" No. X, by Madison: "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed...From this point of view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions and their passions. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for that which we are seeking."
From "The American System," we find the following: "That is why the American system has enabled us to advance faster and further than any people in the entire world's history. It has enabled us to take risks without involving our government...We can't afford to let our government get into the melee and take the risks. because we can't afford to have our government lose. If we did, we should be in a state of chaos, from which recovery would be a matter of generations, not merely months or years."
Quoting Phillips: "'In the Communist Election Platform; 1938,' issued by the Communist Party for the District of Columbia, socialism is called the 'Highest Form of Democracy.'"
From "The March of Democracy" we find: "This pamphlet...follows the trail of the attempts to break down ordered government while hiding under the popular connotations of the term 'democracy.' This pamphlet traces the effects beginning with Russia. Next comes Hungary, whose collapse a year later enabled Karolyi to establish a so‑called 'democracy' under which Hungary was thrown into chaos. The ensuing disorder made it possible for Bela Kuhn (Cohen), Trotzkite Internationalist, to take over. 'Democracy' came to Germany with the abdication of the Kaiser; today we have Hitler. Calles brought 'democracy' to Mexico. The centralization of power that was made possible by removing the checks and balances that stood in the way of a people granting rights to a dictator under waves of emotional hysteria or under soothing promises of a demagogue, brought disaster to Italy, Austria, Spain and France. And, lest we forget, it is also happening in these United States (where it is called a 'New World Order')."
One could go on forever, and fill volume after volume, without being able to show completely the antics of evil men. Men who are working day and night to destroy Christians, Christianity and America from the face of the earth, to set up a One World Government, or in the words of our present President, George Bush, a "New World Order."
One would wonder to what depths have we already fall, because of our turning away from Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ? It would appear that President George Bush is attempting to be remembered as a great man. Roswell D. Hitchcock once said: He only is great of heart who floods the world with a great affection. He only is great of mind who stirs the world with great thoughts. He only is great of will who does something to shape the world to a great career. And he is greatest who does the most of all these things, and does them best. To this we add the words of Jesus Christ: "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." 1
History records that its great men have not been its overlords but its servants.
1940: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldivia. Here again with the aid of the United States and under the cover of a war, the Communist were enabled to spread their enslavement to four more countries. Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, Bahamas, Jamacia, Antiqua, Trinidad and British Guiana. Troops were sent to guard air and naval bases obtained by negotiation with Great Britain. These were sometimes called lend‑lease bases.
1940: During an exchange between David Ben Gurion and a prominent U.S. Jew: "Which are you first, a Jew or an American? Answer: 'A JEW.'" "I am not an American citizen of Jewish faith. I am a Jew. I have been an American for sixty‑three years, but I have been a Jew for 4000 years." 2 Roosevelt said during his 1940 campaign: "I promise you again and again that I will not send your sons to fight and die on foreign soil."
After re‑election, he helped keep us out of the war by ordering the U.S. Navy to escort British ships and sink German subs. Germany refused to retaliate, so he then goaded Japan into attacking Pearl harbor as a way of getting (keeping) America into (out of) World War II. (Tragic Deception, by Hamilton Fish; a high‑ranking Republican Congressman of the era). Why was Roosevelt so intent on war? "Whenever an American fell at Bataan or Corregidor, the real reason that boy went to his death was because Hitler's anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany." 3
1941: Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). In November the President ordered American troops to occupy Dutch Guiana, by agreement with the Netherlands Government in exile, while Brazil co‑operated to protect aluminum ore supplies from the bauxite mines in Surinam.
1941: Iceland. Taken under protection of the United States, with the consent of its government, for strategic reasons.
1941: Germany. Sometime in early spring of 1941, the President ordered the Navy to patrol the shipping lanes to Europe. By July U.S. warships were convoying Allied ships and by September were "Attacking" German Submarines, this was done with no authorization of Congress or Declaration of War. In November, the Neutrality Act was partly repealed to protect and allow military aid to Russia and Britain.
In his Wartime Journals Charles A. Lindberg warned: "We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence on our press, radio, and motion pictures. It may become very serious. (Fulton) Lewis told us of one instance where the Jewish advertising firms threatened to remove all their advertising from the Mutual System if a certain feature was permitted to go on the air. The threat was powerful enough to have the feature removed." 1
Charles Lindberg stated: "The pressure for war is mounting (again). The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems hell‑bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the Country are Behind war." 2
1941: On November 18, the Pearl Harbor tragedy was invited when Hull rejected the Prime Minister of Japan's sincere and humble request to meet personally with President Roosevelt and discuss and adjust the problems confronting the two nations in a mutually satisfactory manner. Instead of taking this friendly way to find peace, Hull sent Japan rude, insulting, impossible demands, really an ultimatum, that no civilized nation ever could or would accept.
This insulting paper was actually dictated by Harry Dexter White who maintained direct continuous contact with Top Secret Soviet Agents and the Communist IPR. Harry Dexter White, the Communist Agent in the treasury and Dr. Lauchlin, the Communist White House Aide and the Communist Rockefeller IPR were determined to go to war with Japan in order to help Communist Russia. November 26, a harsh, unreasonable, unjustified ultimatum was delivered to Japan with no other purpose than to force a war.
1941: December 4, 5, 6, Army intelligence and the United States Navy cipher experts intercepted Japanese code messages that plainly revealed the very time Japan would strike Pearl Harbor! The officials at Washington knew exactly what was going to happen. But no word, no alert, no warning was allowed to be sent to the Commandeers at Pearl Harbor until the senders knew the message would be received after the attack was made.
1941: December 7, at 7:50 A.M., the United States Pacific fleet was anchored, unprotected, unprepared, never warned, never alerted. Result: 200 planes and 5 big battleships were totally destroyed, 3 other wrecked. Worst of all 2,300 soldiers, sailors, and civilians were killed. The Commander of the fleet said that if he had been alerted, the tragedy could have easily been averted. So the conspirators had an excuse for a war they had worked for 20 years to cause.
1941/1946: President Roosevelt, re‑elected on promises to keep America out of the European war, tried repeatedly to entice German submarine commanders into sinking our unarmed merchant ships which were hauling millions of tons of war supplies to Germany's enemies.
|
Although it is still a closely guarded secret, A British Submarine, Disguised as a German U‑2 Boat, was captured firing upon an American Ship and was taken to Norfolk and then quietly released. Not only that, but, it is a well known fact, Germany did not attack a single American ship, until "After" The United States entered the war! |
Unsuccessful in those attempts, Roosevelt turned his attention to Japan where he met with a complete success by setting up our entire Pacific Fleet, he lured the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor where more than three thousand American service men died ‑ because the Jewish traitor Roosevelt and the International Jewish Bankers wanted the United States in the War!
The Answer to President George Bush's September Beginning of World War II: The naval forces slated to participate in the southern operations had begun to assemble at Sukumo, Sueki, Kagoshima and Kanoya. They were in combat readiness and underwent realistic exercises under combat conditions, practicing support in landing operations.
On August 28 a signal sent jointly by the Chief of the Naval General Staff and the commander‑in‑chief of the Combined Fleet had ordered the fleet commanders and their key staffs to assemble at the Naval General Staff building in Tokyo for a series of indoor war games, to last four or five days.
Three admirals, seven vice‑admirals, six rear admirals, seven captains and twenty commanders reported for the games led by Nagano and Yamamoto. The naval Staff's cramped quarters proved inadequate to accommodate them, so the exercises were transferred to the more spacious facilities of the Naval War College, where they began on September 2...The party split up in teams ‑‑ an N‑team led by Yamamoto representing Japan, an A‑team the Americans, and an E‑team the English.
For three days the games rehearsed the support operations to be mounted in co‑operation with the army. Some faults and deficiencies were exposed, but the plan the General Staff had drafted was found to be sound. Finally, on September 5, Admiral Yamamoto presented his "Plan Z" for the attack on Pearl Harbor (The plan was outlined by Commander Yasuji Watanabe, then the games got under way under the direction of Rear Admiral Jinsaburo Ito, the Combined Fleet chief of staff. A heated controversy developed between Ito and Captain Kameto Kurojima, the Deputy Chief of Staff, over the advisability of "following up the initial air attack by a landing force" to occupy the Hawaiian Islands. In the end Kurojima, who opposed such a follow‑up landing, prevailed, and the possibility of occupying Hawaii was never discussed again).
In Winston S. Churchill's six‑volume Memoirs of World War II. On page 504 of The Grand Alliance, in which he managed to do justice to 349 years of Japanese history in a single chapter, he wrote: "From the end of 1940 the Americans had pierced the vital Japanese ciphers, and were decoding large numbers of their military and diplomatic telegrams. In the secret American circles these were referred to as 'Magics.' The 'Magics' were repeated to us..." 1
1943: Wendell Wilkie's One World is published. It will be characterized by Franklin Roosevelt's son, Elliott, as "a classic study of global politics which has become the bible of those who believe in the necessity of world government, the so-called One-Worlders."
The next step that was devised to exact unlawful taxes out of the American people was the insidious system known as tax withholding. This policy has proposed by Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" economist named Beardsley Ruml who, like F.D.R. was a member of Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations. This ploy would now create a way to collect a huge new supply of tax money from wages of Americans, and would be in disguised form so as to protect the extraction from tax rebellion. This would eliminate one lump sum payments and would make each tax increase less noticeable to the American worker.
Once again, those who were attempting to throw a blanket of slavery over the American people through their deceitful tactics, ran head on in the Constitution. They met with the problem of having employers withholding taxes from the employee's wages; and thus spending their time, labor, and money to do so and being forced by law to act as an unpaid tax collector for government.
This would be a clear violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits involuntary servitude. This would be slavery in its purest form forcing someone (the employer) no work with no pay. If enacted this plan would now enable government to exact billions directly from wage earners. In order to preserve their ingenious but unconstitutional withholding plan and to get Congress to adopt it, a group of seventy‑six "learned economists" were assigned to prepare a study which would undeniably prove the necessity for the withholding plan. But their propaganda failed and Congress rejected the scheme in the spring of 1941, and again the following November.
When America was brought into World War II in December 1941, the situation was used by the bureaucrats to initiate their plunderous plan. Then in early 1942, Congress was asked to pass a "war emergency measure" which would provide a temporary "Victory Tax" for five percent to be withheld from wages.
The fear and concern of our position in an ongoing war, along with the patriotic spirit of Americans at that time, helped support the approval of the Act ‑ keeping in mind that it was to be temporary during the war. Thus on January 1, 1943, the Victory Tax was passed, and on June 9, 1943, the payroll withholding plan was adopted ‑ all of which has graduated and progressed throughout the years and is our current tax payment act today.
Maybe someone should inform the bureaucrats in government and the I.R.S. that World War II is over. From the five percent started in 1943, certain forces in our government have gradually increased the "income tax" and other taxes to 70+ percent. This does not follow the principles of Common Law but that of the Communist Manifesto as its 2nd plank calls for: "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
About 1500 A.D. Martin Luther said: "...an Usurer is a three‑fold thief and murder...not only robs and steals, but also commits murder as he starves and utterly destroys one."
Does this not fit present day Bureaucrats & IRS agents oppressive actions with their penalties up to 25% of arbitrary assessed taxes and High Interest Rates Equaling Black Mail and Extortion?
"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations..." 1
Second Source The Bible: The principles of taxation, economics, civil conduct, property, freedom, and liberty are well manifested in the Bible, as you have in part already read. Most people think of the Bible as a book of personal guidance and religious instructions. Actually only about 29% of the Bible deals with the religious aspect and individual conduct.
The remaining 71% of the Bible deals with national instructions, conduct, precepts, and manner of social living; in other words, laws and principles of civil government for the people. Through Biblical laws, statutes, judgments, historical events, and prophesy, the Bible explains the proper order, conduct, and practical application of economic, social, and political principles and procedures that the people should follow for effective, efficient, and prosperous methods by which to govern themselves.
In the Bible lies the great source of knowledge, wisdom, and principles of moral conduct man has ever known. It has been found throughout history that where man has adopted these laws and principles from the Bible they have always with great success and prosperity. Actually, man on his own is incapable of devising a set of laws, statutes, and judgments of civil conduct that are anywhere near as effective, simple, and righteous as those from God.
We have today over 5,000 years of historical evidence as to man's continual attempt and failure to effectively govern himself and establish moral principles through his own laws and judgments. Man has made many futile attempts to create civil laws but without the basis of God's laws and principles they are always complicated, illogical, ineffective, confusing, unrighteous, and a financial burden on the people.
However, the Creator, who knows more about man than man will ever know about himself, gave man laws of civil conduct that are simple, effective, logical, righteous, prudent and educational. In short, we can set up and follow the laws and principles of man, who is fallible and unrighteous, or those of God, who is infallible and totally righteous; and thus His laws are righteous and perfect. God's word on Freedom, Liberty, Property, and Taxes. God intended for His people to have freedom and gave it to us as a natural inborn right, as Paul points out: "I was free born." 2
The word free, freedom, freewill, etc., is used in about 100 passages in the Bible according to Strong's Concordance. The distinctions between freedom and slavery or bondage are clearly expressed. God also makes it clear that loss of freedoms can be brought on through disobedience to His laws resulting in bondage and oppression ‑ such as high taxes, tyranny, inflation, debt, etc. However, through all the commandments and laws God gave, He never expected or wanted them followed forcedly against man's freewill. We first see an example of this in Genesis 2: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it..."
God did not in any manner forcedly restrain Adam from eating from any tree. As throughout the Bible, God told man what was right and what is wrong and it was man's freewill to choose between the two. In other words, man is free to choose his destiny. So law, either that of God or morally derived in a civil body, shows the directions of a free and responsible person towards his proper interests. Thus, freedom is self‑ determination, without restraint, incorporated with responsibility. And judgments exist only for the irresponsible, as it did for Adam. Also: "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." 3
The term Liberty by definition is, "Freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control."
How does God tell us the way to liberty? By abstaining or fasting from inequity. If liberty is to be achieved then we must act and make the effort to liberate and "fast" from that which is wicked and unjust and from that which afflicts us and the nation. This is what God was pointing out through Isaiah in Chapter 58: "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?"
This may seem to be a simple principle but are we using it to maintain our liberty today? Are we allowing government to impose unrighteous and heavy burdens on us such as taxation? Is it not within our power and our God‑given right to "fast" from this inequity?
The pilgrims and early colonists knew this and exercised it. They held the Bible as the charter of their liberties and believed that, "...the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 1
The Liberty Bell is inscribed with the Biblical inscription, "...proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." 2 God has also expressed the importance of the need, use, purpose, and rights of individual property.
The meaning and principles of property of what one owns, can be found in about 287 passages in the Bible by the words possess, possession(s), owner, etc., according to Strong's Concordance. Most of the passages deal with the greatest material possession God has given us ‑ that being land. As God has told us in Psalm 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."
The principle here is that land and other property are a gift from God for He created it, gave it to us to own and possess, and cannot be taken from the owner without his consent. If this were not the case God would not have set forth the commandment: "Neither shalt thou steal." 3
For how can someone steal something if it is not someone else's property. Such blessings as life, freedom, liberty, property, and others thus become our "inalienable rights." They are given to us by God and cannot be unjustly taken away or infringed upon by man.
God clearly intended these rights and laws to form the foundation for civil government thus making God the source and author of human government, no man. God's word then is to be used as a bench mark to determine if there exist a moral or immoral government or principle thereof.
We would not like to demonstrate an incident from the Bible that demonstrates the oppression of taxation and how God judged the matter. Also this may prove to be an uncanny parallel as to what is occurring in America today. When the Judah kingdom existed about 610 B.C., their king was Josiah: "And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord." 4
In an attempt to ward off a threatening Egyptian Empire from his land, Josiah engaged in battle and was killed by Pharaoh Nechoh and his army. The Pharaoh, in his greed and desire for wealth, wanted to impose a tribute upon the land of Judah to get the people's gold and silver. And this is what happened according to 2 Kings 23: "And Pharaoh Nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there. And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaoh Nechoh." 5
We see here a takeover of a kingdom or government by an external and hostile force. In America the public is beginning to learn of a similar conspiracy of our government and political system that is being taken over and run by Establishment Insiders such as David Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or its subdivision The Trilateral Commission (TC). Writing in the November 1977 issue of American Opinion Magazine, Gary Allen stated: "The Rockefellers have manipulated the foreign policies of every American President since Franklin Roosevelt; but Mr. Carter has been so obviously a creature of David Rockefeller that many are no longer willing to deny that there is a conspiracy involved."
We are being allowed to believe through the media (which is highly infiltrated with CFR members) that the people have complete power in choosing our president. But when we start examining the CFR, the electoral college system, the two party system, the nation wide incidences of vote fraud and tampering, a biased media, and the shady financing of campaigns, we start realizing that we do not have all that much choice in who our president or elected officials will be.
What happened to the Judah kingdom? They had attempted to choose their own king after Josiah died, but the Pharaoh dethroned that man and put the man he wanted as head of the kingdom or government. Why? Because then that man (Jehoiakim) would be indebted to Pharaoh and would follow the dictates and wishes of the Pharaoh fulfilling an obligation to him or out of fear of him. Jehoiakim would thus be easily persuaded by the wants of Pharaoh for placing him in his position of power. It may be hard to realize or understand, mostly because of the way this is kept from public view by a CFR controlled media, but this is exactly what is happening in America today.
Now what did Jehoiakim do when Pharaoh Nechoh put him in power? He taxed all the people just as Pharaoh wanted. What has our government been doing with such perseverance and diligence since the CFR made connection with Franklin Roosevelt in the forties? They have been taxing and taxing and taxing all the people. How was the tax established in the Judah kingdom? It was established by Jehoiakim "according to his taxation (assessment)."
The people had no say or representation regarding the amount of tax. Who establishes the taxes we pay in America? Every president since Woodrow Wilson have devised tax plans which have gradually raised our taxation (assessment) from 1% to over 60%; all done against the objection of the people and showing no real concern for their wants and needs. In the Judah kingdom the gold and silver (the tax money) that Jehoiakim exacted from the people went where? To Pharaoh Nechoh, who put the king in power so he could have the people taxed, so he could get their tax money.
What is happening in America today? Our tax money, imposed on us by an apparent puppet government, is given to Jewish International Bankers, such as Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank, who run the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). They call it paying off the national debt but they are really paying their debt to those who put them where they are. They are following the wants of those who really are in power and control of this country; The CFR which is made up of many super rich financiers and Jewish International Bankers and it is to them that Americans are paying tribute to by way of the unconstitutional tax demands from a CFR controlled government.
When Carter became president he filled the top key cabinet positions with 19 CFR ‑ Trilateral members. Reagan criticized this but after he was elected he surrounded himself with more CFR ‑ Trilateral members than Carter ever had, with a rough estimate of 80 or more. Both political party candidates for decades have been affiliated with the CFR so it really does not matter to them who is elected. It is thus accurate to say that the CFR is the government or has taken it captive.
Also, the CFR was founded on Marxist principles and exist for one main purpose; to destroy our sovereignty and national independence and to lead our nation into a World Government. This seems to be in line with what Pharaoh Nechoh was attempting.
What did God have to say about the Judah king (their president) Jehoiakim and his unjust and corruptive actions of taxing the people? we find in 2 Kings 23: "And he (Jehoiakim) did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done." 1
Then in the next chapter (24) we read of the fall of the Judah kingdom and how God allowed them to be brought into the Babylonian captivity. When we look at the integrity, honor, and moral principles of the Founding Fathers of this country, we find it difficult to equate those attributes with our leaders and public servants of recent times. Many, like Jehoiakim, have done evil in the sight of the Lord compared to all that our Founding Fathers had done.
Why then did God allow the kingdom or government of the people of Judah to be threatened by enemy invasion and defeated in war. Why did He allow the people to be heavily taxed without their consent and for the tax money to be given to their enemy rather than for the benefit of the kingdom (their government)? Why did God cause them to be ruled by an unrighteous ruler and for their nation to fall and be brought into enemy captivity? Did not God love and care about them? Of course He did. "For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." 2
And for a second witness: "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he received. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." 3
That God loved them is beyond question, that was not the case but rather the reverse was true ‑ the people did not love or care about God. They rejected God and followed the wicked ways of their Israelite kinsmen (as in 1 Samuel 8) and did not keep God's word or follow His laws and commandments. This was simply God's judgment on a once righteous nation that had gradually lost sight of God and His laws. Thus we can see the uncanny parallel here with this Biblical incident and what is going on in America today. And why not, we are the descendants of those same Israelite people.
America - God's Country: It can thus easily be seen that the Bible is a source of true, righteous, and moral principles of America has come to be? What relation does the Word of God have with the laws and principles of America and its government?
The fact is that there has been no nation on earth and throughout all history that was founded and built on the Bible and Word of God and Christian Principles as much as America was. Just as the Common Law of England and Europe was cherished and preserved and brought to America as a foundational source from which to build on, so it was also with the Bible and Christianity. Although there currently exists efforts by the Establishment and media to hide this from the American people, history reveals the truth that America was built on the Bible and was intended to be a Christian Nation.
We find undeniable evidence and proof of how America was established and grew through the Bible and Christianity by wording and passages found in the civil‑political documents that America was founded on. Such documents include: First Charter of Virginia (1606), The Mayflower Compact (1620), The Charter of Maryland (1632), Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1632), Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges (1701), The Declaration of Independence (1776), The Northwest Ordinance (1787) and The Articles of confederation (1778). All of these documents contained passages that established America as a Christian nation, such as: "in propagating of Christian Religion," "Advancement of the Christian Faith," to have "an orderly and decent government established according to God," "in maintaining the said people in justice and Christian conversation amongst themselves." etc.
All of these documents quoted here along with many others, were not church or missionary writings but rather civil or political documents establishing government just as The Constitution is. And thus these principles carried on throughout America's history and were instituted in our U.S. Constitution. As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
It should be quite evident that when they talked about "religion" back in their days that in their minds it was synonymous with "Christianity." Where unlike today religion can mean anything from Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, mystic practices of occult, or any other type of atheistic and paganistic practices.
Today the CFR‑Establishment through the media, the public (government) schools, and the deceived or corrupt ministers and TV Evangelist they support, want desperately to omit, distort, and hide America's Christian Heritage and Foundations from the people. They try to promote perverted doctrine like how America is based on the "Judeo‑Christian Ethic." But if they were to tell you the truth of history they would have to tell you about all these documents, and how for the first 200 years of American history (1620's to 1820's) the few Jews that were here were not even allowed to vote or hold public office.
Why are so many aspects of the American Revolution, Constitutional law, and the Christian foundations not taught in our public (government fools) schools? Why don't they teach how the colonists from Europe brought with them the spirit of the reformation and their love of the Bible?
Why have they deleted from the history books many of these facts and how the founders and explorers of America, from Columbus, to the Pilgrims, to the Colonists, and colonizers of the Country followed the practice of planting a cross in the newfound lands of America to give honor and thanks to God? Why do not ministers or evangelists preach how the Bible influenced the making of laws and civil conduct in America?
Why do they neglect to talk about the truth of God's Laws, statutes, and judgments? Why do these bureaucrats, CFR members, and other corrupt and immoral people both in and outside of our government wish to hide the facts?
Because they know that if Americans turn to God and demand that we follow the Christian Principles that our forefathers did, that these principles would be in direct opposition to the unjust and immoral ones they are using to tax us into slavery and socialism. They know that only the true Christian Religion would be destructive to their illegal and plunderous system of charging interest on borrowed money.
They fear more than anything that people will discover that America is truly "God's Country" and that the laws and principles of the Bible were instituted in the foundation of America and America's success was due to that fact. This fact of how the Bible and Christianity influenced the foundation of America was verified when both houses of Congress passed resolutions to declare 1983 as "The Year of the Bible." This document, signed into public law (97‑280), explained that the Bible had a "unique contribution in shaping the United States."
But what about the First Amendment and separation of church and state? If you start saying we should have a Godly government based on Christian Principles, the ministers and the politicians will cry and complain about an abridgment of the First Amendment clause that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the religion (Note: It does not prohibit the States or even the President from supporting religion)."
Once again these modern‑day secular Humanists that are saying this; are distorting the intent of the amendment and the media has promoted that distortion. The First Amendment was derived and based on the 16th Article of the Virginia Bill of Rights; June 12, 1776, which was written by James Madison. Here is what it said: "The religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other."
You can see here, there was no "establishment of religion" clause. Madison, along with the other framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights viewed the limitations against "establishment of religion" to be a federal (Congressional) issue only. They conceded however, that the sovereign States should and did have the right to support established religions. Thus through the States there was to be the means by which government connected with religion and support religion, but not to be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And as Madison stated; "It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance..."
After all, who is our "Creator;" Buddha, Mohammed, or the God of the Bible? Our Founding Fathers knew that God had made it very clear in the Bible, that His word and laws are to go hand‑in‑hand with the government of His people. Because they are both needed, supporting each other, to have an effective civil‑ political society. John Quincy Adams once stated: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity..."
So when the bureaucrats ministers, politicians, humanists, the media and other anti‑Christ activists speak out, they are desperately trying to preserve their principles of corruption, plunder, socialism, and economic slavery; all of which Christianity would expose and eventually destroy. They even act so desperately as to say and do that which is directly unconstitutional, such as prohibiting voluntary prayer in the schools. As we have seen the federal government cannot interfere with such practice (by the First Amendment) and the Supreme Court has never banned this.
Third Source - Our Birthright and Inheritance of Rights: By examining certain natural, innate, and inheritable rights and principles, we can also determine if certain principles today are just, moral, and show merit in comparison. Our birthright and inheritance of certain inalienable and natural rights is a source of moral principles and foundations established by and a product of the first two sources discussed ‑ Common Law and the word of God.
This means that we currently possess certain rights that we have inherited from those that were inherited and preserved by our ancestors and Founding Fathers of America, and also from those that are bestowed and ordained upon us at birth from our Creator as a birthright.
In 1775, John Adams stated: "Our ancestors were entitled to the common law of England when they emigrated, that is, to just so much of it as they were pleased to adopt...English liberties are but certain rights of nature reserved to the citizen by the English constitution, when they crossed the Atlantic." Adams was thus proclaiming the common law of England to be the law of nature and that American colonists took certain common laws with them as their inheritance. Today in America people look at the principles of taxation as it was under common law and then look at the principles surrounding our tax system today and ask: When were these principles of common law lost or changed?
How did we lose our heritage to these rights? Well these principles and rights were not changed our lost. We still have them and our Constitution is proof and evidence of that. We have however, through deceit and unlawful acts by bureaucrats, and through our own ignorance and apathy, have waived certain rights and have been deceived in giving up certain privileges to these rights that we have inherited.
This does not mean that these rights are thus forever abolished. Thus, our heritage to have a just and fair system of taxation done by the consent of the people has not been abolished, but rather it has not been claimed by its inheritors ‑ we the people.
The government and the IRS try to say we have no inheritance of rights and try to convince and deceive us to sell our birthrights and disclaim them. But they do not determine our rights and privileges and we should not listen to them. We should instead understand and follow what the Constitution and the Supreme Court say and we will see that these rights, along with a just system of taxation, are our inheritance if we wish to claim them.
Because our heritage has been hidden from us, it is difficult for many to understand or believe that we have an inheritance to common law from centuries past. The Constitution is the common law of this country and honors all past documents. Thus, the Magna Carta is as much the law of the United States as the Constitution is.
The courts are well aware that the organic law of this land, which by article six of the Constitution of the U.S., includes but is not limited to: The Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court brought in a ruling that makes it mandatory for an admiralty court to call attention to the heritage rights of the common law before a lawful jurisdiction based upon equitable rights may begin. It was not deemed necessary to spell out the particulars of the common law rights but to merely make it known that they do exist in contradistinction to equitable rights.
This is the so called "Miranda warning" now read in all criminal cases. The court's ruling thus became an instrument by which to strike a blow against legal abuse of citizens who lack knowledge of their heritage regarding civil liberties and rights. Some of these common law rights that we have "inherited" are: life, liberty, property, taxation only by representation, habeas corpus, trial by jury, due process, bill of attainder, right of assembly and others.
The importance of one's inheritance, whether it be property, land, rights, life, laws, or freedom, is well expressed by God through the Bible. The Bible contains about 371 passages pertaining to inheritance, heritage, birthrights, heir, etc., according to Strong's Concordance. The theme of the Bible explains the inheritance that was ordained by God for us to inherit the kingdom of God 1 as the heirs of His promise.2
What Our Founding Fathers Thought About Oppression and Tyranny: When we look at the oppression of rights and unlawful acts of our government (or its agencies, such as the IRS, Justice Dept. etc) we wonder sometimes what our stand and attitude should be regarding this. What did our Founding Fathers, back in the 1700's think and do regarding the numerous oppression and acts of tyranny on them from King George III?
Many of the people then were not only unsure of what to do but were not sure what stand they should take and what their attitude should be towards King George and the Mother Country. Ten years after the Stamp Act was imposed on the people (1765), there was a meeting of the Virginia convention at Richmond in the old St. John church on March 20, 1775, to discuss the fate of the colonies and course they were to take. It was during this meeting that Patrick Henry uttered those memorable words, which helped set in motion and establish the attitude to stand up for their rights and resist this tyranny, when he stood up and said: "Mr. President: It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren until she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who having eyes see not, and having hears hear not the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British Ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, it will prove a snare to your feet.
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.
These are the implements of war and subjugation ‑ the last arguments to which kings resort. I say, gentlemen, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can you assign any other possible motive for it? Has Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been so long foraging. And what have we to oppose them?
Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the Ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak ‑ unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and Who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged; their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable ‑‑ and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clashing of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Many have said that it was the words and principles of this speech that repeatedly rang in Washington's ears throughout the battles of the Revolution. What are the principles that were brought out and adopted on that day? One was that their natural and inalienable rights could only be gained and secured by some concerned and sincere action on their part; and that action to retain their rights and freedom was worth fighting and dying for. Also they made an appeal to God and He in return gave them what they desired; that being their freedom, rights, and their country.
Samuel Adams stated that the time for "complaining" had passed, and that it was "more than time to be rid of both tyrants and tyranny." Suddenly memories of past and present oppression took on new light in the eyes of the colonists. The cry of the Stamp Act, "Taxation without representation is tyranny," from James Otis was revived.
One month after Henry's speech the first military engagement of the American Revolution occurred at Lexington and Concord, and "the shot heard 'round the world'" was fired. So the colonists now knew not only what their stand and attitude should be, they knew what course of action to take ‑ the revolution for American independence thus became a necessity and a reality. Many of these oppression and acts of tyranny thus became the justification of our Declaration of Independence and many of these acts of oppression are listed in this noble document.
It was written to put an end to the continued "history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States." (From the Declaration of Independence) Such then was the stand, attitude, and principles our forefathers held against tyranny and oppression ‑ ones we would be wise to follow today.
Just prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence our Fore Fathers faced with the death penalty for high treason, even though they were courageous men, they debated long before they picked up the quill pen to sign the parchment that declared the independence of the colonies from the mother country. For many hours they debated in the State House at Philadelphia, with the lower chamber doors locked and a guard posted ‑ when suddenly a voice rang out from the balcony.
A burst of eloquence to the keynote, it was Patrick Henry giving a second speech which has been deleted from our American History Books. To be sure there had been several speeches. In the balcony patriotic citizens crowded all available space and listened attentively to the proceedings. Jefferson expressed himself with great vigor; and John Adams, of Boston, spoke with great strength.
The Philadelphia printer, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, quiet and calm as usual, spoke his mind with well chosen words. The delegates hovered between sympathy and uncertainty as the long hours of the summer day crept by, for life in sweet when there is danger of losing it. The lower doors were locked and a guard was posted to prevent further interruptions. It was then, according to Jefferson, late in the afternoon before the delegates gathered their courage to the sticking point. The talk was about axes, scaffolds, and the gibbet, when suddenly the strong, bold voice of Patrick Henry rang out and said: "Gibbet! They may stretch our necks on all the gibbets in the land; they may turn every rock into a scaffold; every tree into a gallows; every home into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die! They may pour our blood on a thousand scaffolds, and yet from every drop that dyes the axe a new champion of freedom will spring into birth! The British King may blot out the stars of God from the sky, but he cannot blot out His Words written on that parchment there. The works of God may perish: His Words never!
The words of this declaration will live in the world long after our bones are dust. To the mechanic in his workshop they will speak hope: to the slave in the mines, freedom: but to the coward kings, these words will speak in tones of warning they cannot choose but hear. Sign that parchment! Sign, if the next moment the gibbet's rope is about your neck! Sign, if the next minute this hall rings with the clash of falling axes! Sign, by all your hopes in life or death, as men, as husbands, as fathers, brothers, sign your names to the parchment, or be accursed forever! Sign, and not only for yourselves, but for all ages, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the Bible of the rights of man forever.
Nay, do not start and whisper with surprise! It is truth, your own hearts witness it: God proclaims it. Look at this strange band of exiles and outcasts, suddenly transformed into a people; a handful of men, weak in arms, but mighty in God‑like faith; nay, look at your recent achievements, your Bunker Hill, your Lexington, and ten tell me, if you can, that God has not given America to be free!
It is not given to our poor human intellect to climb to the skies, and to pierce the Council of the Almighty One. But methinks I stand among the awful clouds which veil the brightness of Jehovah's throne.
Methinks I see the recording Angel come trembling up to that throne and speak his dread message. 'Father, the old world is baptized in blood. Father, look with one glance of thine sight, man trodden beneath the oppressor's feet, nations lost in blood, murder, and superstition, walked hand in hand over the graves of the victims, and not a single voice of hope to man!'
He stands there, the Angel, trembling with the record of human guilt. But hark! The voice of God speaks from out of the awful cloud: 'Let there be light again! Tell my people, the poor and oppressed, to go out from the old world, from oppression and blood, and build My altar in the new.'
As I live, my friends, I believe that to be His voice! Yes, were my soul trembling on the verge of eternity, were this hand freezing in death, were this voice chocking in the last struggle, I would still, with the last impulse of that soul, with the last wave of that hand, with the last gasp of that voice, implore you to remember this truth ‑ God has given America to be free!
Yes, as I sink into the gloomy shadows of the grave, with my last faint whisper I would beg you to sign that parchment for the sake of those millions whose very breath is now hushed in intense expectation as they look up to you for the awful words: 'You are free.'"
The delegates, carried away by his enthusiasm, rushed forward. John Hancock scarcely had time to pen his bold signature before the quill was grasped by another. It was done. There are many interesting implications in his words. He speaks of the 'rights of man,' although Thomas Paine's book by that name was not published until thirteen years later. He mentioned the all‑seeing eye of God which was afterwards to appear on the reverse of the Great Seal of the new nation.
Many who study history in depth have made the observation that nearly all great causes are furthered by mysterious and obscure persons who receive little or no credit for the part they have played in the making of history. To write the history of these men would be to write the history of the unknown philosophers. Some, like Francis Bacon, come to high estate; but most of the unknowns work obscurely through other men, who gain the credit and the fame. In an old book of rules used by the brothers of "good" secret orders, is the following: "Our brothers shall wear this dress and practice the customs of those nations to which they travel so that they shall not be conspicuous or convey any appearance that is different or unusual. Under no condition shall they reveal their true identity, or the work which they have come to accomplish; but shall accomplish all things secretly and without violating the laws or statutes of the countries in which they work."
Of those who did not 'reveal their true identity,' or the work which they came to accomplish, one is the mysterious Professor who inspired the design of our flag, and remains unknown and unnamed. It is reasonably conceivable that in secrecy and anonymity well ordered aid has been given to the struggle for human equity and justice that has been America's destiny through the past into our present time. It is our duty and our privilege to contribute what we can to this Universal plan. Such then was the stand, attitude, and principles our forefathers held against tyranny and oppression, ones we would be wise to follow today.
Who Is To Blame? Many people look at all the oppression and evils that exist from our government, whether it is unjust taxes or fraudulent control of our money etc. and put all the blame on government for these acts. Some people wonder how our government can be so corrupt and why it is so destructive to our country. The people who think in this manner are missing an important point. The point is that there is very little wrong with our country that is the blame of the government. There is, however, much wrong with our country that is the blame of the people.
To blame the government for attacking and oppressing our rights and freedom and laws, is like blaming the wolf that attacks and devours the sheep while the shepherded was asleep. The wolf can hardly be blamed for doing what is naturally expected of him. Likewise, it would be in error to blame the government for its acts of oppression and unlawfulness. All governments are inherently bad and evil and have the tendency to exercise power and control over the people ‑ that is the way they have always been. This was well expressed by Thomas Paine when he said: "Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Like the shepherded, we the people sometimes fall asleep or do not care, and the government naturally attacks our rights, oppresses our freedom, and deviates from the law. It is indeed true that the worst enemy of mankind throughout history is usually his own government. But in America, our founding fathers set up a Republic where the law, our Constitution, would protect the people from government by having government be restricted by that law (Constitution).
The people were to be free and in control and the government the servant of the people. But because we were not alert and were not keeping informed on the law, this situation has gradually been reversing. Who is to blame? We the people are to blame because we allow traitorous bureaucrats and legislators, who often go against the Constitution, to get away with breaking the law. The people need to learn that Congress cannot change the fixed laws and principles of the Constitution without destroying it.
They take an oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution" not to violate and abuse it. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was designed to be checks against the government. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 491, the Supreme Court states: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Thus, laws which would deprive us of our rights are unconstitutional and are not required to be followed by the people. We the people are to blame for injustice and oppression in this country every time we follow such laws. That is what is happening in America with our current unconstitutional tax system. So if we want liberty from these oppression we need to wake up and be more vigilant of our government's actions.
But where did the IRS get its power to tax? It is not from Congress or from the courts but from we the people. When we are on a jury we have supported unconstitutional laws when a tax protestor, who was on the side of the law, was being tried.
When we are on the jury we are not only judging a fellow citizen, we are determining the law, and in such cases as taxation we have unknowingly voted against our own rights and freedom. The authority of the jury was expressed by Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court, instating; "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
When you are a juror, it is your responsibility to examine the government's statute or law. You must determine if it is a just law or an unjust law. Does it give the government control over the people and abrogate citizen's rights? Does it give the government control over the people and abrogate a citizen's rights? does it follow the forenamed moral principles? Is the person on trial a threat to we the people?
If you find that the law is unjust or the one on trial is in line with the Constitution you must vote not guilty. Just one such vote can hang a jury and help nullify bad or unconstitutional laws and cut off governmental control. Only we the people can vote ourselves free of IRS tyranny by voting not guilty when a fellow American is standing up for his right to his property. As an individual on a jury (whether a Grand Jury or a regular jury) you have more power and authority than the President, all of Congress, the Supreme Court and all the Federal Court system.
Thus the system our fathers set up in America is one where freemen, who under God and His law, were to have the final say and highest authority regarding the laws of the land. And the Constitution, which was influenced by God's Laws, was designed to keep the government under the control of man. Only by adhering to this hierarchy of authority will we ever obtain and secure our rights and freedom.
If our founding fathers had not stood up and demanded their rights and fought for and earned their freedom, this hierarchy along with our Republic would not stand today. Freedom has never been free and rights are not automatic. Freedom has to be earned and rights have to be demanded. The degree to which this principle is upheld in the people has always been a measure of the degree of independence and freedom in America. In other words, the Constitution is only as strong as the will of the people to support it.
You must take the responsibility to learn, understand, and obey the United States Constitution and to teach it to your children. The government ‑ controlled schools (public schools) will not teach the principles of the Constitution because if they did, all of America would know that the Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System are totally unconstitutional and a total fraud. The result would be no income tax and no interest that could be charged on borrowed money by corrupt bankers.
Thus we have many oppression from government just as our forefathers did but because of their sacrifices, we can now fight against ours with greater ease and safety. Because of their efforts and sacrifices we now have the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court with established rulings supporting the Constitution, and a Republic set up where we the people and the law control the government.
We now have all this to fight with and preserve our rights with which our founding fathers did not ‑ thus making the American Revolution an inevitable necessity by which to obtain them. We (our country) have fought our revolution, we have won, and we now have all these benefits as a result. We need to be knowledgeable of our benefits and to use them to defend our rights. The stand our founding fathers took to escape tyranny and slavery and the moral principles they followed and upheld, is an example we should learn from and follow ourselves, lest we be "destroyed for lack of knowledge." Today there are three apparent barriers that keep America from falling into this captivity of total slavery, oppression, and tyranny, whether called a police state tyranny or a communist‑socialist style government, they are:
1). The Christian and moral principles that the people possess.
2). The United States Constitution.
3). The United States Supreme Court.
Every day there exists evidence of the tactics and efforts to undermine, discredit, and destroy the merit and value of these in our country; and the evidence has proven deterioration is occurring in them.
1942: Murder of a White patriot: William Joyce's last words just before Britain executed him for anti‑war activism in WW II: "In death, as in life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war, and I defy the powers of darkness which they represent. I am proud to die for my ideals, and I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why."
Chaim Weizmann, former President of the World Jewish Congress revealed the reason for World War II on December 3, 1942: "We are not denying and are not afraid to confess, this war is our war and that it is waged for the Liberation of Jewry ...Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We (Jews) are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory." 1
To demonstrate Jewish power Dr. Nahum Goldmann states: "...This weakness of the President (Roosevelt) frequently results in failure on the part of the White House to report all the facts to the Senate and the Congress; its (The Administration) description of the prevailing situation is not always absolutely correct and in conformity with the truth...When I lived in America, I learned that Jewish personalities ‑‑ most of them rich donors for the parties ‑‑ had easy access to the President. They used to contact him over the head of the Foreign Secretary and the representative at the United Nations and other officials. They were often in a position to alter the entire political line by a single telephone conversation...Stephen Wise...occupied a unique position not only within American Jewry, but also generally in America...He was a close friend of Wilson...he was also an intimate friend of Roosevelt and had permanent access to him, a factor which naturally affected his relations to other members of the American Administration...Directly after this, the President's car stopped in front of the veranda, and before we could exchange greetings, Roosevelt remarked: 'How interesting! Sam Roseman, Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann are sitting there discussing what order they should give the President of the United States. Just imagine what amount of money the Nazis would pay to obtain a photo of this scene.' We began to stammer to the effect that there was an urgent message from Europe to be discussed by us, which Rosenman would submit to him on Monday. Roosevelt dismissed him with the words: 'This is quite all right. On Monday I shall hear from Sam what I have to do,' and he drove on." 2
Rabbi Felix Mendelsohn in the Chicago Sentinel of October 8, 1942 stated: "The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism."
1944: "The American Way of Business" is published by the National Education Association's National Association of Secondary School Principals and National Council for Social Studies.
It was written by Oscar Lange and Abba Lerner, the former of whom will later renounce his American citizenship and become Communist Poland's U.N. ambassador. The pamphlet calls for the nationalization of all banking, credit, insurance companies, and natural resources, and that an economic court be established and "given the power to repeal any rules of Congress of legislatures, or of the municipal councils." It was prepared under a grant from the Rockefeller 1 General Education Board.
Zionist terrorists killed many British solders and policemen in Palestine, using bombs, bullets, and torture. Two particularly vicious gangs at that time were the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Leaders of these groups were ex‑prime Minister Menacham Begin (Irgun), and present Prime Minister Shamir.
Even in 1988 Britain's government still shunned Shamir. To hasten British departure from Palestine, Irgun sent letter bombs to Winston Churchill and Prime Minister Atlee among others. Very few Americans know the facts about "Operation Keelhaul" which was a disgraceful blotch on the pages of American history that will contribute to the awful severity of our rapidly approaching judgment.
At the close of World War II over a million Russian refugees, including women and children in Germany desiring to escape the inevitable torture and death that awaited them in Russia, voluntarily surrendered themselves to the American command with the absolute assurance from the high‑ranking American Commanders that they would never be forcibly repatriated.
In fact, forced repatriation was a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. When those million doomed souls realized that American leaders had broken their promise and that they would be forcibly repatriated to Stalin, on orders by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, to be tortured and brutally murdered, they became desperate. Many of them slashed their own wrists and throats with razor blades and jagged glass. Over a thousand of them jumped out of train windows to death. Many thrust their heads through windows and shook them violently until the broken glass cut their throats. many of the begged the guards to shoot them.
[1] This sort of thing is being done in the United States at the present time. All one has to do is watch the newspapers, TV, magazines or periodicals at the number of farmers, ranchers and tax protestors being gunned down by government agents!
[2] The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. XVIII, No. 5m May, 1907.
[3] The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 73-76.
[4] Fifty Years in The Church of Rome, p. 289‑291.
[5] Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, Vol. V, (1912).
[6] Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2d ed. (1985) p. 234.
[7] Treason in America, 2d ed. (1985) p. 225.
[8] Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, p. 245.
[9] Treason in America, 2d ed. (1985) p. 224.
[10] Weep No More My Lady, W.E. Debnam, Graphic Press, Raleigh, NC 1950, p. 41.
[11] see "Keynes," War Cycles/Peace Cycles, p. 201.
[12] Adams Diary, August 11, 1835. Quoted in Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery, p. 178. Note the international scope of the campaign.
[13] Memoir of Margaret Mercer, Morris, p. 126.
[14] A South Side View Of Slavery, Adams, p. 108.
[15] The Origin of the Late War, Lunt, p. 104.
[16] See Otto Scott's The Secret Six, Times Books, 3 Park Ave. NY 10016.
[17] The Civil War and the Constitution, Burgess, Vol. 1, pp. 42‑44.
[18] Jews had financed and were the prominent leaders of the Bolshevik Revolutions of 1905 & 1917 which overthrew the Christian nation of Russia. Jews have been the creators of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism. Cf., The national Geographic, Vol. XVIII, No. 5, May 1907, p. 302; The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. XI (1905), p. 414.
[19] F.D.R. His Life and Times, Otis L. Graham, Jr., ed. (1985) p. 216.
[20] F.D.R. His Life and Times, p. 217.
[21] This is America's Story, Howard B. Wilder, (1960) p. 508.
[22] United States vs. Diekelman, 2 Otto (92 U.S.) 520, 526 (1875).
[23] Wortham vs. Walker, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145; 133 Tex. 255 (1939).
[24] Thorington vs. Smith, 8 Wallace (75 U.S.) 1, 9 (1868).
[25] Isaiah 42:18‑20.
[26] Jewish World, The Ideals of Bolshevism, January 10, 1929.
[27] No 6. Sir M. Findlay to Mr. Balfour, Christiania, September 17, 1918.
[28] Russia No. 1. A collection of reports on Bolshevism in Russia presented to Parliament by the command of His Majesty, April 1919. This passages has been suppressed in the abridged edition of Parliamentary Paper Russia, No. 1919. The above quotation is from the Netherlands minister in Russia and was transmitted to Mr. (Now Lord) Balfour by Sir M. Findlay.
[29] This was reproduced in French by Mgr Jouin, op. cit., t. II, p. 109.
[30] Article by Samuel Gomers, New York Times, May 7, 1922.
[31] New York Times, December 31, 1923. Article reproducing the current issue of the American Federationalist.
[32] W.G. Pitt Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, p. 39, Blackwell, Oxford, 1921.
[33] G. Batault, Le probleme juif, p. 257.
[34] G. Balault, Le probleme juif.
[35] See among others, the attempts to apply socialism made by Etienne Cabet and William Lane in Texas and in Paraguay. Also N. Webster, World Revolution, pp. 114 and 271.
[36] N.H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movement, p. 327.
[37] Article by A. Rosenberg in the Weltkampf, July 1, 1924.
[38] Weltkampf, July 1924, p. 21.
[39] Cecile De Tormay, Le livre proscrit, p. 135.
[40] The Hapsburg Monarchy (1913), p. 169.
[41] N.H. Webster, Secret Socities and Subversive Movements, p. 334.
[42] J. and J. Tharaud, Causerie sur Israel, p. 38.
[43] Ost Express, January 30, 1923. Cf. Berliner Taegeblatt May 1, 1923. See the details of the Bolshevist struggle against religion in The Assault of Heaven by A. Valentinoff (Boswell).
[44] Copin Albancelli, La conjuration juive conire les peuples. E. Vitte, Lyon, 1909, p. 450.
[45] S.P. Melgounov. La terreur rouge en Russie de 1918 a 1923. Payot, 1927.
[46] Letter from Bukharin to Britan, La Revue universelle, 1st March, 1928.
[47] See S.P. Melgounov, La terreur rouge en Russie. Payot, 1927, p. 161.
[48] S.P. Melgounov, p. 104.
[49] S.P. Melgounov, p. 164‑166.
[50] See book of Nicholas Sokoloff, L'enquete judiciaire sur l'Assassinat de la famille imperiale. Payot, 1924.
[51] Weltkampf, Munich, July 1924.
[52] Kadmi Kohen: Nomades F. Alcan, Paris, 1929. p. 26.
[53] Kadmi Kohen: Nomades. F. Alcan, Paris, 1929. p. 26.
[54] Integrales Judentum.
[55] Werner Sombard, Les Juifs et la vie economique. p. 291.
[56] Werner Sombard, Les Juifs et la vie econoique, p. 277.
[57] Werner Sombard, Les Juifs et la vie econoique p. 286.
[58] G. Batault, Le problem juif, p. 40.
[59] Journal d'un ecrivain, 1873‑1876, 1877, editions Bossard.
[60] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, pp. 213‑224.
[61] 1 Samuel 8:7-18.
[62] Rothschild Brothers. London, June 25, 1863. Famous Quotes On Money.
[63] Pawns In The Game, William Guy Carr, pp. 55-57.
[64] By Joan Veon, Veon Financial Services, Inc., P.O. Box 1323, Olney, MD 20830.
[65] Tragedy and Hope, pp. 54-55.
[66] G-7 Final Communique from Lyon.
[67] Tragedy and Hope, p. 324.
[68] The Confidence Game, Steve Solomon, Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 28.
[69] WTO Press Release on Financial Services, December 9-13, 1996.
[70] Washington Times, 3/9/96, A-11.
[71] Special Office Brief, February 1997.
[72] Revelation 18:4.
[73] Matthew 22:15‑16.
[74] Matthew 22:17.
[75] Matthew 22:18‑21.
[76] Matthew 17:24‑26.
[77] Matthew 17:27.
[78] Hosea 8:4.
[79] Romans 13:7.
[80] Luke 11:11.
[81] Amos 3:7.
[82] 2 Corinthians 3:17.
[83] Richard Frothingham, The Rise of The Republic.
[84] 1 Samuel 8:4.
[85] 1 Samuel 8:5.
[86] Deuteronomy 17:14-15.
[87] 1 Samuel 8:10‑12.
[88] 1 Samuel 8:13‑14.
[89] 1 Samuel 8:15‑17.
[90] 1 Samuel 8:18‑20.
[91] 1 Samuel 8:21‑22.
[92] American History, Marcius Willson.
[93] Bulletin, The Committee to Restore the Constitution, Ft. Collins, Colo. Nov. 1978 p. 1.
[94] The Visionary on the Mountain Top.
[95] Eustace Mullins, Foreword, War! War! War!.
[96] Propaganda in the Next War, by Sidney Rogerson, pp. 86-148; War! War! War!, by Cincinnatus, pp. 191-193.
[97] Ameirch Focus, Commentaries on America.
[98] Review of World Affairs.
[99] Smoke to Smother, page 315.
[100] 12 USC Sec. 95a; October 6, 1917.
[101] Title 12 USC 95 (b); c 1, Title 1, Sec. 48 Stat. 1.
[102] As recorded by Sir Harold Spring‑Rice, former British Ambassador to the U.S.
[103] The Jewish State, New York, 1917.
[104] American Jewish Committee poll, 1982.
[105] Congressional Record, March 9, 1933.
[106] Roosevelt Expected & Wanted the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor: The Pearl Harbor attack was instigated by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. The attack was forced into existence by the United States, Great Britain and the Dutch. This was accomplished by an embargo, which cut off all shipping into and out of Japan, thus threatening Japan with starvation.
Nine months before the Pearl Harbor Attack, one Clifford M. Andrew was sent to Pearl Harbor and put in charge of a critical portion of both Army and Navy Intelligence Communications, so that when the time of the attack came, Andrew would be in a position to run interference by preventing the commanding officers at Hawaii, Admiral Kimmel and General Short, from receiving any warning of an impending attack.
Approximately one week prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, General George C. Marshall and Admiral Stark discontinued informing President Roosevelt of incoming Japanese intelligence information. Also one week before the attack, Rear Admiral Paulus Prince Powell (Roosevelt's Senior White House Naval Aide prior to 1934) was ordered to the Naval Intelligence Department, Washington, D.C., to be briefed as first naval attache' to Portugal (which was neutral).
On Thursday, December 4th, 1941, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon (Hawaiian time), a message was received in the Hawaiian Army Intelligence Department from Melbourne, Australia that the United States agreement with Great Britain and the Dutch (the ABCD agreement) had been activated; that we were automatically at war with Japan. Furthermore, the Hawaiian military intelligence department had received messages from U.S. picket ships and submarines to the effect that a Japanese fleet with aircraft carriers fully loaded was approaching Hawaii and would be within striking distance by Sunday morning, December 7th.
Gerald Mason Van Dyke, was an Army Intelligence Officer in Hawaii at the time of the attack. He knew of the coming attack. His first report on the subject was made November 29th, 1941. He sent his warning message to Washington, D.C., Thursday afternoon, December 4th, 1941, at 2:00 p.m. His message was received and intercepted by Rear Admiral Paulus Prince Powell in Washington, D.C., at about 7:00 p.m. (due to Global Time Difference), Powell notified Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox who in turn immediately contacted Secretary of War Henry Stimson. Stimson called Roosevelt, and Roosevelt came to the Naval Intelligence Department. Secretary of Navy Knox said that they should get the Navy out and set up a defense perimeter for the Islands. Under-secretary of Navy James Vincent Forestall became very concerned too. Roosevelt blocked their attempt to warn Pearl Harbor by putting Powell, Knox and Forestall under armed guard until after the Pearl Harbor Attack. Roosevelt sent the following message to Clifford M. Andrew: "The Japanese will attack, do not prepare defenses, we need the full support of the American Nation in a war-time effort by an unprovoked attack upon the Nation." The message sent to Admiral Kimmel and General Short by Roosevelt read "Expect Japanese Sabotage." Preparation for Sabotage is exactly the opposite of the preparation for an aerial attack.
On Friday evening at about 5:00 p.m., December 5th, 1941, Mason warned Lyle Hartford Van Dyke, Sr., of Portland, Oregon, that the Japanese would attack soon, most probably Sunday. He was told that the intelligence department in Washington, D.C., had been warned. So he put up a stock of canned goods on Saturday, December 6, 1941, in preparation for the attack.
The attack occurred Sunday morning, December 7th, with a death toll of 4,000 men. The Arizona went down in ninety feet of water with its hold only thirty feet below the surface. Roosevelt forbade any rescues from being made, and men buried alive in the Arizona banged on the bulkheads, screaming for help and kept diaries in the dark for two weeks after the attack until they finally died.
The Supreme Court and the Legislature covered Roosevelt's Treasonous Mass Murder by scapegoating Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Had Roosevelt lived past the end of the Second World War, the investigation of his actions would have resulted in a complete exposure of the One World Government - New World Order - Conspiracy now coming down upon us.
Roosevelt was killed when his face was blown off by a Soviet portrait artist. When James Vincent Forestall's knowledge became a threat to those in power in 1949, he was pitched out of about the seventh floor of the hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. On May 15, 1966, Clifford M. Andrew was murdered in his home in Tigard, Oregon by a bullet in the back of his head. The FBI took charge of the matter.
On Thursday, May 10, 1973, an attempt was made by twenty police officers, Federal, State (Oregon) and County (Clackamas) to steal the manuscript of Hartford Van Dyke, then about two months into the writing. However, he was tipped off four hours before the raid and was able to secure the work. Three weeks later a second attempt was made to get his manuscript, and so he went into hiding until his book, "The Skeleton In Uncle Sam's Closet," was completed and published.
Roosevelt's Jewish Ancestry. Even a hasty perusal of the genealogy chart as produced by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C., under direction of Dr. H.H. Laughlin, per asso. press Dispatch March 7, 1934, in the Daily Citizen of Tucson, Arizona, a similar chart was published by the Washington, D.C., Star, of February 29, 1936. Even a hasty perusal of the document convinces one as to President Roosevelt's Jewish ancestry. From the viewpoint of eugenics, it explains his natural bent toward radicalism. It shows why he has given hundreds of so-called Liberals, Socialists and Communists powerful positions in the national government. It reveals the origin of the sinister spirit which today animates the White House. It proves unmistakably, that the Roosevelt Administration offers a biological, as well as a political problem.
The New York Times of March 14, 1935, quotes the President as saying: "In the distant past my ancestors may have been Jews. All I know about the origin of the Roosevelt family is that they are apparently descended from Claes Martenszen van Roosevelt, who came from Holland." Additional information regarding the nationality of the Roosevelt family, was given by Chase S. Osborn, early in 1934, at St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Osborn was formerly Governor of Michigan. The leading newspaper of the city (The Times) carried the following report after the interview: "Although a Republican, the former Governor has a sincere regard for President Roosevelt and his policies. He referred to the 'Jewish ancestry' of the President, explaining how he is a descendant of the Rossocampo family expelled from Spain in 1620. Seeking safety in Germany, Holland and other countries, members of the family, he said, changed their name to Rosenberg, Rosenbaum, Rosenblum, Rosenvelt and Rosenthal. The Roosenvelts in North Holland finally became Roosevelt, soon becoming apostates with the first generation and others following suit until, in the fourth generation, a little storekeeper by the name of Jacobus Roosevelt was the only one who remained true to His Jewish Faith. It is because of this Jewish ancestry, former Governor Osborn said, that President Roosevelt has the trend of economic safety (?) in his veins."
In the 1938 "World Almanac" under the heading "Biographies of U.S. Presidents and Their Wives," page 237, appears: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the son of James Roosevelt, a direct descendant of Claes Martenzen van Rosenvelt, who arrived in New Amsterdam in 1649 and married Jannetje Samuels."
The following is from "The House of Roosevelt" by Paul Haber, 1936 edition "Claes Rosenvelt entered the cloth business in New York, and was married in 1682. He accumulated a fortune. He then changed his name to Nicholas Rosenvelt. Of his four sons, Isaac died young, Nicholas married Sarah Solomons. Jacobus married Catherina Hardenburg. The Roosevelts were not a fighting but a peace-loving people, devoted to trade. Isaac became a capitalist. He founded the Bank of New York in 1790."
The American Freedom Magazine of Los Angeles, California, April, 1938, issue, stated: "In an address to the National Convention of the D.A.R., President F.D. Roosevelt said that he too was of revolutionary ancestry. But not a Roosevelt was in the American Army. They were Tories, busy entertaining British Officers. The first Roosevelt came to America in 1649. His name was Claes Rosenfelt. He was Jew. Nicholas the son of Claes, was the ancestor of both Franklin and Theodore. He married A Jewish Girl named Kunst in 1682. Nicholas had a son named Jacobus Rosenfelt. In the family tree there are 351 persons bearing biblical names of the Tribe of Israel. From the Corvallis Gazette-Times, of Corvallis, Oregon."
New York Jews having designed and struck and struck off a medal with the head of Roosevelt on one side and the six-point Solomon Star, synagogue symbol of possession and world power, on the other, with a mystical so-called "Good Luck" idiom in the center of the star, the undersigned and his associates investigated to ascertain the significance, if any, and report these implications: "Good Luck and Wisdom to Franklin D. Roosevelt, our Modern Moses, Leading Jewry in 'The Promised Land' (America) under the 'Seal of Solomon.'"
The following New York item was published from Coast to Coast under an Associated Press date line of May 8, 1937: "President Roosevelt will receive the tenth award of the Gottheil Medal for 'Distinguished Services to Jewry.'" Another such Jewish medal was given him December 22, 1938, according to the N.Y. Herald-Tribune of December 23, 1938. What "distinguished services" did Roosevelt render to Jewry???
Professor H.J. Laski, Jewish Socialist of England, was quoted in the London "Fascist" of January, 1935, thus: "If the experiment for which Roosevelt is responsible, should in any serious degree break down, as a result of the association with it of a number of eminent Jews, there would be an out-break of Anti-Semitism in the U.S. more profound than anything Anglo-Saxon Civilization has so far known."
The Delanos Jewish Also?: Writing in the "Hakenkreuzbanner" of May 14, 1939, Professor Dr. Johann von Leers of Berlin-Dahlem, Germany, publishes an exhaustive analysis of Roosevelt's ancestry. While it is apparent that the authorities quoted are not convinced regarding the authenticity of the Holland Rossocampo-Rosenvelt Jewish genealogy, a new discovery is quoted to show that President Delano Roosevelt's mother, Sarah Delano, is from a Jewish-blood family. "At once the veil fails" comments Dr. von Leers. "The President's father married Sarah Delano; and it becomes clear. Schmalix (genealogist) writes: 'In the seventh generation we see the mother of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as being of Jewish descent. The Delanos are descendants of an Italian or Spanish Jewish family; Dilano, Dilan, Dillano. The Jew Delano drafted an agreement with the West Indian Co., in 1657 regarding the colonization of the island of Curacao. About this the directors of the West Indies Co, had correspondence with the Governor of New Holland. In 1624 numerous Jews had settled in North Brazil, which was under Dutch Dominion. The old German traveler Uienhoff, who was in Brazil between 1640 and 1649, reports: 'Among the Jew settlers the greatest number had emigrated from Holland.' The reputation of the Jews was so bad that the Dutch Governor Stuyvesant (1655) demanded that their immigration be prohibited in the newly founded colony of New Amsterdam (the New York of today). It would be interesting to investigate whether the Family Delano belonged to these Jews whom the Dutch Governor did not want. It is known that the Sephardic Jewish families which came from Spain and Portugal always inter-married; and the assumption exists that the Family Delano, despite Christian-confession, remained purely Jewish."
"What results? The mother of President Roosevelt was a Delano. According to Jewish Law (Schulchan Aruk, Ebenaezer IV) the woman is the bearer of the heredity. That means; children of a full-blooded Jewess and a Christian are, according to Jewish Law, Jews. It is probable that the Family Delano kept the Jewish blood clean, and that President Roosevelt, according to Jewish Law, is a blooded-Jew even if one assumes that the father of the President was Aryan. "We can understand why Jewish associations call him the 'New Moses;' why he gets Jewish medals - highest orders of the Jewish people. For every Jew who is acquainted with the law, he is evidently one of them. The secret surrounding President Roosevelt solves itself through the assiduous investigations of Schmalix."
In this connection it is noteworthy that Who's Who in American Jewry lists the New York Brentanos as Jewish - Sephardics from Italy or Spain. Delano and Brentano end with "o". Jews expelled from Brazil settled in the U.S. Genealogist Schmalix is quoted in the article mentioned as saying: "When the Delanos changed to the Christian religion can only be ascertained by further investigations in America."
With this alleged Jewish Delano descent added to the other records herein the fact that New York Jews on the East Side constantly refer to the President proudly as "Rosenvelt," it would seem that Dr. von Leers, in his letter of May 14, 1939, to the undersigned, transmitting his latest discoveries, is justified in exclaiming: "It being true that the Delanos are well-known Jews from the Netherlands, President Roosevelt is, from the standpoint of Jewish Heredity Law, As Good A Jew As Bernard M. Baruch." Baruch is a Sephardic Jew, whose family is reported to have come from Europe via Brazil to North America.
[107] Butler V. U.S. Supreme Court, 1936.
[108] The injustice perpetrated at Versailles was only exceeded by the agreements afterwards entered into: Techran, Potsdam, and Yalta.
[109] In the later years of the dimly recorded first millennium of the Christian era, Slavic people of several kindred tribes occupied the land which became known later as the north central portion of European Russia. South of them between the Don and Volga rivers and north of the lofty Caucasus Mountains lived a people known to history as Khazars (Ancient Russia, by George Vernadsky, Yale University Press, 1943, p. 214). These people had been driven westward from Central Asia and entered Europe by the corridor between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea. They found a land occupied by primitive pastoral people of a score or more of tribes, a land which law beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Trajan (ruled, 98-117 A.D.), and also beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire (395-1453).
By slow stages the Khazars extended their territory eventually to the Sea of Azov and the adjacent littoral of the Black Sea. The Khazars were apparently a people of mixed stock with Mongol and Turkic affinities. Around the year 600, a belligerent tribe of half-Mongolian people, similar tot he modern Turks, conquered the territory of what is now Southern Russia. Before long the kingdom (khanate) of the Khazars, as this tribe was known, stretched form the Caspian to the Black Sea. Its capital, Ityl, was at the mouth of the Volga River. (A History of the Jews, by Solomon Grayzel, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication society of America, 1947).
In the eighth or ninth century of our era, a khakan (or chagan, roughly equivalent to tribal chief or primitive king) of the Khazars wanted a religion for his pagan people. Partly, perhaps, because of incipient tension between Christians and the adherents of the new Mohammedan faith (Mohammed died in 632), and partly because of fear of becoming subject to the power of the Byzantine emperor or the Islamic caliph (Ancient Russia, p. 291), he adopted a form of the Jewish religion at a date generally placed at 741 A.D., but believed by Vernadsky to be as late as 865. According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. VI, pp. 375-377), this chieftain, probably Bulan, "called upon the representatives of Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism to expound their doctrines before him. This discussion convinced him that the Jewish faith was the most preferable, and he decided to embrace it. Thereupon he and about 4,000 Khazars were circumcised; it was only by degrees that the Jewish teachings gained a foothold among the population."
In His History of the Jews (The Jewish Publication Society of America, Vol. III, 1894, pp. 140-141), Professor H. Graetz gives further details: "A successor of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first to make serious efforts to further the Jewish religion. He invited Jewish sages to settle in his dominions, rewarded them royally, founded synagogues and schools...caused instruction to be given to himself and his people in the Torah and the Talmud, and introduced a divine service modeled on the ancient communities. After Obadiah came a long series of Jewish chagans, for according to a fundamental law of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the throne."
The rabbis sent for by Khakan Obadiah were educated in and were zealots for the Babylonian Talmud, which after long labors by many hands had been completed on December 2, 499. In the thousands of synagogues which were built in the Khazar khanate, the imported rabbis and their successors were in complete control of the political, social and religious thought of their people. So significant was the Babylonian Talmud as the principal cause of Khazar resistance to Russian efforts to end their political and religious separatism, and so significant also are the modern sequels, including those in the United States, that an extensive quotation on the subject from the great History of the Jews, by Professor H. Graetz (Vol. II, 1893, pp. 631ff.) is here presented: "The Talmud must not be regarded as an ordinary work, composed of twelve volumes; it possesses absolutely no similarity to any other literary production, but forms without any figure of speech, a world of its own, which must be judged by its peculiar laws...
The Talmud contains much that is frivolous of which it treats with great gravity and seriousness; it further reflects the various superstitious practices and views of its Persian birthplace which presume the efficacy of demonical medicines, of magic, incantations, miraculous cures, and interpretations of dreams...It also contains isolated instances of uncharitable judgments and decrees against the members of other nations and religions (especially Christians), and finally it favors an incorrect exposition of the scriptures, accepting, as it does, tasteless misrepresentations.
More than six centuries lie petrified in the Talmud...Small wonder then, that...the sublime and the common, the great and the small, the grave and the ridiculous, the altar and the ashes, the Jewish and the Heathenish, be discovered side by side...The Babylonian Talmud is especially distinguished from the Jerusalem or Palestine Talmud by the flights of thought, the penetration of mind, the flashes of genius, which rise and vanish again...It was for this reason that the Babylonian rather than the Jerusalem Talmud became the fundamental possession of the Jewish people, its life breath, its very soul...nature and mankind, powers and events, were for the Jewish nation insignificant, non-essential, a mere phantom; the only true reality was the Talmud."
Not merely educated by the Talmud but actually living the life of its Babylonian background, which they may have regarded with increased devotion because most of the Jews of Mesopotamia had embraced Islam, the rabbi-governed Khazars had no intention whatever of losing their identity by becoming Russianized or Christian. The intransigent attitude of the rabbis was increased by their realization that their power would be lost if their people accepted controls other than Talmudic. These controls by rabbis were responsible not only for basic mores, but for such externals as the peculiarities of dress and hair. It has been frequently stated by writers on the subject that the "ghetto" was the work not of Russians or other Slavs but of rabbis, so they could retain their control over the lesser Jews. (The Iron Curtain Over America, By John Beaty, pp. 15-16).
[110] The directors of the Standard Bank helped bring about the Boer War in order to give them control of the gold and diamond fields in Africa.
[111] It might have been more accurate to have given him the title of Chief Director of Propaganda for the International Bankers.
[112] The importance of Palestine in the plans of those who direct the World Revolutionary Movement is such that several books have been written on the subject. The Palestine Plot, by B. Jensen; Zionism and Palestine, by Sir Ronald Storrs (who was the first Governor of Jerusalem); Geneva versus Peace, by Comte de St. Aultaire, (who was at one time ambassador to the Palace of St. James, England); The Paris Peace Conference, by Dr. Dillon, London 1919; Brief for Prosecution, by Major C.H. Douglas.
[113] This league was, in turn, financed and dominated by five American Bankers.
[114] The full significance of this declaration was not appreciated until 1954 when Prime Minister Churchill (during a visit to Bernard Baruch) stated: "I am a Zionist and have always promoted Zionism." He then followed this declaration by strongly advocating "Peaceful co-existence with the Communist Nations." As the Communist States are actually International Financiers Dictatorships it must be assumed that in 1921 as in 1954 Churchill secretly believed they are best fitted, and most able to rule.
[115] It was the German Generals and top-level officials who negotiated the Abmachungen condemned to death at the Nuremberg Trials as War Criminals simply because they knew too much.
[116] It is said that the German Grand Orient Lodges have never admitted Jews to membership for the obvious reason that the Secret Powers could never have put into effect an international plot of the nature and proportions of the Abmachungen, had their policy been otherwise.
[117] The truth regarding the value of mineral resources was not allowed to leak out until the United Nations had partitioned Palestine in 1948 in such a manner that over five trillion dollars worth of minerals are now known to be located in The State of Israel. Count Bernadotte of Sweden proposed that the Jews should give up all of the south, and receive West Galilee in the north. His plan was rejected and in September 1947 Count Bernadotte was assassinated by Jewish extremists. However, time has proven, to the dismay of the Intentional Bankers, the believed mineral wealth has not materialized to date (1995).
[118] Bernard M. Baruch, The Knickerbocker Press, Albany, N.Y. August 8, 1918.
[119] In the opening paragraphs of his autobiography, the late Bernard Baruch, whose father had been a German immigrant, wrote: "My grandfather, Bernhard Baruch, whose name I bear, had an old family relic, a skull, on which was recorded the family genealogy. It appeared that the Baruchs were of a rabbinical family and of Portuguese Spanish origin. Grandfather also claimed descent from Baruch the Scribe, who edited the prophecies of Jeremiah and whose name is given in one of the books of the Apocrypha." At the same time, the great financier admitted in a sheepish tone that that was quite unlike him: "Somewhere along the line there must ave been an admixture of Polish or Russian stock." And John L. Loeb, the present head of the banking firm Loeb, Rhoades & Company, is more ancestrally proud of his mother, the former Adeline Moses, than of his father, who founded the giant banking house. The Moseses were an old Sephardic family from the South who, though somewhat depleted from the days when they had maintained a vast plantation with slaves and cotton fields, were nonetheless disapproving when their daughter married Mr. Loeb, "an ordinary German immigrant." Bots Messrs. Baruch and Loeb are dutifully listed in Dr. Stern's registry of the Old Guard.
[120] Time Magazine, January 2, 1939.
[121] Protocol 2.
[122] Jewish Chronicle, London April 4, 1919.
[123] Rabbi Lewish Brown in "How Odd of God," New York, 1924.
[124] Prof. F.A. Ossendowski, The Nineteenth Century and After, London, p. 29 January, 1926.
[125] Louis B. Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice 1916‑1939.
[126] Rene Groos, Le Nouveau Mercure, Paris May, 1927.
[127] Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, published by, La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928.
[128] The International Jew, commissioned by Henry Ford.
[129] Blumenthal, Judisk Tidskrift, No. 57, Sweden, 1929.
[130] Jewish Encyclopedia (1905), Vol. X, p. 127.
[131] Jewish Encyclopedia (1904), Vol. VIII. p. 89.
[132] The Erlangen Edition of Luther's Table Talks, Vol. XXXII, p. 120.
[133] Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew.
[134] Jewish Encyclopedia (1904), Vol. VIII, p. 213.
[135] Daily Express March 24/34.
[136] Das Morgenthau‑Tagebuch The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11.
[137] Reinhold Niebur, Speech before the Jewish Institute of Religion New York, Oct. 3, 1934.
[138] U.S. House of Representatives Reece Committee Report, p. 141, published December 16, 1954.
[139] Jewish Daily Bulletin, 7/27/1935.
[140] Michael Gold, New Masses, p. 15 May 7, 1935.
[141] Quotation from a Jewish banker by the Comte de Saint‑Aulaire in Geneve contre la Paix Libraire Plan, Paris, 1936.
[142] The House that Hitler built, Stephen Roberts, 1937.
[143] Money, Whence It Came, Where It Went, by John Kenneth Galbraith p. 22.
[144] George Marlen, Stalin, Trotsky, or Lenin, p. 414 New York, 1937.
[145] Rabbi Victor Eppstein, Opinion April, 1937.
[146] Dr. Alfred Nossig, Intergrales Judentum.
[147] Protocols 6 and 10.
[148] Protocol 8.
[149] Onward Christian Soldiers, by Donald Day, pp. 116‑121.
[150] This refers to the advice sent by the Sanhedrin in Constantinople to Chemor, Rabbi of Arles in Provence in 1489 mentioned elsewhere.
[151] This is a typical example of how any situation is used to divide the citizens of a nation and get them fighting each other on the principle that all wars pave the way for revolution.
[152] This is an example of how the agents of the International Bankers are placed in private and responsible enterprise for the purpose of helping their revolutionary leaders to oust moderate leaders they cannot buy or otherwise control.
[153] "I swear obedience without limitation to the Head of the Council of Thirty-Three...I swear to acknowledge no mortal as above him."
[154] What General Mola said was confirmed by a broadcast over the radio from Moscow on March 13, 1938. The announcer was explaining why the Civil War wasn't going in favor of the Communists. He said: "The great work in Spain was seriously compromised by the wicked generals breaking their plighted word to the Grand Orient."
[155] The revolutionary leaders were supplying counterfeit English Bank Notes to finance revolutionary efforts in other countries also.
[156] This speech proves that the International Press lied to their readers when it reported The King of Spain had abdicated. The King of Spain never abdicated. Franco holds control of government because the International Conspirators are still determined to turn Spain into a Totalitarian Dictatorship to serve their ends.
[157] Even Maurin and Serges failed to suspect that Lenin and Stalin were only carrying out the orders of the International Bankers, who in turn obey the Illuminati.
[158] Here again is a typical example of how well the International Bankers kept their secret. Maurin blamed the Governments of England and France for the international crimes perpetrated against humanity by the Bankers, under the direction of the Illuminati.
[159] This confirms what has been previously stated, that once the Sphere of Influence was established between the 35th and 45th parallel, the countries within the circle would be subjugated.
[160] Victor Serges in Maurin's Revolution et Contre-Revolution en Espagne.
[161] Exactly as agents of the W.R.M. drafted The Federal Reserve Banking legislation in America, in 1910 and 1913 and the "Palestine Mandate" in England in 1916.
[162] Police seized 90,000 rivles; 33,000 revolvers; and 500,000 rounds of ammunition and a tremendous amount of counterfeit money.
[163] It was to finance Ferrers "Training Schools" for youth that Moscow subscribed the $200,000 previously mentioned. In Toronto in 1954 there were seventeen such "Training Schools." There were several in Sudbury. All big cities of population have them.
[164] In all of these, one can see the work of the Jews, because everyone of the things Christ was accused of is recorded in the pages of the Jewish Talmud, which is without doubt the most blasphemous book ever written.
[165] The sex orgy that took place in the Ford Hotel in Toronto, October 23, 1954, after the Red Feather Football game, involved dozens of teenagers of both sexes. It was a typical example of what Communist influence, secretly exerted, can have on the youth of any nation.
[166] For years this gold was an international problem, even to 1955; as Franco demanded that the Soviet return the gold.
[167] This order protected the bankers and capitalists who were working as agents of the Illuminati in exactly the same way in which similar orders protected the Rothschilds in the French Revolution.
[168] This order shows the Illuminati are the real leaders of a revolutionary effort. They are always in the top-levels of Governments, Society, Industry and the Armed Forces. The workers, the Mob, are simply the "Pawns in the Game." They are used and then subdued.
[169] Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.
[170] The Coming of the New Deal, by Arthur M. Schleisinger, Jr., 1958.
[171] America Goes to War, by Charles Tansill, 1938.
[172] The Lusitania, by Colin Simpson, p. 59.
[173] The Lusitania, by Colin Simpson, p. 89.
[174] The Lusitania, by Colin Simpson, p. 134.
[175] The Lusitania, p. 6.
[176] Deadly Lies, by Gary Allen, American Opinion, May, 1976, p. 33.
[177] The Lusitania, pp. 3‑4.
[178] The Lusitania, p. I.
[179] The Harding Tragedy, by Harry M. Daugherty, p. xxxvi.
[180] Roosevelt and Churchill, by Joseph Lasy, p. 429.
[181] This fact had a great deal to do with the eventual destruction of Czarist power which ended with the murder of Tzar Nicholas II, and his whole family, in the house in Ekaterinburg on July 17, 1918, by a man named Yorovrest. Ekaterinburg was afterwards renamed Sverdlovsk in honor of the Jew Yakov Sverdlov who was president of the Soviet Republic at the time of the executions. Illuminati symbols were formed on the walls of the death cellar.
[182] Which just shows one the total traitorousness of the Jews. They cannot be trusted by anyone, no matter how much that person tries to help them. For they will always turn on their benefactor like a mad dog. Which is why the Scriptures calls them dogs.
[183] This is another illustration of how even a Professor of History can fall into the anti-_Semitic pitfalls set by the conspirators. Admittedly the majority of people believe that all the International Bankers and Tycoons are Jews, but this is incorrect. The majority are not Jews, either by blood, racial descent or religion. They actually foster anti-Semitism because they can use all anti-movements to further their diabolical plans.
[184] Ginzberg was the official representative in Russia of the House of Rothschild.
[185] The Zionist Movement was in turn controlled by the International Bankers and also used to further their secret plans and ambitions. Read "The Palestine Plot" by B. Jensen.
[186] Captain F.H. Carr, was one of the British officers who served with the Japanese in 1904 and 1905. A beautiful ivory carving of a Japanese wood-cutter enjoying a smoke after lunch was given to him by the Japanese government in appreciation of services rendered.
[187] Francios Coty in Figaro February 20, 1932 said: The subsidies granted the Nihilists at the period (i.e. 1905 to 1914) by Jacob Schiff were no longer acts of isolated generosity. A veritable Russian Terrorist Organization had been set up in the United States at his expense, charged to assassinate Ministers, Governors, Heads of Police, and etc.
[188] Dr. Chaim Weizmann, in The London Jewish Chronicle, December 16, 1932.
[189] Herbert T. Fitch, Scotland Yark detective, in his book Traitors Within, p. 16.
[190] Major-General, Count Cherep-Spiridovich, The Secret World Government, p. 36.
[191] D. Petrovsky, Russia under the Jews, p. 86.
[192] Common Sense, April 1, 1963.
[193] Count Mensdorf {a Jew}, post WW I Austrian Ambassador to Britain.
[194] Judishe Rundschau, #4, 1920, Germany.
[195] The American Hebrew, September 10, 1920.
[196] Dr. Oscar Levy, Preface to The World Significance of the Russian Revolution by George Pitt‑Rivers 1920.
1 This letter was datelined in Germany, but mailed in the United States, so it probably was carried by a courier.
1 A speech titled: Versailles Treaty Prepared Europe for Another War, Representative Jacob Thorkelson of Montana, U.S. Congressional Record.
1 Tolerance for Communism lnvites Destruction, Congressional Record, June 19th, 1939; Representative Jacob Thorkelson of Montana.
2 Matthew 7:20.
1 President George Washington's Farewell Address.
1 Report of the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs, No. 1615, 76th Congress, 3d Session.
2 In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the Goyim lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret. NO ONE WILL DARE TO DEMAND THE ABROGATION OF A MATTER ONCE SETTLED, ALL THE MORE SO AS IT WILL BE REPRESENTED AS AN IMPROVEMENT...And immediately THE PRESS WILL DISTRACT THE CURRENT OF THOUGHT TOWARDS NEW QUESTIONS {have we not trained people always to be seeking something new?}. Into the discussion of these new questions will throw themselves those of the brainless dispensers of fortunes who are not able even now to understand that they have not the remotest conception about the matters which they undertake to discuss. Questions of the political are unattainable for any save those who have guided it already for many ages, the creators. (Protocol 5:10; 13:1).
1 Defender Magazine, October 1933.
2 The London Daily Express ‑‑ Front Page Story ‑‑ 3/24/1933.
1 Heinrich Hartle, Germans and Jews ‑‑ Investigation into a World Problem, Leoni 1977, S. 278.
2 2d Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
3 Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886).
4 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876).
5 1 Annals of Congress 750 (1789).
6 48 Stat. 1236 (1934), 26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.
1 Miller v. United States, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).
2 (C.A. 1, 1942), cert. den., 319 U.S. 770 (1943).
3 Enacted measures include the Gun Control Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 226, 18 U.S.C 921‑928. On proposals, see National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Working papers (Washington: 1970).
4 The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, Annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, pp. 1035‑1036.
5 Luke 11:21.
1 Perpich v. Department of Defense, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 69-542, (1990) L Ed 2d 3121.
2 32 U.S.C. Sec. 109(C).
3 South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396.15 L Ed. 433 (1856).
4 Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882) See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979).
1 Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983).
2 Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968).
3 Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975).
1 Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981).
2 Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App.2d 460 (1968).
3 Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989).
1 Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990).
1 D.C. App. 444 A 2d 1.
1 Thomas Jefferson.
1 1 Timothy 5:8.
2 Article 1, Constitution of the United States.
1 Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 694‑697.
2 Luke 22:36.
1 Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
2 Miller vs. U.S. 230 F 486, 489.
1 Janet Reno, in a speech before an ATF luncheon, Washington, D.C.
1 It is amazing, but true, this degraded and vulgar, repulsive show is government protected: Because of its Jewish host.
1 Washington Times, 8/26/94.
1 However, a few of the documents have surfaced and much information about a "Purple Machine" which broke the Japanese Code was revealed in the Book "Saga of Hog Island."
1 This Zionist use of terror bombings against Jews was documented in the May 29, 1966 issue of the Israeli Magazine Ha'olam Hazeh, in the November 9, 1972 issue of The Black Panther (a publication of Israel's Oriental Jews) and in Dr. Lilienthal's book, The Zionist Connection.
2 The Zionist Connection, Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal.
3 NBC-TV Dateline, 7/18/95.
4 New York Times, 1/25/94.
5 New York Times, 3/24/95.
1 New York Post, Thursday, October 6, 1968.
2 Washington Post, 9/17/79.
3 New York Times, 11/29/88.
4 The American Reporter, February/March 1995 issue.
1 U.S. News & World Report, January 24, 1994.
2 Washington Times, 6/28/94.
3 Time Magazine, 1/17/94.
4 New York Times, 8/6/94.
1 Pages E-617-619.
2 Which was repeatedly involved in terrorist activities - INCLUDING BOMBINGS, ARSON, AND MURDER!
3 San Diego Union, January 10, 1976.
4 The National Review, 7/10/95.
5 Washington Post, 7/15/80.
6 New York Times, 5/15/80.
1 The Washington Post.
2 New York Times, 6/25/95.
3 Anderson said that this system is sort of like a Technological Tattoo, October 11, 1993, Washington Times.
1 Reliance Magazine, November 23, 1994.
2 Relevance Magazine.
3 Washington Times, May 22, 1995.
4 Los Angeles Times, August 17, 1994.
5 Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter, May, 1995.
1 The New York Times, 5/10/95.
2 Washington Times, 6/6/95.
1Proverbs 6:1.
2 1 Kings 4:21.
3 Joshua 24:20.
4 2 Corinthians 6:17.
1 From a review of his divorce papers, one can quickly find that Morris Dees is a Queer, degenerate, pervert, pedophile, and etc.
1 Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate.
1 Exodus 22:24; Numbers 11:33; Deuteronomy 9:7‑8; Romans 1:18; Ephesians 5:6; Hebrews 3:11; Revelation 6:16; 14:19 and 19:15.
2 Isaiah 35:4; Ezekiel 25:14; and Hebrews 10:30.
3 Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24, 5:9, 6:15; 1 Corinthians 10:22 and 2 Corinthians 11:2.
4 Deuteronomy 9:13‑20; 1 Kings 11:9; 2 Kings 17:18; Psalm 79:5; and 80:4.
5 John 2:13.
6 Ephesians 4:26.
1 Genesis 4:8.
2 Genesis 6:5‑7.
3 Genesis 14:14‑15.
1 Isaiah 2:2.
2 Isaiah 60:3.
3 Zechariah 12:6‑9.
4 Judges 3:1‑2.
5 1 Timothy 1:5.
6 Exodus 20:13.
7 Exodus 21:17.
8 Exodus 15:3.
9 Deuteronomy 23:7.
10 Malachi 1:3.
11 1 Samuel 14:47.
12 2 Samuel 8:14.
1 Deuteronomy 20:1.
2 Matthew 5:43‑44.
3 Joshua 24:15.
1 Congressional Record: May 24, 1939; Hon. Jacob Thorkelson, Montana: Shall "Despots Arise on the Ruins of Public Liberty?"
2 Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to all Anti‑Semites, p. 148. 1939.
1 Col. E.N. Sanctuary.
2 Senator Bennett Champ Clark.
3 Robert L. Owens, Senator, Foreword, The Russian Imperial Conspiracy, 1892‑1914.
1 Ibid. Introduction.
2 Genesis of the War, H.E. Barnes, p. 679.
3 Ibid. p. 713.
1 Signed: Roger Lewis ‑‑ Associated Press; Irving S. Cobb ‑‑ Saturday Evening Post; Harvey Hansen ‑‑ Chicago Daily News; John T. McCutcheon and O'Donnell Bennett.
2 Senator Owen's book was copyrighted in 1927.
3 Whose Sin Is The World War, Count Julius Andrassy, p. 98.
1 Congressional Record, June 19, 1939, quoting a statement by Winston Churchill.
1 In view of what we propose to show later it is important that you should bear in mind the three especially provocative statements made by President Roosevelt; at Chicago, October 11, 1937, when he used the phrase about quarantining the aggressor; also his unqualified naming that our frontier was in France, February 1, 1939; followed, April 14, 1938, by the statement that.
1 See Congressional Record for September 3, 1918, p. 9875.
2 See also How Diplomats Make War, by Neilson.
3 London Round Table.
4 New Statesman and Nation.
1 And So To War, p. 101.
1 The American Government Does Not Wish To Make War, It Pushes Europe Into It.
1 Chicago Daily Tribune, November 9, 1940.
2 Wireless to The New York Times.
1 The New York Times, Sunday, Dec. 15, 1940.
1 New York Herald Tribune, Sunday, Dec. 22, 1940, pp. 16‑17.
2 Chicago Daily Tribune, Friday, January 17, 1941.
1 John 8:44‑47.
2 Mark 4:22.
3 Luke 8:17.
1 Werner Sombart, a Jew.
1 Are These Things So, p. 319.
1 By Telephone to The New York Times.
1 Matthew 23:11‑12.
2Rabbi Stephen S. Wise.
3 Proudly revealed on CBS radio by Samuel Untemeyer, President of the World Jewish Federation.
1 Wartime Journals, Charles A. Lindburg, 5/1/41.
2 Wartime Journals, 5/1/41.
1 Memoirs of World War II, Winston S. Churchill, p. 248.
1 Deuteronomy 4:5‑6.
2 Acts 22:28.
3 Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists (1772).
1 2 Corinthians 3:17.
2 Leviticus 25:10.
3 Deuteronomy 5:18.
4 2 Kings 22:2.
5 2 Kings 34‑35.
1 2 Kings 123:37.
2 Proverbs 3:12.
3 Hebrews 12:6‑11.
1 Matthew 25:34.
2 Hebrews 6:17.
1 Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, in a speech on Dec. 3, 1942 ‑‑ New York City.
2 Mein Leben ‑‑ USA, Europa, Israel, Nahum Goldmann, pp. 53, 66‑67, 116.
1 The Rockefeller Family - Secret Jews! A book overlooked by most people and published for sale mainly within the Jewish community states that the Rockefellers are Jews of Sephardic descent (meaning Spanish and Portuguese Jews). The book is entitled "The Grandees - America's Sephardic Elite." The author is Stephen Birmingham, who is recognized by the Jewish community as an expert on Jewish history.
The publisher of "The Grandees" is the Jewish owned publishing firm of "Harper and Row" of New York City. Mr. Birmingham also wrote the book "Our Crowd" about the family background of America's wealthiest and most successful Jews. Both books have been hailed by Jewish publications as first class works in the documentation of Jewish history.
In "The Grandees" Stephen Birmingham reveals the existence of a very rare book which was published only for Jews some years ago. The work was published only for Jews some years ago. The work was compiled by the Jewish historian Malcolm H. Stern and entitled "Americans of Jewish Decent." That book weighed 10 pounds and gave the history of 25,000 Jewish individuals in America. It is extremely interesting to note that only 550 copies of the book were printed and each copy was consecutively numbered. The book was delivered to the top Jewish community leaders in America for their personal reference files in dealing with and contacting Jews who are "Marranos" (those Jews who "Pretend" to be Christians in their community but secretly hold to their Jewish faith and race when among their own kind).
Mr. Birmingham in "The Grandees" reports: "Who would expect to find the Rockefellers in the book." Stern's work traces what he calls the "Nobility of Jewry - the Sephardim who lived in Spain and Portugal as princes of the land." Many centuries ago the Jews flooded into Spain in great numbers and through usury and stealth became vast land owners. The Jews controlled both Spain and Portugal through their monopoly over the finances of the country.
It was in 1492 that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain expelled the Jews from their country and confiscated their ill-gotten wealth. It was during this period that the Rockefeller family moved to the Turkish Empire which welcomed the Jews at that time, believing them to be a "poor persecuted people."
The grandfather of our former Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller, admitted that his family once moved from Turkey to France. It was from France that they moved to America. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., was a wealthy man even before he took over Standard Oil Co., which made their family one of the richest in the world. No one has ever explained how this family came into such wealth as soon as they arrived in America from France.
There is no known information on how the Rockefellers came into huge amounts of money in France. Some thing they got their money from the Rothschilds and were originally their agents in buying up Christian businesses in America. "Marranos" are Jews who "Pretend" to convert to Christianity so as to deceive Christians in their business dealings, but secretly continued to practice Judaism in private rituals. For this reason, a Marrano family like the Rockefellers would make the perfect tool for the Rothschilds of France who have for centuries used secret agents to carry on their work.
"The Thunderbolt" was the first publication to bring Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller's Jewish ancestry to public attention. This information finally explains why he has always been able to work so closely with Jewish interests and why his administration as governor of New York was loaded down with Jews from top to bottom. His political campaigns of the past were always directed by Jews and he was always the support of the Jewish community in all of his political races.
Normally the Jews would not support a Christian multi-millionaire for political office because they would be afraid they could not control him after the election. The fact that Jewish community leaders have long known that the Rockefellers were fellow Jews goes a long way in explaining why the organized Jewish community has always supported the Rockefeller's political ambitions. Now we can see why Nelson and David Rockefeller boosted his fellow Jew Henry Kissinger into the Nixon administration and Kissinger in turn has used his position to bring his fellow Jew Rockefeller into power.