Chapter Five
United Nations and Moral Degeneration
1945: On April 26, 1945, representatives of most of the civilized nations of the world met in San Francisco to create an organization of nations which would become a pattern for world government and, it was hoped by its sincere supporters, insure lasting peace to a world long weary of war. The conference was completed on June 26, 1945, with the adoption of the U.N. Charter.
Before the San Francisco convention, however, much groundwork had been done by various groups in the United States and elsewhere, designed to make the world organization acceptable to the United States, which had, after World War I, rejected membership in the League of Nations. For a period of approximately three years before the actual formation of the United Nations, there was conducted in the United States a full‑blown, expensive campaign to overcome the natural objections of a free and powerful nation to giving up of its national sovereignty.
In 1941, there was organized a group called the International Free World Association, and this group began publishing a magazine called Free World. The secretary of this group was Louis Dolivert, who was later identified in testimony before the Senate Internal Securities Subcommittee by Louis Bundez as a member of the Communist Party[1] Bundez was a high Communist Party functionary who defected and gave valuable testimony to the U.S. Government concerning communist spy networks in America.
The fact that the United Nations was envisioned by its planners as a world government, superseding the sovereignty of nations, was not hidden. On Aug. 6, 1946, the Chicago Triune published an article concerning the one‑world plans of the U.N., and headed it "Radicals, Rich United To Push World State; Fight Defenders of U.S. Sovereignty."
The Council on Foreign Relations, in conjunction with the U.S. State Department, played an important role in the "conditioning" of the U.S. Congress and public to accept the U.N. Charter and its restrictions on national sovereignty. This is set out in State Department Publication 3580 (1950) on p. 180.
This Subcommittee on International Organization was headed by Sumner Wells, of the State Department. Proving the direct link between the old League of Nations and the United Nations, was the fact that two members of this subcommittee had also served on the staff of Col. E.M. House at the Paris Peace Conference in 1918, at the time of the founding of the League of Nations. They were Dr. James T. Shotwell and Isaiah Bowman.
Before the San Francisco Conference, preliminary meetings were held in Moscow, Russia, in October, 1943, to lay ground‑work for the United Nations. The Moscow Conference was attended by the top diplomats of the United States, Russia, Great Britain and by the Chinese Ambassador to Russia. This meeting was held under the cold, calculating eye of Joseph Stalin, and received his blessings.
Later, at Dumbarton Oaks, final plans for the United Nations organization were hammered out: "Dumbarton Oaks Conference, a conference held at Washington, D.C., Aug. 21 to Oct. 7, 1944, among the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China, to formulate plans for an international organization. The conference was held at Dumbarton Oaks, the Georgetown estate formerly belonging to Robert Woods Bliss.
Because the Soviet Union was not at that time at war with Japan, Soviet representatives participated only until Sep. 28, and the Chinese only from Sep. 29 on. Basing its work on the principles expressed in the Moscow Declaration of Oct. 30, 1943, the conference drew up plans for an organization to be called the United Nations, with a general assembly, security council, world court, secretariat, and other agencies.
These proposals were published at the end of the conference. The conference also provided for the calling of a later formal meeting of all peace‑loving nations to establish the proposed organization. Problems left unsettled at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, particularly the veto power and the voting procedure, were decided at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 (See Yalta Conference). The Dumbarton Oaks proposals were considered and discussed in many nations during the months after their publication and, with many modifications, became the basis for the charter of the United Nations adopted at San Francisco in M16 1945." [2]
The chief planner at this conference, and later a top aide at the United Nations Convention, was Alger Hiss, who was later to be exposed as a Soviet spy working inside the U.S. Government. To fully understand the planning behind the United Nations prior to 1945, we should look more closely at the Free World Association, which had such close ties to our own State Department. The organization, through its publication, Free World, made no effort to hide the fact that they were planning a world organization, with powers to enforce international decrees, and that the sovereignty of nations could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of this lofty goal.
One of those most active in the Free World Association was Carlo Emmanuel a Prato, who was a member of the International Editorial Board of Free World. For background on Mr. Prato, we quote from the Congressional Record, July 11, 1950, p. A5016: "Associated in the OWI Division under the control of Alan Cranston was an alleged Italian Communist, Carlo Emanuel a Prato, who had been expelled from Switzerland as a Soviet agent, entered the United States on a Czech passport issued to Milan Janota."
An ad in the Free World, August 1945, made the following statement: "This month marks the Free World's fourth anniversary. Its first objective, a charter for world organization, is realized. Now we move on toward broader world democracy." The objectives of the Free World Organization was set out as early as October 1942, in its publication: "The creation of the machinery for a world government in which the United Nations will serve as a nucleus is a necessary task of the present in order to prepare in time the foundations for a future world order."
Following the formation of the United Nations, and continuing right up until today, numerous ultra liberal and "left" organizations have been organized around the promotion and defense of the United Nations. One of the earliest of these was United World Federalists, formed on Feb. 22, 1947, by merger of several other organizations interested in world government. These merged groups were Americans United for World Government; World Federalists; Massachusetts committee for World Federation; Student Federalists; World Citizens of Georgia, and World Republic.[3]
Their statement quoted at that time included the following: "...World peace can be created and maintained only under world law, universal and strong enough to prevent armed conflict between nations... Therefore, while endorsing the efforts of the United Nations to bring about a world community favorable to peace, we will work primarily to strengthen the United Nations into a world government of limited powers adequate to prevent a war and having direct jurisdiction over the individual."
The frankness with which the proponents of one‑world government discussed their plans, alarmed many Americans who objected to surrendering their sovereignty, and even the basic right to defend ourselves. In 1953 the move was made by the U.N. forces when the World Federal-Government Conference met in Copenhagen, and recommended a revision of the U.N. Charter to provide for the following:
1). That the United Nations be made into a World Federal Government.
2). That there must be universal membership.
3). No right of secession.
4). Complete and simultaneous disarmament, enforced by U.N. inspection and U.N. police powers.
5). International courts, world legislature, world executive Council be established.
6). World citizenship through U.N. Membership, with world law applicable to individuals.
These proposals, if adopted, would have removed all traces of national sovereignty and, by definition, the sovereignty of member states. Implicit with this proposal was the power of taxation of the individual by a world legislature dominated by have‑not nations envious of the great wealth and industry of the United States, where resides only six percent of the world population, but which controls half the world wealth and production capacity.
In 1954 another similar conference was held in London by a group known as World Movement for World Federation. Similar proposals were made. The membership and makeup of these two conferences indicated that they were being given considerable weight in official U.S. circles. It was these blatant movements to end national sovereignty that caused Senator John Bricker to propose his "Bricker Amendment," which would have written into the U.S. Constitution the safeguards against our making of treaties which would bring about world government through treaty law. The Bricker Amendment, after a long battle, fell just one vote short of receiving the necessary two‑thirds majority in the Senate.
Frank Holman, former president of the American Bar Association, wrote of the Bricker Amendment: "The Amendment is designed to write clearly into the Constitution the simple proposition that treaties and executive agreements shall not make domestic law for the people of this country except by congressional legislation within the constitutional power of the Congress. Then no State Department, now or in the future, would be able, by an international agreement, to authorize or permit the representatives of other nations to have a voice in our domestic affairs and initiate changes in our basic rights as protected by our own Constitution and Bill of Rights."
Holman warned of the dangers inherent in the defeat of the Bricker Amendment in the following terms: "We must never forget that the issue involved in the Bricker Amendment is the greatest issue which faces America today...The Bricker Amendment is a Bill of Rights against uncontrolled 'treaty power.' The issue is the basic issue of whether we and our children are to have a government of men or a government of adequate constitutional safeguards..."
Of course the Bricker Amendment was fought by all the "one‑world" organizations and the "internationalists" in and out of government. Among those high in our federal government who led the fight were U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Doublas, Sen. Ralph Flanders (R. Vt.), Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D. Minn.), John J. McCloy, former assistant Secretary of War and former High Commissioner to Germany; Paul G. Hoffman, of the State Department, Thomas K. Finletter, and many others. Prior to the introduction of the Bricker Amendment, a joint resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives, and passed, having the following wording: "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate Concurring) that it is the sense of the Congress that it should be fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation, open to all nations, with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation and enforcement of world law." [4]
It is significant that this resolution, which was sponsored by many of the House liberals, called for acceptance of the United Nations as a proper body to make international law, interpret international law, and enforce, international law. By February, 1950, the stampede was on by Congressmen who had endorsed the world government resolution, to revoke such endorsement. They had heard from an irate public back home. Rep. Bernard W. Kearney (R. NY) called a meeting of the sponsors of HCR 64, and made the following statement: "We signed the resolution believing we were sponsoring a movement to set up a stronger power within the United Nations for world peace. Then we learned that various organizations were working on state legislatures and on peace movements for world government action under which the entire U.S. Government would be submerged in a super world government. Perhaps we should have read the fine print in the first place. We do not intend to continue in the role of sponsors of any movement which undermines U.S. sovereignty. Many other Congressmen feel as I do. We will make our position thoroughly clear."
Rep. Kearney had reference to the fact that the world government advocates had gone to the various state legislatures had gone to the various state legislatures and induced many of them to follow the Congressional resolution, endorsing the U.N. as a vehicle for world government. A total of 23 states had responded. Within two years, 18 of the states which had passed the resolution, had rescinded it.
By this time we had gone through the Korean War, in which Russia, a member of the United Nations, had directed a war of aggression against South Korea, and against American and United Nations forces defending South Korea.
This was a bizarre and sobering experience for many Americans. They saw the United Nations (largely represented by U.S. forces) engaged in fighting Communist aggressors, while the United Nations machinery having direct involvement in the war was under control of a Russian national, and Russia was aiding the Communist aggressor forces. On May 15, 1954, the U.S. Defense Department released an official statement of Russian involvement in Korea. This statement was summarized by U.S. News & World Report (5/28/54) which stated: "It is the evidence of direct Russian participation in the Korean War...It shows, in detail, how Russians planned the Korean attack, built up the forces required, ordered the assault, then directed the Communist forces in action...you get the evidence, too, of more than 10,000 soldiers and vast stocks of Russian arms used in that 'non‑Russian' war."
We have examined in some degree how the Communist influence exerted by such persons as Hiss, Dolivert and Carolo a Prato, was dominant in the thinking and planning of the United Nations. Other State Department planners with established Communist links, such as Phillip Jessup and Dean Achison, were of nearly equal importance. (Phillip Jessup now sits on the U.N. World Court as the American representative).
It is important at this point to show that the American people really had no choice in accepting or rejecting our role in the United Nations. Dr. James T. Shotwell, another left‑leaner, admitted in his book, An Autobiography (Bobbs‑Merrill Co., 1961), that it was he who in 1939 set up a group called a Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. He said there were 100‑members of the group who met in small committees to study the question. “This work was, naturally, well known to the State Department. When it set up a small committee with Sumner Wells, the Under‑ Secretary of State, as chairman to draft a post‑war policy, both Clark Eichelberger, of the League of Nations Association, and I were invited to serve on it."
The result of this committee's work, with few revisions, became the Charter of the United Nations, Shotwell said. But to show how closely it was co‑ordinated with Communist world leaders, we again quote: "The work of the planning committee of the State Department was kept secret until finally, at a conference of foreign ministers in Moscow in November, 1943, Secretary Hull secured the consent of Stalin to establish a general organization...for the maintenance of international peace and security."
This agreement with Stalin resulted in the San Francisco meeting in April, 1945, to draft the U.N. Charter. That, supposedly, was the beginning of the United Nations. But in a State Department publication, No. 3580, released February, 1950, we find the following references to the United Nations, which supposedly was yet to be born. The report was from the first meeting of an advisory committee on Post-War Foreign Policy, held February 12, 1942, in the office of Sumner Wells.
"Thought was given to the possibility of informing the public immediately of the establishment and work of the committee. It was felt that the circumstances at the moment, when the United States, was being driven back in the Pacific and the United Nations cause was suffering on every front, rendered secrecy imperative until a favorable turn in the war..."
|
|
The work of the subcommittee referred to, the report revealed, established that an international organization should be set up during the war to be ready when needed to create a world political organization. The political subcommittee which worked out these details was discussed in the report: "Its discussions throughout were founded upon belief in unqualified victory by the United Nations. It predicted, as an absolute prerequisite for world peace, the continuing strength of the United Nations through unbroken co‑operation after the war."
The United Nations was created with a Security Council consisting of 11‑members, who have veto power. The five permanent members are the United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China. The membership in the other six places is rotated. A General Assembly of the U.N. constitutes the other main organ of the organization itself. It is comprised of all the members of the United Nations in good standing, and has no enforcement powers.
The U.N., however, quickly set up many specialized agencies to work under U.N. banners in all member countries and in almost every field of human endeavor. Some of the major subsidiary organizations are: The World Health Organization; The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; The World Court; Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; The World Court of Justice; The United nations International Children Emergency Fund; The Economic and Social council; The Commission on Human Rights; International Labor Organization; commission on the Status of Women, and man, many others.
Subcommittees of these committees are formed in great proliferation. It gives the U.N. the machinery to interfere or interject its influence into the affairs of any member nation. One of the most important departments of the United Nations itself is the Department of Political and Security Affairs, a part of the U.N. Secretariat, and the head of this is appointed by the Secretary‑General.
In a letter dated June 24, 1966, the United Nations described the duties of this department as: "This Department provides such services as are required by the Security Council and its subsidiary organs, the Political Committee of the general assembly, the Disarmament Commission, and other bodies set up to deal with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. This includes issuing documentation required, providing secretariat services during meetings, and drafting the annual report. The Department may also prepare memoranda to assist the Secretary‑General or in pursuance of resolution of the United Nations organs. The post of the Under‑Secretary for political and Security Council Affairs has been held by the following people:
Year Soviet General's Name
1946‑1949 Arkady Alexandrovich Sobolev (USSR)
1949‑1953 Constantine E. Zinchenko (USSR)
1953‑1954 Ilya S. Tehernychev (USSR)
1955‑1957 Dragoslav Protich (Yugoslavia)
1958‑1959 Antoly Dobrynin (USSR)
1960‑1962 George Petrovich Arkadev (USSR)
1962‑1963 Eugeney D. Kiselev (USSR)
1963‑1964 Valdimir Paulovich Suslov (USSR)
1965‑1967 Alexei Efremovitch Nesterenko (USSR)
1968‑1973 Leonid N. Kutakov (USSR)
1973‑1978 Arkady N. Shevchenko (USSR)
1978‑1980 Mikhail D. Sytenko (USSR)
1981‑1986 Viacheslav A. Ustinov (USSR)
1987‑ Vasiliy S. Safronchuk (USSR) [5]
Thus, during the Korean and Vietnamese War, when the United States Military was fighting under U.N. banners the official in command of United Nations military affairs was a Russian General. This same department, under a Russian General, was in control of the successful plans to overthrow the established government of Rhodesia. This department serves as "advisor" to plans set forth in the Rand Report, financed by the tax‑exempt Carnegie Foundation. The Rand Report which will be further discussed, is a plan for U.N. action, using American and Russian forces as a requisite, to militarily invade South Africa to overthrow the constituted government of this member nation.
It should be noted that the under‑secretary in charge of the Department of Political and Security Council Affairs has, in all cases except one, been a Russian national. In that single exemption, he was a Communist national of Yugoslavia. This is not by accident. Past Secretary‑General Dag Hammerskjold revealed that his hands had been tied by an agreement between Russia and the American planners, granting Russia the permanent right to name the person who should hold this important post. With this agreement in effect, and with the precedent set in an unbroken line, Russia would, in effect, have complete control over any military planning and military operation of forces put under U.N. Command.
1945: The United States Military forces were triumphantly in command on land, on the sea, and in the air Germany was crushed. The Japanese navy was on the bottom of the ocean. Europe was in shambles. The world lay prostrate at our feet. What a day of victory the Lord God and Jesus Christ had given us. The United States had borne the expense and heat of battle. Russia had done very little but play the game for advantage and spoils.
We were ready to march triumphantly to victory through all conquered lands and proclaim liberty, freedom, justice, and peace to the peoples of the earth. But, alas! Washington orders were Halt! And there along the historic Elbe River brave American Men impatiently waited along their 150 mile long front, while the Soviet captured Germany's great intellectual scientists, took over the famous Krupp Munitions plants, captured, dismantled, like hungry ravenous beasts, Germany's mighty industries and captured and enslaved over 19‑million Germany people. Then they dashed into Czechoslovakia and captured the great Skoda Munitions works, and gobbled up Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, Half of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Half of Germany.
February, at Yalta, the Jewish negotiators gave all of these countries and 500,000,000 innocent freedom‑ loving people to the bondage, torture and slaughter of Communism in exchange for Arabian Pensula's immense oil reserves to be exploited by the Rockefellers.
No wonder hell will have to be enlarged. On April 26, 1945, representatives of most of the civilized nations of the world met in San Francisco to create an organization of nations which would become a pattern for world government and, it was hoped by its sincere supporters; insure lasting peace to a world long weary of war. The conference was completed on June 26, 1945, with the adoption of the U.N. Charter. It is important at this point to show that the American people really had no choice in accepting or rejecting our role in the United Nations.
Article 25, of the U.N. Charter carries the authority to force members to obey decisions of the Security Council. It reads: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
Article 26 reads: "In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the lease diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments." Here, again, we see the strategic position occupied by Russia under its agreement to permanently name the chief of the U.N. Staff for military operations.
Articles 41 through 51, reproduced below, deal with action that the U.N. may take against any nation, whether member or not, to enforce its decrees and policies. This may consist of measures short of war, such as withdrawal of diplomatic relations, economic relations, even postal, radio, air service, sea, rail or telegraphic contact by U.N. Members with such a quarantined nation. The Next step authorized is the use of military demonstrations, blockade, etc., of the target nation.
Articles 43 through 45, requires member nations to furnish military forces to be used against such a nation, under U.N. command. Article 48, gives the U.N. the power to select which nations may be ordered to furnish armed might, and how much.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the Unite Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43
1). All Members of the United nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2). Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3). The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional process.
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfillment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures. Members shall hold immediately available, national air‑force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined, within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43...
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47
1). There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces planned at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
2). The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations no permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
3). The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces be worked out subsequently.
4). The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional subcommittees.
Article 48
1). The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self‑defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Articles 52 through 54 deal with regional agreements, such as NATO, SEATO and the Organization of American States, and places them under U.N. authority, and makes them available, at U.N. command, to be used in enforcing U.N. policy. Our operation in Vietnam was under the SEATO commitment, therefore, under U.N. Charter control.
Article 52
1). Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
2). The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.
3). The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.
4). This Article in no way impairs the application of articles 34 and 35.
Article 53
1). The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement agencies shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
2). The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.
Article 54
The Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Chapter IX and Chapter X of the Charter deal with internal affairs of member nations, and their provisions may be invoked by a majority of the members of the General Assembly present and voting. (There is no veto provision in the General Assembly, which is presently dominated by the have‑not, emerging nations and weighted heavily against the United States).
Under these sections, the U.N. is given authority to enforce domestic policy dealing with equal employment, human rights, economic development, cultural matters and matters relating to health. It is under these sections that many specialized agencies have been set up, and their policies dealing with many domestic matters have been enacted into law in the United States after first having been pronounced by the agencies of the United Nations.
In this connection we point out that the fact that the year 1968 has been designated by U.N. resolution, as the International year for Human rights. Under this noble sounding purpose, the resolution proposes to:
1). Abolish all racial discrimination.
2). Abolish right to work laws (in effect) under resolutions adopted by the International Labor Organization.
3). Deal with the Status of women.
4). Urge all governments to review their own laws and policies and bring them into conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N.
5). Elimination of apartheid, and all forms of discrimination in education.
6). Use the medium of press, radio, movies and the performing arts in a mass propaganda assault upon any practices not in line with U.N. pronouncement.
This was set forth in detail by Hon. John R. Rarick (D. La), on March 20, 1967.[6] In his opening remarks, Rep. Rarick titled his speech, "Target Date for Subjugation: 1968."
"Mr. Speaker, many taxpayers, constituents, puzzled businessmen and concerned parents are writing inquiries as to why all the emphasis is being placed on 1968 as a must year for forceful compliance with every guideline, edict, and program to regulate our lives, our businesses, our unions, and our children's futures, our manner of worship in this country.
So that all may know and remember the sources of the pressure and the cause, I am asking that the international blueprint, that is, the U.N. resolution; International Year For Human Rights,' designating the year 1968 as the International Year, be printed en toto in the Record, with this question: Must the Governments of South Rhodesia and South Africa be overthrown before the end of 1968?"
To indicate, further, to what degree the United States has imperiled its own sovereignty and emasculated its own power, we have but to look at the hearings, conducted by the Senate Internal Security Sub‑ Committee in March, 1954, on the Activities of United States Citizens Employed by the United Nations. These United States citizens referred to in this report virtually thumbed their noses at their own government, even after the Communist party affiliations of many of them were disclosed. The U.S. demanded that they be fired by the United Nations.
The Secretary General did fire many of them via the complaint and evidence furnished by the United States, but a judicial body of the U.N. overturned every one of the dismissals that was based upon Communist affiliations, and held that the U.S. had no power to inquire into the political beliefs of employees of the United Nations even though they were United States citizens. This action was taken despite the fact that almost half of the financial support of the United Nations is furnished by the United States, and in spite of the further fact that the United Nations headquarters is located on United States soil.
Through the medium of the United Nations, Russia has benefitted to a greater degree than any nation. This is evident by the fact that the U.S. government, following an unbroken line of appeasement, has continued to give economic aid to the Soviet, and her satellites, even while we are engaged in serious confrontation in Berlin, in Cuba, in Vietnam and in scores of other places in South America, Asia and Africa.
We have bolstered the Russian economy by furnishing wheat to Russia, while that country was aiding Cuba with shipping food and machinery; we continue our foreign aid programs to Russian dominated nations in Europe, thereby alleviating pressure which would be exerted on the struggling Russian economy.
The United States challenged Russia and France in the U.N. Security Council, for failing to pay "peace‑ keeping" assessments in the Congo. All during the 1964‑65 session the U.S. stood firm under Article 19, against allowing Russia to vote. Then came Ambassador Goldberg and capitulation. After admitting defeat and wallowing in humility, the United States again gave in to Russia. It is reliably reported out of Washington that the United States is merely waiting for an opportune time to make up the U.N. deficit by a large "voluntary contribution." All this degradation of the United States is "official policy" in Washington despite the fact that J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, and several congressmen, have continued to warn that we harbor in this country a well‑spring of subversion in the hundreds of Communists and pro‑Communist delegates at the U.N.
With unbecoming audacity ‑‑ and in light of the still unpaid "peace‑keeping" bills incurred while trying to overthrow Tshombia, of the Congo (one of the few pro‑Western African leaders), the U.N. is now putting out unofficial feelers aimed toward the military subjugation of anti‑Communist South Africa. This feeler was in the form of a study prepared under the auspices of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (It might be noted that while this tax exempt foundation is not an official appendage of the United Nations, it is headquartered at the United Nations Plaza, 46th Street, New York, N.Y.).
The study, edited and largely written by Amelia C. Leiss, is called Apartheid and United Nations collective measures, published in March 1965. In the foreword to this amazing publication, the editor professes a long history of interest in the United Nations on the part of the Carnegie Foundation. Though professing to recommend no course of action, the author discusses in great detail the naval, air and ground forces estimated to be necessary for the military subjugation of The Republic of South Africa, a stable nation and, incidentally, a dues‑paying member of the United Nations.
Adding another ironic touch the editor credited Major Sam C. Sarkesian, Department of Social Science, U.S. Military Academy, with assisting on the chapter dealing with military measures. This brings up a delicate point of order; Should an officer of the United States Military forces engage in plans for a military invasion of a friendly nation on behest of an "unofficial" study group?
The United Nations has not limited its activities to international issues but has insinuated itself even into the internal affairs of the sovereign states of the United States. The head of the United Nations was much in evidence in the shaping of the 1964 Civil Rights law. This was purely internal legislative matter, but this did not deter this international group of social architects from intervening.
This thinking is reflected in the Carnegie endowment study previously referred to. On page 159 of this study the author observes: "Nevertheless the question must be asked: what will be the impact on the capacity of the United Nations to grow and to enhance its authority if it demonstrates that it can not only discuss and pass judgment upon a member's social system but also change it by force?"
The mere voicing of this philosophy is sinister in meaning. But when it is coupled with the avowed aim of the U.N. (i.e., to exercise a sovereignty above that of member states) it becomes even more sinister.
Chapter XVI, including Articles 102 through 105 of the U.N. Charter, are called "Miscellaneous, Provisions." In these articles the right of the U.N. to "physically come onto or occupy the land territory of a member state, for fulfillment of its purposes" is further spelled out. This, taken together with the rights to intrude into domestic affairs, as granted under Chapter IX and X, and the proposals for the year 1968, will demonstrate to what extent the sovereignty of any local territory, or subdivision, of a member state, may be abridged by U.N. authority.
July 28, the darkest day in American history when the atheistic, Communist, hell‑inspired, Satan‑directed, antichrist United Nations Treaty was ratified by the United States Senate. Only 2 Senators read the Charter, and they voted against it. The Charter written by the Soviet Agent, Alger Hiss, is nothing but a rehash of the Communist Manifesto. The United Nations is a Communist organization planned by Communists for the promotion of International Communism.
With the signing of the Yalta Agreement, President Roosevelt, with the blessings of the United States Congress, nine more East European countries were surrendered to Communist enslavement. Those countries were: Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea: The surrender of Japan was deliberately delayed until Russia could secure it, Hungary and East Germany.
In a speech at Carnegie Hall, Pulitzer (a Jew) recommended executing 1.5 million Germans after WW II, without regard to guilt. This was actually done when 2 million German civilians died during their brutal forced resettlement at the war's end.
During Senate Hearings Committee for Military Affairs, 1945 discovered that Otto Strasser wrote that Schroder (Jewish Banking Family) agreed to "Foot The Bill" for the Nazi Party at a secret meeting, and guaranteed their debts. The horrendous crimes of World War II left in their wake an advancement in the international legal system concerning criminal responsibility for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Political authorities, military commanders and their subordinates alike have since legally borne full responsibility in international criminal law for failure to act as well as for any acts in regard to crimes perpetrated within their realm of responsibility.
It is a tragedy for the Jews of the world that the relatives and descendants of Jews who supposedly perished in the massacres and brutalities committed by the Nazi war criminals in Babi Yar and Dubno and in the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Belsen, Buchenwald, Fossenberg, Mauthausen, Natzwiler, Neuengamme, Ravensbruck, and Sachsenhausen, have committed similar crimes against the Palestinians in Palestine.
A study of the war crimes committed by the Zionists in Palestine discloses that those who were responsibility for these crimes ensured that all others in the Zionist structure would have to be accomplices. The Zionists have systematically striven to remove conscience as a factor from any individual Jew in Palestine in the perpetration of their crimes.
To the outside world the Zionists have often tried to excuse crimes as "isolated incidents," "unpremeditated incidents," "acts of ultra-extremists," and other whitewashes that have misled world opinion. In fact, all Zionist war crimes and crimes against humanity are planned well in advance and executed for a desired effect, with malice aforethought and full knowledge of the consequences involved in order to serve the Zionist objective namely, the annihilation of the Palestinians and the establishment of a Jewish State.
The Zionist claimed that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis (which has been conclusively proven to be a lie in another part of this study), but the Zionists killed more than 100,000 Palestinians and committed genocide by destroying the existence of Palestinians as a nation and made Palestinians refugees living in exile. Massacres are massacres, whether six million or one hundred thousand are massacred. The Zionists throughout the world and particularly in the United States of America are accessories to the war crimes committed by their co-religionists in Palestine because they have aided and abetted them in the commission of these crimes committed against the Palestinians.
The worst of the massacres were the King David Hotel, the Semiramis Hotel, Deir Yassin, Dawayma, Kibya, Kafr Kassim, the attack against the USS Liberty and the Libyan Boeing 727 Airliner, and the massacres against Sabra and Shatila and other refugee camps in Lebanon.
1946: Treaty. President Truman ordered the augmentation of U.S. Troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in Northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed U.S. Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia. Earlier U.S. Naval units had been dispatched to the scene.
The Irgun Gang murdered almost 100 British by bombing the King David Hotel. Terrorism also was (and still is) routinely practiced against Arabs to stampede them out of Palestine, thereby reducing their demographic strength even as uninvited Jews stream into the country. The King David Hotel explosion of July 22, 1946, which resulted in the deaths of 92 Britons, Arabs and Jews, and in the wounding of 58, was not just an "extremist act" of "Jewish extremists," but a premeditated massacre conducted by the Irgun in agreement with the highest Jewish political authorities in Palestine, the Jewish Agency and its head David Ben-Gurion.
According to Yitshaq Ben-Ami, a Palestinian Jew who spent 30 years in exile after the establishment of Israel investigating the crimes of the "ruthless clique heading the international Zionist movement." "The Irgun had conceived a plan for the King David attack early in 1946, but the green light was given only on July first. According to Dr. Sneh, the operation was personally approved by Ben-Gurion, from his self-exile in Europe. Sadeh, the operations officer of the Hagnah, and Giddy Paglin, the head of the Irgun operation under Menachem Begin agreed that thirty-five minutes advance notice would give the British time enough to evacuate the wing, without enabling them to disarm the explosion." [7]
The Jewish Agency's motive was to destroy all evidence the British had gathered proving that the terrorist crime waves in Palestine were not merely the actions of "fringe" groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang, but were committed in collusion with the Haganah and Palmach groups and under the direction of the highest political body of the Zionist establishment itself, namely the Jewish Agency.
That so many innocent civilian lives were lost in the King David massacre is a normal part of the pattern in the history of Zionist outrages: A criminal act is committed, allegedly by an isolated group, but actually under the direct authorization of the highest Zionist authorities, whether of the Jewish Agency during the Palestine Mandate or of the Government of Israel thereafter.
The following is a statement made in the House of Commons by then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee: "On July 22, 1946, one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in record history took place. We refer to the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Ninety-two persons lost their lives in that stealthy attack, and 45 were injured, among whom there were many high officials, junior officers and office personnel, both men and women. The King David Hotel was used as an office housing the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and British Army Headquarters. The attack was made on July 22 at about 12 o'clock noon when offices are usually in full swing. The attackers, disguised as milkmen, carried the explosives in milk container, placed them in the basement of the Hotel and ran away.
The Chief Secretary for the Government of Palestine, Sir John Shaw, declared in a broadcast: 'As head of the Secretariat, the majority of the dead and wounded were my own staff, many of whom I have known personally for eleven years. They are more than official colleagues, British, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Armenians; senior officers, police, my orderly, my chauffeur, messengers, guards, men and women, young and old, they were my friends.
No man could wish to be served by a more industrious, loyal and honest group of ordinary decent people. Their only crime was their devoted, unselfish and impartial service to Palestine and its people. For this they have been rewarded by cold-blooded mass murder.'
Although members of the Irgun Z'vai Leumi took responsibility for this crime, yet they also made it public later that they obtained the consent and approval of the Haganah Command, and it follows, that of the Jewish Agency." [8]
The King David Hotel massacre shocked the conscience of the civilized world. On July 23, 1946, Anthony Eden, leader of the then British opposition Conservative Party, posed a question in the House of Commons to Prime Minister Atlee of the Labor Party, asking "the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the bomb outrage at the British Headquarters in Jerusalem." The Prime Minister responded: "Hon. Members will have learned with horror of the brutal and murderous crime committed yesterday in Jerusalem. Of all the outrages which have occurred in Palestine, and they have been many and horrible in the last few months, this is the worst. By this insane act of terrorism 93 innocent people have been killed or are missing in the ruins. The latest figures of casualties are 41 dead, 52 missing and 53 injured. I have no further information at present beyond what is contained in the following official report received from Jerusalem:
'It appears that, after exploding a small bomb in the street, presumably as a diversionary measure, this did virtually no damage, a lorry drove up to the tradesmen's entrance of the King David Hotel and the occupants, after holding up the staff at pistol point, entered the kitchen premises carrying a number of milk cans. At some stage of the proceedings, they shot and seriously wounded a British soldier who attempted to interfere with them. All available information so far is to the effect that they were Jews. Somewhere in the basement of the hotel they planted bombs which went off shortly afterwards. They appear to have made good their escape. Every effort is being made to identify and arrest the perpetrators of this outrage. The work of rescue in the debris, which was immediately organize, still continues. The next-of-kin of casualties are being notified by telegram as soon as accurate information is available. The House will wish to express their profound sympathy with the relatives of the killed and with those injured in this dastardly outrace.'" [9]
As a result of his massacre it was said: "Root of regicide, master robbers, sinister, carrion birds of humanity, hateful, oriental slavers, puppeteers, plague, revolutionaries, subversives..." Harsh words, especially since these are references to a whole "race," not isolated individuals. Jewish reaction to such accusations was expressed by former Israeli prime minister (and ex‑terrorist leader) Begin. "We don't care what the Goyim think!" "Goyim" is a derisive Jewish term for non‑Jews. It translates roughly into "human cattle," to be milked or slaughtered at will. Government‑regulated censorship: PM, New York's largest pro‑Marxist daily in 1946, carried the complaints of an Anti‑ Defamation League spokesman who demanded that the POC investigate a radio station for being anti‑Semitic. He called it: "...a transmission belt for nationalistic propaganda." (Apparently "nationalism" = anti‑Semitism to the ADL). (8/21/46).
President Harry Truman remarks, which were reported by Henry Wallace, his Secretary of Commerce: "President Truman expressed himself as being very much 'put out' with the Jews. He said that 'Jesus Christ couldn't please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck.'"
1947: July 9: Rep. Richard Nixon introduces House Concurrent Resolution 68 indicating, "...that it is the sense of Congress that the President of the United States should immediately take the initiative in calling a General Conference of the United Nations pursuant to (U.N.) Article 109 for the purpose of making the United Nations capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to prevent war."
1947: July 17: Concerning a number of resolutions introduced in Congress calling for world government after the Second World War, United World Federalist member Albert Einstein says in a broadcast titled, "The Immediate Need for World Law," that "...the resolutions aim at a fundamental alteration of the United Nations charter, with a view to an eventual transformation of the United Nations into a world government."
The International Problem of Governing Mankind by Philip Jessup is published. He is a CFR member who will become a World Court justice, and in this book says: "I agree that national sovereignty is the root of evil...The question of procedure remains. Can the root be pulled up by digging around it and cutting the rootless one by one?"
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations is founded and begins publishing the journal, Human Relations, the first volume of which contains articles such as "Overcoming Resistance to Change" and "A Comparison of the Aims of the Hitler Youth and the Boy Scouts of America."
The Tavistock Institute of Medical Technology, involved in psychotherapy, was rounded in 1920. This was just the year before the Psychological Corporation was founded in the U.S. Perhaps not coincidentally, the same year as the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations is founded (1947) in England.
The National Training Laboratory in Group Development is established in the U.S. and is sponsored by the National Education Association's Division of Adult Education Service and by the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan.
The Research Center for Group Dynamics also sponsors with Tavistock the first volumes of Human Relations beginning in 1947, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York provides major financial support ($100,000) for the activities of the National Training Laboratory (the Psychological Corporation will also receive funding from the Carnegie Corporation).
On the NTL's Planning and Policy Committee is Kenneth Benne, who was president of the American Education Fellowship (begun by John Dewey) will write in the May 1949 education of Progressive Education: "...teachers and school administrators (should) come to see themselves as social engineers. They must equip themselves as 'change agents.'"
"I hope that every German west of the Rhine River and wherever we attack, will be destroyed." [10]
1947: Henry Ford, American Industrialist (1863‑1947): "There had been observed in this country certain streams of influence which are causing a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct...a nasty Orientalism which had insidiously affected every channel of expression...The fact that these influences are all traceable to one racial source (Jews) is something to be reckoned with...Our opposition is only to ideas, false ideas, which are sapping the moral stamina of the people." [11]
The so‑called "Hollywood Ten" were convicted of inserting communist propaganda into motion pictures. 9 of the 10 were Jews. World State's Super‑Secret Constitution! Plan Sponsored by Hutchins Bared. A highly restricted secret document, setting up the constitution and plan of a new world government which would supplant the United Nations, abolish the United States and all other countries as nations, and govern, tax, and regulate the world's people with power to seize and manage private property, has been obtained exclusively by The Tribune.
The confidential document was printed by the University of Chicago two months ago is a "restricted" edition and sent to some 40 or 50 selected internationalist sympathizers in various parts of the world with the solemn injunction that It was not for public use or circulation and should not be reproduced.
Follows Alien Principles
Throughout, it follows socialist or Marxian principles, foreign to the United States, but endorsed ‑‑ according to Hutchins ‑‑ by all 11 authors. Here are some of the powers and rights the new world government would have:
(a) To lay and collect taxes all over the world, and draft its own budget.
(b) To regulate commerce of federal (world) interest.
(c) To regulate and operate worldwide transportation and communications.
(d) To limit and control weapons and military forces of all nations.
(e) To decide national boundaries and form new nations and unions.
(f) To expropriate public and private property whenever and wherever necessary.
(g) To administer colonies and dependencies.
1948: UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy by Sir Julian Huxley (the first director-general of UNESCO, 1946-1948) is published, in which he declares: "The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background... In its education program it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization...Political unification in some sort of world government will be required...Tasks for the media division of UNESCO (will be) to promote the growth of a common outlook shared by all nations and cultures...to help the emergence of a single world culture...Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Excerpts from this volume was reproduced under the title, "A New World Vision" (The Humanist, March/April 1979), and the Fabian Socialist Huxley, who was named 1962 "Humanist of the Year," elsewhere said that humanism's "keynote, the central concept to which all its details are related, is evolution." Also, it was Sir Julian Huxley (brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley, and grandson of Thomas Huxley who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" because of his defense of evolution) who on December 5, 1941 said that he hoped Japan and America would be at war "next week." The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December 7, the first day of the next week!
1948: Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the U.S. Consular General. In Shelly v. Kraemer the Supreme Court decided racial housing covenants were unconstitutional. The plaintiff's lawyers were practically all Jews. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century A.D. the Zionist rabbis interpreted the Talmudic Law as delivering the land of Palestine, on which King Solomon's kingdom and temple were built, to the possession of the Jews. The peoples of the West, as a whole, had ceased to attach any present meaning to these incitements, but the peoples directly concerned thought differently. For instance, the Arab population of Palestine fled en masse from its native land after the massacre at Deir Yasin in 1948 because the event meant for them (as its perpetrators intended it to mean) that if they stayed they would be "utterly destroyed." They knew that the Zionist leaders, in the negotiations with British and American politicians of the distant West, repeatedly had stated the Lie: "...the Bible is our Mandate." [12] They knew that the leaders of the West were supporting the invaders, and thus they had no hope of even bare survival, except by flight.
"The Jews might have had Uganda, Madagascar, and other places for the establishment of a Jewish Fatherland, but they wanted absolutely nothing except Palestine: not because the Dead Sea water by evaporation can produce five trillion dollars of metaloids and powdered metals; not because the sub‑soil of Palestine contains twenty times more petroleum than all the combined reserves of the two Americas; but because Palestine is the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, because Palestine constitutes the veritable center of world political power, the strategic center for world control." [13]
1948: The Semiramis Hotel Massacre, in the Katamon section of Jerusalem, by the Jews against the Palestinians. The Jewish Agency escalated their terror campaign against Palestinian Arabs. They decided to perpetrate a wholesale massacre by bombing the Semiramis Hotel in the Katamon section of Jerusalem, in order to drive out the Palestinians from Jerusalem. The massacre of the Semiramis Hotel on January 5, 1948, was the direct responsibility of Jewish Agency leader David Ben-Gurion and Haganah leaders Moshe Sneh and Yisrael Galili.
If this massacre had taken place in World War II, they would have been sentenced to death for their criminal responsibility along with the terrorists who placed the explosives. A description of the massacre of the Semiramis Hotel from the United Nations Documents follows, as well as the Palestine Police report on the crime sent to the Colonial Office in London: "January 5, 1948, Haganah terrorists made a most barbarous attack at one o'clock in the early morning of Monday, January 5, 1948, at the Semiramis Hotel in the Katamon section of Jerusalem, killing innocent people and wounding many. The Jewish Agency terrorist forces blasted the entrance to the hotel by a small bomb and then placed bombs in the basement of the building. As a result of the explosion the whole building collapsed with its residents. As the terrorists withdrew, they started shooting at the houses in the neighborhood. Those killed were: Subhi El-Taher, Moslem; Mary Masoud, Christian; Georgette Khoury, Christian; Abbas Awadin, Moslem; Nazir Lorenzo, Christian; Mary Lorenzo, Christina; Mohammed Saleh Ahmed, Moslem; Ashur Abed El Razik Juma, Moslem; Ismail Abed El Aziz, Moslem; Ambeer Lorenzo, Christian; Raof Lorenzo, Christian; Abu Suwan Christian family, seven members, husband, wife and five children. Besides those killed, 16 more were wounded, among them women and children." [14]
The following is a text of a cable by the High Commissioner for Palestine to the Colonial Office about the massacre: "Jerusalem. 0117 hours, Urban. At approximately 0117 hours, a grenade was thrown into the Semiramis Hotel, Katamon Quarter, causing superficial damage but no casualties. During the ensuing confusion, a charge was placed in the building and it exploded about one minute later, completely demolishing half the hotel. Witnesses have stated that the perpetrators arrived by way of the Upper Katamon Road in two taxis. Four persons are reported to have alighted from the first taxi, and one person, who apparently covered the main party, from the second. All were wearing European clothes.
The following are the known casualties: Dead - Manuel Allendesalazar y Traveseda - Spanish Consul at Jerusalem; Nazira Lorenzo; Mary Lorenzo; Abbas Ahmed Awadin, an Egyptian waiter, and Ashur Abdul Razzik Juma. (The last two named have not yet been extricated from the debris). Seriously Injured - Mrs. Georgette Khouri, aged 38, of Jaffa. Slightly Injured - Silvo Lorenzo; Eddy Lorenzo; Rene Lorenzo; Rita Lorenzo; Joseph Lorenzo; Dr. Abu Sawan; Cyril Abu Sawan; Matier Abu Sawan; Friek Batawi; Daoud Khadoush; Mohammed Ahmed Abdul Najib; Ibrahim Nicola; Hassan Mohammed; Awad Mohammed; Hassan Ibrahim; and No. 874 F.P.C. Hamil Ragheb Dajani.
The following are believed to be buried underneath the debris: Raouf Lorenzo and his wife; Lutfi Abu Sawan (62) and his wife (45); Labibeh Lorenzo (40); Hubert Lorenzo (25); Subhi Taha (25); Amneh Abdul Azziz Zorob (34); Ismail Zaid Abdo (15), son of Amneh Zorob; and Gharviayeh Saoud Abu Yunis (30). The bodies of two of these persons have been extricated from the debris but have not yet been identified. Heavy firing broke out in the Katamon area after the first explosion, and Mohammed Ahmed Saleh of Beit Rima, who was near the hotel in the company of another Arab, was shot in the head and killed." [15]
April 9, 1948: Deir Yassin Massacre. The first major massacre in the 1948 War was the massacre of Deir Yassin on April 9/10, 1948. It was designed to spread terror and panic among the Palestinian population in every city and village of Palestine in order to frighten them into fleeing, so that their homes and land could be confiscated for the use of Jewish colonialist settlers. The tactics of the Zionist Jews were to frighten defenseless people into fleeing their homes out of fear for their lives.
Two hundred and fifty people were slaughtered. Mutilating the bodies, even before death, the culprits cut off parts and opened the bellies of others. Nursing babies were butchered on the bosoms of helpless mothers. Of those two hundred and fifty people, twenty-five pregnant women were bayoneted in their abdomens while still alive. Fifty-two children were maimed under the eyes of their own mothers, and then they were slain and their heads cut off. Their mothers were in turn massacred and their bodies mutilated. About sixty other women and girls were also killed and their bodies mutilated. Such are the historical facts concerning the horrible crime perpetrated against the Arab village of Deir Yassin.
On the night of April 9/10, 1948, the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin, a suburb of Jerusalem, was surprised by loudspeakers calling upon the inhabitants to evacuate the village immediately. The villagers woke up and, in a state of turmoil and fear, proceeded to investigate what was going on, only to find themselves surrounded on all sides by Jewish gangs. The Jews made use of the prevailing state of fright and disorganization by killing and mutilating people who had been deprived of every opportunity to defend themselves.
The marauders were not satisfied with the crimes they had committed in the village. They gathered together the women and girls who were still alive, and after removing all their clothes, put them in open cars, driving them naked through the streets of the Jewish section of Jerusalem, where they were subjected to the mockery and insult of the onlookers. Many took photographs of those women.
The crime of Deir Yassin shocked the world, which called upon the International Red Cross Society to establish the truth. The representative of the Red Cross, Mr. Jacques Reynier, asked the Jewish Agency for permission to visit the site of the massacre. The granting of this permission was delayed twenty four hours while the Jews tried to erase the traces of their crimes.
They gathered together all that was possible to collect of the parts of the mutilated bodies of their victims, dumped them in the cistern of the village and locked it up. They did all they could to obliterate any traces that the representative of the Red Cross could come across. On visiting the site of the crime, however, the representative of the Red Cross discovered the cistern, and found one hundred and fifty maimed bodies of women and children. He could express his horror, disgust and fright at the sight only by declaring that "the situation was horrible."
In addition to the bodies that he had found in the cistern, the representative of the Red Cross discovered many other corpses scattered throughout the back streets of the village and buried under the debris of the destroyed homes. Mr. Reynier found under a mound of dead bodies a girl of six who had been seriously sounded, but was not yet dead. He extracted the girl from under the human debris and carried her with him to the hospital. All the Jewish Agency (the body responsible at that time for the activities of the Jewish gangs) did was to express its sorrow and condemn the affair as if it had been completely unaware of it. David Shaltiel, Commander of the Haganah, released a communiqué about Deir Yassin on April 10, in which he stated: "This morning the last Lehi and Etzel soldiers ran from Deir Yassin, and our forces entered the village. We were forced to take command of the village after the splinter forces (Irgunists and Sternists) opened a new enemy front and then fled, leaving the western neighborhoods of the city open to enemy attack.
The splinter groups did not launch a military operation...They could have attacked enemy gangs in the Jerusalem area and lightened the burden which Jerusalem bears. But they chose one of the quiet villages in the area that has not been connected with any of the gang attacks since the start of the present campaign; one of the few villages that has not let foreign gangs in.
For a full day, Etzel and Lehi soldiers stood and slaughtered men, women and children, not in the course of the operation, but in a premeditated act which had as its intention slaughter and murder only. They also took spoils, and when they finished their work, they fled..." [16]
The communiqué denied Irgun and Sternist claims that a Palmach force had participated in the attack. Enraged by this declaration, Raanan and Zetler released the text of the letter Shaltiel had sent them guardedly approving the attack in advance. Israel Galili, the Haganah commander, then asked Shaltiel about this letter, which Tel Aviv had never sanctioned. Shaltiel cabled back on April 15: "I learned they were preparing action against Deir Yassin. As I didn't want to meet them I sent a letter. I would stop to the extent possible future operations of dissidents." [17]
Two days after this maneuver of the Jewish Agency, the newspaper "Hamashekev," the organ of the Irgun, replying to the Jewish Agency's condemnation of the Deir Yassin massacre, published the fact that the Commander of the Haganah (the organized forces of the Jewish Agency) had been fully aware in advance of the details of the plan and had already contemplated the occupation of Deir Yassin by the Irgun Terrorists. Meanwhile, Menahem Begin, the leader of the Irgun gang, himself admitted on December 28, 1950, in a press interview in New York, that the Deir Yassin incident had been carried out in accordance with an agreement between the Irgun and the Jewish Agency and the Haganah.
Four criminals who had taken part in the deir Yassin massacre and had been badly injured demanded remuneration from the Jewish authorities in occupied Palestine on the basis of a government decision to compensate all persons who suffered injuries during the fighting in Palestine. The authorities refused the request on the grounds that the Deir Yassin incident had not been perpetrated on orders from responsible Jewish authorities.
The four culprits raised an action before the District Court at Tel-Aviv. They produced evidence that the Deir Yassin massacre had been carried out on the orders of the Jewish Agency, and in agreement with the Haganah. The District Court considered the evidence produced to be genuine and irrefutable and ruled that the plaintiffs should be compensated by the state.
By the criteria established in the International War Crimes Tribunals after World War II, the Irgun and Stern gang members directly responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre would receive death sentences for committing such an atrocity. The leaders of both gangs, including Menachem Begin of the irgun and Yitzhak Shamir of the Stern Gang, would have been convicted with a death sentence for their Command
Responsibility for the massacre. Moreover, the senior commanders of the Haganah, especially Chief of Staff Yaacov Dori and Commander David Shaltiel, and the political authority responsible for the discipline of the Jewish armed units, the Jewish Agency leaders and its head David Ben-Gurion, would have borne ultimate responsibility and would have been hung like their Nazi political counterparts after World War II.
1948: The following testimony of a soldier who participated in the occupation of the Palestinian village of Dawayma (in Haifa sub-district) on October 29, 1948 is only the most recent disclosed item in a long chain of evidence: "They killed between eighty to one hundred Arab men, women and children. To kill the children they (soldiers) fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one home without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite them.
One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a building he was about to blow up...Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered 'good guys'...became base murderers, and this non in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better." [18]
1948/1949: China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.
1949: UNESCO published a series of booklets titled Toward World Understanding, in which one reads: "The kindergarten...has a significant part to play in the child's education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training...it can prepare the child...for membership in the world society...The success of the teacher is bringing up his pupils to be good citizens of the world...As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results."
President Truman and his administration cut off all supplies to Chiang Kai‑shek, enabling Mao Tse‑tung to slaughter resistance and insure a Communist (27) China. President Harry Truman, who stated that he "kinda liked old Joe (Stalin)" continued Roosevelt's collaboration with the depraved murderer and refused to accept Japan's please for surrender, until Stalin's forces were in a position to claim their booty in the Pacific. Thus setting the stage for the first no win war in America's history.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme Allied commander in Europe, never once mentioned mass murders of Jews in his book "Crusade in Europe" (1949). However, his grandson wrote a book that gave brief reference to gassings at the infamous Buchenwald. Yet Nazi-Hunger Simon Wisenthal admitted in "Books and Bookmen" page 5: "No Gassing took place in any Camp on German Soil."
Buchenwald is in Germany! As is Dachau and Bergen‑Belsen. Yeah, but what about Auschwitz? Millions were gassed there, right? Wrong. A September, 1944 Red Cross inspection uncovered no testimony by Auschwitz inmates about gas chambers, and no physical evidence such as large supplies of coke, an essential fuel for mass cremations. In fact, on‑site inspections of concentrations camps throughout the war by Red Cross officials found no evidence of mass gassings anywhere! Red Cross and Vatican interviews of thousands of freed inmates just after WW II recorded no references to extermination programs in any camp! [19]
Dachau; The Hour of the Avenger: The nature of the American government has become clear to those who have
studied its conduct during and after its wars. The reasons for Sherman's sadistic campaign in Georgia and the Carolinas, authorized by Grant and Lincoln, which began this country's descent into a perpetual state of total war, were revealed during the twelve years of Reconstruction, during which everything of value was stolen from the surviving Southerners, who were reduced to destitution.
The reason for our seemingly inexplicable participation in World War I was revealed in the terms and execution of the Versailles Treaty, under which everything of value was stolen from the surviving Germans, who were reduced to starvation levels of existence. The reason for our participation in World War II was revealed by the fact that we bombed millions of German civilians to death and slaughtered more millions of them after the war than during the war. In addition, there has never been a peace treaty with Germany in all these years. It is clear that the objective of our government is the liquidation or subjugation of the best of the White race.
Our young people participate in periodic orgies of death and destruction, the gruesome details of which are suppressed by journalists in league with the government. Without exception, the Washington government is always the aggressor. It is always the warlords behind our government who cause the wars to happen, who prolong the killing beyond comprehension and who profit from the spending of our taxes on the most terrible weapons of mass murder. These warlords are Jews and/or Freemasons such as Rothschild, Benjamin, Baruch, Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Churchill, Roosevelt, Warburg, Truman, Stalin, Marshall, Harriman, Kissinger, Nixon, Bush, etc.. Their wars are designed to kill as many non-Jewish people as possible. 600,000 in Lincoln's War. Ten million in Wilson's War. Forty-five to sixty million in Roosevelt's War. The ones who fought and died in their wars were better genetic material than the ones who were kept out for physical reasons, which seems to have been the whole point. Observe England, which had 450,000 casualties just in the Battle of the Somme! You can't kill and maim the best of our young men in these horrible numbers and expect life to go on as usual. Of course, the warlords didn't expect that it would.
There is something flawed in the American mentality which permits our young men and now our young women!, decade after decade, to drop megatons of high explosives on other people who have not threatened us in the slightest. This must include the Japanese, who were in December, 1941 our number one trading partner and who had, after the Battle of Midway in April, 1942, as I quoted the US Strategic Bombing Survey in my 1989 book, The New American Man, tried in vain to surrender to us right up until we dropped two atom bombs on them. Even the Pearl Harbor "sneak attack" was a natural (and expected) response to Roosevelt's deliberate diplomatic and economic provocations and military adventures such as his illegal Flying Tigers in China and his illegal naval operations in the Pacific. We are so provincial and self-important that we simply cannot imagine how other people see things. Such an idea never even occurs to us. It is one of the reasons we are hated so around the world.
Enough of us have this deadly combination of ignorance, arrogance, cowardice and cruelty which leads us inevitably to atrocities, from Atlanta to Dresden to Hiroshima to My Lai to Panama City to Baghdad to Waco to Oklahoma City. This is not to say that we are all ignorant, or arrogant, or cowardly, or cruel. But the ones who always do the dirty work against our latest enemy are found on our military bases. By their very youthful nature they are ignorant. They often become quite arrogant when given power over others. They are not brave enough to say "no" when ordered to attack civilian targets or slaughter unarmed prisoners of war. Their natural cruelty is easily exploited by Jewish and Freemasonic psycho-specialists who can quickly condition them to hate and kill strangers en masse with simple propaganda and big lies. I'm talking about the Whites. The Negroes and mestizos are beyond discussion.
And then there are our non-aggression pacts and actual military partnership with the Soviet Union. This last item is something from which America will never recover. Our little military arrangement with Israel is an obscenity but our partnership with the Soviets was so horrific that it may never become possible for future Americans to come to terms with it.
Our military partnership with the Soviet Communists from 1942 to 1945 was the watershed event in human history. It was during this four-year period that the New World Order, as we know and fear it, became established. Following our mutual destruction of Germany and most of Europe, we encouraged our partners to subject hundreds of millions of people, from East Germany to China, to the gory delights of insatiable Jewish and Asian fiends, known as commissars. Millions were slaughtered or sent to slave labor camps and psychiatric prisons. The rest have lived in abject terror of sharing the victims' fates. Our government made this happen. For example, our government in 1945 ordered our wonderful boys in Austria and Italy to round up millions of anti-communist Russians and East Europeans at gunpoint, process them and force them at bayonet point into boxcars to be shipped to Stalin for execution in what the army called "Operation Keelhaul." The Soviets couldn't have gotten their hands on these people without our help. Our government pretended to be shocked at Soviet "excesses" while it continued to support its partner with military and financial aid, all conducted profitably through the warlords' New York banks, to the present day. This included the forty-five year period of the phoney "Cold War."
The fact that both the Capitalist and Communist systems are controlled by Jews and Freemasons is known or suspected by many of our people. Many of those who know feel that it would be impolite to mention this fact. They
have been conditioned to feel this way. It is incumbent on those of us who know this fact to re-condition them to speak freely. It is incumbent on all of us to make the Jews and Freemasons feel uncomfortable in our knowledge of their activities.
The Freemasons keep very quiet but, as we know, the Jews are very loud. The reason that these cowardly people are so loud is because they have an excuse. Their excuse is the Holocaust. The high death rate in Germany toward the end of the war was the result of our wonderful boys in their fighter planes flying around at will, blasting things on the ground to smithereens. Anything that moved was destroyed. Chuck Yeager brags that he strafed farmers on their tractors. Trains were favorite targets--they loved to hit the steam engines and watch them explode. Trucks carrying
food--well, forget them! All of Germany was starving and those in the camps starved right along with them. Those who cannot quite comprehend this sort of thing today must only look back to 1991 when our wonderful boys completely destroyed life as it was known in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities and towns. All because of the Jews and the Holocaust. Israel had demanded that Iraq be destroyed by us and within a few short months it was so.
The main problem at Dachau and Belsen was typhus, just as it was in our Civil War prison camps. That's why all the corpses in the pits were like skeletons. That's how you look when you die of typhus. The general starvation conditions in Germany didn't help. When you can't transport food you can't transport medicine, either.
The Holocaust myth, that there was a deliberate program to exterminate Jews, began at Dachau, when GIs claimed they saw a gas chamber there along with several thousand skeletal corpses. That's what they were told and they believed it. They still believe it, even though the Israelis are candid enough to admit that there was never a gas chamber there, or anywhere else in Germany. They say it all happened in Poland. Thanks to the historical revisionists we know that the only gas chambers which existed anywhere were little ones used to disinfect clothing in an attempt to prevent typhus, which is spread by body lice. Of course, this irritates the Jews and takes away their power over us. They have derived an unnatural power since 1945, one that has tended to put them above the law, by their exaggerated victimhood in the Holocaust.
Victimhood is a tricky thing. What if it turns out that we've been thinking of the wrong people as victims all these years? A few years ago a Canadian author, James Bacque, discovered by going through the US Army archives in Washington that our wonderful boys had slaughtered a million helpless German prisoners of war in the first nine months after war's end. It was done by starvation and exposure because of Eisenhower's order that the men be kept in open fields with no shelter, on a starvation caloric intake, supplemented by bugs and grass. Starvation is the Jews' favorite method of extermination: It is a ghastly, prolonged death and it doesn't cost anything. Bacque's book was Other Losses,
which referred to the Army's deceptive heading for its category of deliberate murder on the death lists in the POW camps. It was reported in 1995 that Bacque has a new book, Crimes & Mercies (unavailable at present in the US and Canada), which describes how our wonderful boys and allies killed nine million Germans (mostly civilians) between 1946 and 1950. This was all in accord with American Jewish doctrine as enunciated by Theodore Kaufman in his 1941 book, Germany Must Perish, (required reading by FDR for ETO soldiers), Felix Frankfurter's American Jewish Committee and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau's "Morgenthau Plan," which was executed by Ike Eisenhower, who was dubbed for some reason in his West Point yearbook as "The Terrible Swedish Jew."
It is unusual to be given an eyewitness account of an atrocity when that eyewitness was himself an accessory to the atrocity. That is the case here before us. Dr. Howard Buechner was the medical officer for the unit which "liberated" Dachau on 29 April, 1945. That unit was Company I, Third Battalion, 157th Infantry Regiment, 45th (Thunderbird) Division, under the Seventh Army. A machine gun section, Company M, was attached to I Co. that day.
The 45th Infantry Division came from Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado and many of its recruits came from Indian tribes. Ironically, its insignia was the swastika, which Dr. Buechner describes as "an ancient symbol of prosperity and good fortune, literally meaning conducive to well being." The Indians used the swastika to represent a
thunderbird. Naturally, this was replaced by 1943 with a golden thunderbird on a red background.
The commander of the 3rd Battalion was Lt. Col. Felix L. Sparks. He answered to Col. Walter P. O'Brien, commander of the 157th Infantry Regiment and to Major General Robert T. Frederick, commander of the 45th Infantry Division. The "Avenger" of the title was Lieutenant Jack Bushyhead, an Oklahoma Indian. We'll get to him later.
The situation on this day was this: Dachau camp held approximately 32,000 prisoners--criminals, homosexuals, deserters, anti-Nazis, Freemasons and 2,539 Jews. The normal force of 1,473 SS guards had left earlier and were replaced by 560 men, 200 of them from the Waffen-SS Division Wiking, who were in Dachau resting from their fighting the Red Army on the Eastern Front. The rest wore the Edelweiss insignia of the elite Alpine army troops. Most were dressed in battle-stained camouflage clothing. Their commander, Obersturmführer (1st. Lieutenant) Heinrich Skodzensky, had negotiated a surrender to the Americans that morning with the help of a Swiss Red Cross official.
Sparks' orders from Frederick were to post an airtight guard around the camp and not let anyone enter or leave. At 11:00 in the morning, despite the surrender terms, the Americans entered the camp and began shooting the German soldiers who thought they were surrendering. One hundred twenty-two were killed immediately. Inmates were released by the Americans and armed with .45 pistols and German rifles. The inmates killed forty more. Three hundred fifty-eight German soldiers were taken prisoner. At 12:05, an officer directed a machine gunner to shoot into the prisoners. Twelve more were killed. The rest, three hundred forty-six, remained alive for the time being.
At about 12:30 a brigadier general from the 42nd Infantry Division, Henning Linden, drove up to the gate with the famous Life Magazine reporter, Marguerite Higgins. Linden said that she wished to interview the inmates. Sparks refused. Linden naturally became angry and ordered Sparks to let him enter. Lt. Col. Sparks pulled his pistol and ordered Brigadier General Linden to leave! Linden noticed a mortally wounded SS man and directed a medic to give him first aid. The medic was a Jew and he refused. Other soldiers joined Sparks in aiming their weapons at Gen. Linden and he had no choice but to leave. (In such a homicidal atmosphere, they could easily have gotten away with killing him and Higgins by blaming it on the Germans.)
Sparks then left to confer with O'Brien and Frederick at regimental headquarters. At 2:30 Sparks returned to the camp. At 2:45 Lt. Bushyhead ordered the prisoners to line up against a long brick wall next to the hospital. They were then machine-gunned by a handful of Americans who employed two Browning machine guns and a Browning Automatic Rifle. Bushyhead allowed four inmates in striped clothing to use the .45 pistols, shovels and other weapons on any wounded Germans. Thirty more were killed in what the army called "combat" within the camp. Ten more had escaped temporarily but were captured and turned over to the inmates, who were allowed to kill them, in some cases by tearing them to pieces.
These are the facts as presented by Dr. Buechner, who was approaching the hospital when he heard approximately one minute of machine gun fire. He rushed into the scene to find the inmates shooting and chopping some of the fallen Germans in the head, watched by the GIs.
An hour later, General Frederick and "several high-ranking officers" toured the camp and were alarmed at seeing the long row of dead Germans against the wall. One officer suggested that the bodies be dispersed around the camp and photographed as evidence that they had been shot while trying to escape. Then it was pointed out to them that Specialist T/4 Arland Musser had already photographed the mass execution as it happened, so they abandoned that idea. They decided that there was no alternative but to start an "inquiry" into this and the other killings.
The outraged General Linden charged the whole gang, from Sparks down, with violations of the rules of the Geneva Convention, failing to give medical aid to wounded soldiers, failing to stop the killing and insubordination. All of them were to be court-martialed. The inquiry and the pending court martials were handled by General George S. Patton, who had been appointed as the military governor of Bavaria. Patton talked to Bushyhead and some of the others and then ordered the investigating officers to bring every report, every piece of evidence and every photograph to his office. When he had collected everything, he dumped it in his metal wastebasket and set it on fire. All charges were dropped. Officially, the atrocities had never occurred.
Dr. Buechner has assembled this book in a strange and choppy manner. He is obviously relieved to get the secret off his chest but feels guilty at blowing the whistle on his comrades. He seems to apologize for the murders and then tries to justify them. On page 107 he writes: "Perhaps it was a technically improper act, and the deaths of these few hundred sadists could hardly atone for the millions of people who suffered and died at the hands of so many other participants in ‘The Final Solution.’ Nonetheless, in this instance at least, vengeance was complete. It finally occurred to me that the silence which has surrounded this episode for more than forty years should be broken and that the truth should be made known to the world. Those who survived the Holocaust, and the kinsmen of those who died in its flames, might draw some small comfort from the knowledge that the murderers of Dachau did not go unpunished."
Two sentences later, he writes: "The stunning conclusion of this episode is that [these soldiers] were not the real culprits."
On page 120, he writes: "Public outrage would certainly have opposed the prosecution of American heroes for eliminating a group of sadists who so richly deserved to die." There is something flawed in the American mentality. Maybe it is the result of swallowing so many Jewish lies all our lives. Maybe it's just the White Man's Disease.
I read this book in 1988 and was set back by a sense of revulsion and shame for almost a year. In January, 1989 I wrote Dr. Buechner a letter which was rather intemperate and I share it reluctantly only because it has some conclusions which might be helpful. "Dear Dr. Buechner, A friend of mine from Nevada named Mike Oliver (né Olitski) was originally a Lithuanian Jew who fled west to escape the Red Army and for his efforts was placed in Dachau where he remained for four years. He was liberated by your unit.
When I learned in 1968 that he had been there I was naturally shocked. I said, 'It must have been terrible!' He shrugged. 'Wasn't it awful?' He nodded vaguely and said, 'We worked there.' I looked at him blankly. Finally, I said, 'You worked there...' 'It was a factory,' he said. 'We worked in the factory and we had a dormitory where we slept.' 'But,' I said, 'but what about the uh, the uh...' 'The what?' 'You know--the killings.' 'I never saw any of that.'
That was twenty years ago. Mike was certainly not reluctant to discuss his life in Dachau... He told me some details of his daily routine. He did not, in our year-long association, describe a Dachau as we know it from literature and the press.
You can imagine how disconcerted I was. What could a young American (22)of Scotch-Irish descent say in response? You've got to be nuts? No. I tried to be polite and not show my disbelief. I kept thinking, 'Where'd they keep this guy?' Of course, twenty years later we know that there were no gas chambers at Dachau. Not even the one you mention. Simon Wiesenthal says so and the Jewish historians in both Germany and Israel say so. The Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem explains that there were no "extermination camps" in Germany. 'It all happened in Poland,' which was pretty safe to say since their Soviet buddies were in control of Poland all that time.
Thanks to those courageous historians known as 'revisionists,' we now know that homicidal gas chambers never existed anywhere. (Count Tolstoy writes in The Secret Betrayal that Stalin employed homicidal gas chambers in the 1930s.) But all that is quite apart from your incredible book.
I have not felt sufficiently eloquent to respond in the year or so since first reading it. I'm sure you have already been taken to task by revisionists for your use of Nuremberg-style lies to justify Allied atrocities during and after the war. You even used a WWI anti-German propaganda poster (Germans crucifying Englishmen, for God's sake!) and claimed that its use was not intended to be anti-German! You failed to mention that England apologized to Germany after WWI for the filthy lies it used to incite wartime hatred. The Germans were expected to be good sports.
Did your conscience compel you to tell the truth after all these years? When I say 'truth,' I mean only the hard facts of murder which you documented. It must have been a horrible forty-one years for you to have contemplated watching the murders of hundreds of POWs who were not even guards but who were in fact exhausted veterans of the Eastern Front. Sometimes you call them 'guards' but at the end you admit the terrible truth: You Fools Murdered Real Heroes!
A careful reading of your book reveals so much truth about the real purpose of Americans being sent to attack Germans for the second time in twenty-five years. Have you ever stopped to think about just that? Your presence there, your participation in the murders of brave men who were defending their country from you, were the results of lies which you believed then and evidently still believe. The big lie, of course, was Pearl Harbor. Now I, who was born in December, 1946, certainly can't fault you for swallowing that one; it was too well done. As far as taking a commission and going over there to try to save the lives of your countrymen who were ordered to do certain things; I can't fault you
there, either. Roosevelt's anti-German propaganda must have been mighty strong medicine. You men were scientifically programmed to hate and kill Germans. Even you, a medical doctor, were so blinded by hate that you couldn't recognize the results of a raging epidemic of typhus. Body lice and typhus, those deadly associates of Eastern Jewry. By now someone has doubtless written you about the trainload of dead internees from Auschwitz...the Germans told them they could wait for "liberation" by the Red Army or take their chances back in Germany. Eighty percent of the internees wanted to go from the frying pan into the fire. But there was no food, thanks to massive bombing by our guys.
What was the difference between Germany rounding up enemy aliens and America rounding up enemy aliens? The difference was that we destroyed Germany with bombs so that many people starved from lack of transportation of food. We were never bombed over here, Doctor. We never had armies of brainwashed killers roaming around, blasting people
at will with complete impunity. In fact, America rounded up enemy aliens who were neither enemies nor aliens. International Jewry, on the other hand, had declared war on Germany in 1933.
Now, with regard to Jack Bushyhead...Exactly who was he 'avenging?' With whom was he getting even? The US 7th Cavalry? Until now, I'd never understood the official US government policy of extermination of the Indians. Bushyhead's mad behavior shows the innate cruelty of the Indian, it would appear. But what about the Whites who 'just followed his orders?' How would you boys have fared in a Nuremberg-style court? You would have, without a doubt, hanged for war crimes. But, winners don't hang.
Do you know how many Germans were hanged at Dachau after 'confessing' to their use of the gas chamber there? The one we now know never existed? Do you know why they confessed? They confessed because of the pain caused by having their testicles crushed by Jewish torturers.
Frankly, Doctor, I don't believe your story. I am led to believe that Bushyhead acted under orders from Lt. Col. Sparks, who was himself under orders to exterminate all Germans at Dachau. Why? So that the Allied version could be cooked up and presented without contradiction. An excuse for American behavior in Europe had to be created. Some wild and believable story had to be created to divert attention from the greatest war crime in history: Operation Keelhaul. [In 1989 I was unaware of the coming Bacque revelations.]
Your book is confusing in some respects but your timetable helps greatly to understand the cold-blooded nature of the big wipe-out (346 men): 12:50pm Guards have been posted, tempers have been cooled, emotions are being brought under control. The camp is finally secure. Col. Sparks reports to regimental HQ to report the events of the day. [And to receive further orders] 1:30pm Col. O'Brien and Capt. Shirk tour the area. 2:30pm Col. Sparks sets up command post outside the camp and awaits the arrival of General Frederick...2:45pm 346 German soldiers are machine-gunned by Bushyhead. 2:50pm The elimination of the camp garrison has been completed.
Then, from 3:00 to 5:00, you, Sparks and Frederick toured the camp. Then you say that several high-ranking American officers toured the camp that afternoon and suggested that fake photographs be arranged to cover up
murder charges, but couldn't because T/4 Musser had photographed the actual murdering. You mean, they could order the deaths of 560 POWs but couldn't get a technician fourth class to turn over his film? This is the damnedest book I've ever read!
The 45th Infantry (Thunderbird) Division was the designated hitter. General Henning Linden (42nd Infantry Division) was forbidden entry by Col. Sparks because there weren't to be any witnesses. He was the only one in your story who acted honorably. He wanted you murderers prosecuted. He's lucky you didn't kill him.
You say the tapes of Jack Bushyhead's talks with Holocaust-man Michael Selzer ‘mysteriously disappeared.’ Did ‘the Avenger’ spill the beans about ‘orders from above?’ Generals Frederick and Patton did handle the cover-up, after all. And everything Patton ever did had to be authorized by Eisenhower. [And now we know what Eisenhower was planning to do to POWs and civilians later.]
You are quite blasé about lying to the inspector general or Patton, or both, in your answers to the questions why you tried neither to stop the murders nor treat the wounded. As to the first question, you replied that you were unarmed when in fact you admit that you were carrying a Browning automatic pistol. Your diagram shows twelve Americans in the hit team confronting the victims against the wall. The magazine in your pistol carried twelve or thirteen rounds. But the photograph shows that most of the hitters were just watching the machine gunners. All you really had to do was drill the machine gunners, Doc. And Bushyhead. You told the IG or Patton that you'd have been shot if you'd tried something. [Intemperate language deleted]
You seemed to keep trying to tell the truth in your book. Finally, on page 132, you come to the moment of truth: You have come almost to believe that ‘the stories of the concentration camps are nothing but propaganda; a Jewish fairy tale.’ Except, you saw it with your own eyes.
Well, now, Doctor. You, with your own eyes, saw a gas chamber which we now know was not a gas chamber. You saw probably the biggest and fastest massacre by American citizens in history (excluding, of course, bomber crews and artillerymen) while it was still going on and you still can't figure if you've got all the details right.
Finally, you mention the US Army Typhus Commission, headed by Col. John C. Snyder, which went into Dachau on 2 May. What was the reason? Was it because Dachau was experiencing a typhus epidemic? You state that 2,466
deaths were recorded within the next seventeen days. You cite 13,000 deaths at Bergen-Belsen following British "liberation" over a six-week period. I bring this up because you said the Army Typhus Commission went into Dachau three days after your hit team wiped out 560 witnesses for the defense.
I notice that you are the author of approximately two hundred medical textbooks and scientific articles. As I see it, Doctor, there are two ways for you to atone for your part in the massacre and cover-up: The first is to commit suicide. The other and much better way would be for you to summon all your courage and your medical expertise and write a
book about the real causes of death in German concentration camps, before and after the 'liberation.' Your book would naturally supply the true number of casualties in all the camps. You may not know that the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum lists around 300,000 Jews as having perished.
I believe that we are all indebted to you for your book, Dachau: Hour of the Avenger. Regardless of how ugly, it is better to know the truth.”
Dr. Buechner was kind enough to respond to my letter, unpleasant as it was. "Dear Mr. Campbell: In your letter of January 2, 1989 it was interesting to note that your found my book on Dachau to be of such great importance that you spent a year in contemplation before gathering sufficient eloquence to respond with a six-page letter. I also enjoyed your closing sentence in which you state, ‘I believe we are all indebted to you for your book...'
I had planned to respond to your letter on a point-by-point basis but Mr. IRS has reared his ugly head and is now taking up all of my spare time. I will only tell you that most ‘revisionists' in both the US and Germany have read my book and concluded that its positive new information far outweighs its repetition of the older stories about German concentration camps. Nearly all of these people are now my friends and help me with my research.
You must remember that I wrote the first part of Dachau about five years ago using standard references of the time. Many of my ideas have since undergone a rather dramatic change.
You suggested that I write another book about ‘Dachau' and I had fully intended to do so but I became sidetracked by some startling new information which came into my hands. The result was the book described in the enclosed flyer.
In regard to the new book something very strange recently occurred. Two major magazines in which I run ads (World War II and Military History) came under new ownership. The new owners have dropped my ads because they show a swastika and presumably they are dropping all ads which relate to the Third Reich. How would you explain this move? Finally, if you knew me better you would learn that I am much more a friend of Germany than an enemy. Sincerely,, Howard Buechner" [20]
Cracks In The Holocaust Myth
Having seen the success of the British propaganda about the Germans using the skins of dead babies as lamp shades in World War I [which the British later apologized for after the end of the war and admitted it was only propaganda to get the troops to fight harder]. They conceived of the "Six Million Jew Lie" and spared no amount of expense to forward this program The Zionists who are always far sighted saw in it a chance to accomplish two things:
|
The Jews even executed several thousand of the so-called lesser Jews; so as to further their diabolical plans after all what was a few thousand lesser Jews compared to the Master Plan of World Control! |
(a) To destroy Nationalism by claiming that the Germans killed "SIX MILLION JEWS" in an effort at exterminating them, and the Germans were extremely nationalistic, then it must follow, that Nationalism must be very evil if millions of people can be murdered in its name! [In other words do not be too Patriotic because if you do you will have Six Million or more Dead Jews. And if you don't believe it they will show you another holocaust movie, then another, then another until you do]. Do you see what I am saying?
(b) Their claim to Palestine which came soon after the end of the War has enabled them [the Jews] to replace God and the Lord Jesus Christ and become the Chosen People: a triple counterfeit, To most of the Christian World!
In the Second World War Jewry, which declared itself to be a belligerent party, suffered unknown losses in dead. Other nations mourn their dead, erect monument to them and keep anniversaries to cherish their memory. The majority of Jewry made good business out of their dead, and used their bodies to serve as a step towards world domination.
It regarded them as a political investment and a means of achieving power. While over the graves and war memorials of other people's heroes sweet flowers of remembrance blossom, around the graves of the Jewish dead the loudspeakers of propaganda are, even today, still roaring at full blast. The survivors of other nations bring floral tribute to the graves of their mothers. But around the graves of Jewish mothers are only to be heard profaning shouts of: "Give me an U.N.R.R.A. parcel too! My mother also was killed by the Nazis!"
For the survivors, the graves at Auswitz and Bergen-Belsen represented no symbol of eternal protest against barbarism. Hollywood made a splendid business out of them and the non-Jews stood around the Jewish graves in consternation. Jewry did so also equipped with film cameras, loudspeakers and every kind of photographic apparatus.
On learning of the concentration camps the spontaneous comment of the shocked Christian world was: "some shameful outrage has been committed." But the headlines of Jewish Nationalism blared: World sensation! The survivors have earned the pit of the world, as well as the right to revenge, to quick emigration and, of course, to world domination. All this is without a parallel in the history of the world.
Compassion, shock, and indignation were the reactions of the Christian world. But the Jewish survivors said: "We demand privileges! My mother, my sister and my father all fell victims to the Nazis." The martyrs rested in their common graves, while the New York millionaire and the small Brooklyn chandler were carrying on business with the halo of martyrdom around their brows and displaying an expression of sadness which could not have been bettered had they themselves been lying in the camp of Bergen-Belsen.
Other nations also have their dead and their martyrs, perhaps many more than the Jews. More than Six million people were starved to death in the Ukraine as victims of the food-dumping plans of the Kremlin Jews, but the world never awarded privileges to the Ukrainians.
No one ever gave double rations to the dependents of the victims buried in the common graves of Keiv. Thus it is clear for all to see if they will look with any honesty at all America fought World War II so that World Jewry could dominate the Financial Money Markets of the world; Expose any existing opposition to their designs for world conquest and destroy such opposition; destroy Nationalism, Patriotism, in the major countries of the world.
Facts About The Holocaust!
1). What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews?
Answer: None. The only evidence is the testimony of alleged individual "survivors." This testimony is contradictory, and no "survivor" claims to have actually witnessed any gassing. There is no hard evidence whatsoever; no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of doing the job, no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin, no records, no demographic statistics.
2). What proof exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?
Answer: Extensive evidence, including that of a forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative nature, exists proving the impossibility of such a figure, an exaggeration of, perhaps, 100%.
3). Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were no gassing camps on German soil?"
Answer: Yes. In "Books and Bookmen," April, 1975 issue. He claims the "gassing" of Jews took place in Poland, Not in Germany.
4). If Dachau was in Germany and given Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?
Answer: Because after the Allies captured Dachau, thousands of G.I.s were led through Dachau and shown buildings alleged to be gas chambers; the mass media widely, but falsely, stated that Dachau was a "gassing" camp.
5). Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz?
Answer: No! A reward of $50,000 was offered for such proof, the money being held in trust by a bank, but no one came up with any credible evidence.
6). If Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp," what was its true purpose?
Answer: It was a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic rubber (Buna) was made there, and its inmates were used as a workforce. The Buna process was used in the U.S. during WWII.
7). How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation camps which interned Japanese and German Americans during WWII?
Answer: Except for the name, the only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons on the basis of being a threat or suspected security threat to the German war effort whereas the Americans interned persons on the basis of race alone.
8). Why did Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?
Answer: Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their national sovereignty and survival. Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Germany in communist subversion. On a per-capita basis, Jews were over represented in key government and commercial positions and professions. However, all suspected security risks, not only Jews, were in danger of internment.
9). What extensive measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?
Answer: On March 24, 1933, International Jewry declared war against Germany and ordered a world-wide boycott of German goods simply because the German government had removed Jews from influential positions and transferred power back to the German people. The boycott order and the Jewish "war" against Germany were reported in world media and broadcast everywhere. Phony stories of German "death camps" circulated before WWII. The Germans, as a result, had every right to lock up Jews, as prisoners of war, wherever and whenever they were found between 1933 and 1945!
10). How many gas chambers to kill people were at Auschwitz?
Answer: NONE!
11). How many Jews were in areas that came to be controlled by the Germans before World War II?
Answer: Less than four million.
12). If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?
Answer: After the war the Jews of Europe were still in Europe except for perhaps 300,000 of them who had died of all causes during the war, and those who had emigrated to Israel, the United States, Argentina, Canada, etc. Most Jews who left Europe did so after, not during the war. They are all accounted for.
13). How many Jews fled to deep within the Soviet Union?
Answer: Over two million. The Germans did not have access to this Jewish population.
14). How many Jews emigrated prior to the war, thus being out side of German reach?
Answer: Over a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).
15). If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess it was?
Answer: Time honored methods were used to get him to tell his captors what they wanted to hear.
16). Is there any proof that torture was used by American, British and Soviet captors to force confessions of German officials after the war?
Answer: There is extensive evidence of torture having been used both before and during the famous Nuremberg trials and after in the case of other war crimes trials.
17). How does the "Holocaust" story benefit the Jews today?
Answer: It removes them from any criticism as a group. It provides a "common bond" with which the leaders can control them. It is instrumental in money-raising campaigns and to justify aid to Israel, totaling about $10-billion per year. The "big-H" story is designed to shame the Gentile: "Poor Jews! How they do suffer!"
18). How does it benefit the State of Israel?
Answer: It justifies the more than $65-billion dollars in "reparation" the State of Israel has received from Germany. It is used by the Zionist-Israeli lobby to control American foreign policy toward Israel and to force American taxpayers to put up all the money Israel wants. The annual ante is growing each year.
19). What kind of gas was used by the Germans in concentration camps?
Answer: Zyklon-B, a hydrocyanic gas.
20). For what purpose was, and is, this gas manufactured?
Answer: For the extermination of the typhus-bearing louse. It is used to fumigate clothing and quarters. It is readily available today.
21). Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass extermination?
Answer: If the Germans had intended to use gas to exterminate people, far more efficient gases were available. Zyklon-B is very inefficient except when used as a fumigation agent.
22). How long does it take to fully ventilate an area fumigated by Zyklon-B?
Answer: About 20-hours. The whole procedure is extremely involved and technical. Gas masks have to be used and well-trained technicians only are employed.
23). Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the gas chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How do you explain this?
Answer: It can't be explained because if they had done this they would have suffered the same fate as the previous occupant.
24). Hoess said in his confession his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive?
Answer: Highly so. The Hoess confession is obviously false.
25). What was the exact procedure the Germans allegedly used to exterminate Jews?
Answer: The stories range from dropping the gas canisters into a crowded room from a hole in the ceiling, to piping it through shower heads.
26). How could such a mass program have been kept secret from Jews who were scheduled for extermination? How would the Pope and Vatican and the Red Cross not know?
Answer: It couldn't have been kept secret. The fact is that there was no such mass-gassings anywhere. The rumors of such came from strictly Jewish, Holocaust sources.
27). If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go to their death without fighting or protest?
Answer: They didn't fight or protest simply because there was no intention to kill them. They were simply interned and forced to work.
28). About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?
Answer: About 300,000.
29). How did they die?
Answer: Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe during the period. Also from starvation and lack of medical attention toward the end of the war when virtually all road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.
30). What is typhus?
Answer: The disease always appears when many people are jammed together for long periods without bathing. It is carried by lice which infect hair and clothes. Ironically, if the Germans had used more Zyklon-B, more Jews might have survived life in the concentration camps.
31). What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during the awesome period?
Answer: 5,700,000. Besides and contrary to "Holocaust" propaganda there was no DELIBERATE attempt to exterminate anyone. There is no record of Hitler or his generals ordering the death of Jews!
32). Many Jewish survivors of the "death camps" say they saw bodies being piled up in pits and burned. How much gasoline would have to be used to perform this?
Answer: A great deal more than the Germans had access to as there was a substantial fuel shortage at that time.
33). Can bodies be burned in pits?
Answer: No! It is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames in this manner as not enough heat can be generated in open pits.
34). "Holocaust" authors claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about 10 minutes. How long does it take to incinerate a body according to professional cremator operators?
Answer: About 2 hours.
35). Why did the concentration camps have crematory ovens?
Answer: To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses created by the typhus epidemics.
36). Given a 100% duty cycle of all the crematoria in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such cremators were in operation?
Answer: About 430,000.
37). Can a crematory oven be operated 100% of the time?
Answer: No! 50% of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per day). Cremator ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when in heavy operation.
38). How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
Answer: After the bone is ground down to powder, about a shoe box-full.
39). If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?
Answer: THAT remains to be "explained." Six million bodies would produce literally tons upon tons of ashes. Yet there is no evidence of any large depositories of such ash.
40). Do Allied wartime photos of Auschwitz (during the period when the "gas chambers" and crematoria were supposed to be in full operation) reveal gas chambers?
Answer: No! In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of the enormous amounts of smoke which supposedly hung constantly over the camps. Nor do they show evidence the "open pits" in which bodies were allegedly burned.
41). What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the "Holocaust" question?
Answer: A report on the visit of an IRC delegate to Auschwitz in September 1944, pointed out that internees were permitted to receive packages and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.
42). What was the role of the Vatican during the time the six million Jews were alleged to have been exterminated?
Answer: If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most certainly have been in a position to know. But since there was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it.
43). What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an ongoing Jewish extermination?
Answer: NONE!
44). Did the Germans and the Zionists collaborate?
Answer: Yes! Both groups were interested in removing the Jews from Europe (the Zionists wanted Jews shipped to Palestine) and both maintained friendly relations throughout the war.
45). What caused Anne Frank's death; just several weeks before the end of the war?
Answer: Typhus.
46). Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
Answer: No! The evidence compiled by Ditieb Felderer of Sweden and Dr. Robert Faurisson of France proves conclusively that the famous dairy is a literary hoax.
47). What about the numerous photographs and footage taken in the German concentration camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?
Answer: Photographs can be faked, yes. But it is far easier merely to add a caption or comment to a photo showing the bones of men, women and children killed in Allied Bombing raids and have them passed off as dead Jews.
48). Were films like "Holocaust" and "The Winds of War" documentary films?
Answer: Hollywood films do not claim to be history; rather, they are fictional dramatizations, or better: "creative history."
49). About how many books have been published which refute some aspect of the standard Jewish claims made about the "Holocaust?"
Answer: At least 60 with more in the process at the present time.
50). What about the claim that those who question the "Holocaust" are anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?
Answer: This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest arguments. As a matter of fact, Jews have been challenged time after time to debate the Holocaust on major networks, during prime time. They say: "NO!" Even some Jewish scholars state that evidence for the "Holocaust" is severely lacking.
Perhaps William Anderson in his Afterword in a book "WAR WAR WAR!" by Cincinnatus describes it best:
How The Jews Forced America Into World War II
In the years before World War II, the American public had no desire to go to war in either Europe or Asia. We, as Americans, had no interest in waging war with Germany, Italy or Japan. Yet America was forced to battle the Axis Powers for four long years at the sole behest of International Jewry. In fact, World Jewry commenced its war against Germany in 1933, the year Hitler came to power, even before he had time to begin implementing a program for pulling Germany out of its own economic depression.
Jewry's declaration of a 'holy war' against Germany was issued by Samuel Untermeyer of the World Jewish Federation, who said in the New York 'Times' August 7, 1933, that it would be means of an 'economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.'
The Toronto 'Evening Telegram' February 26, 1940, quotes Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig of the World Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that 'the World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years' [i.e. 1933]. Jews were obviously willing to back up their threats, for the London 'Sunday Chronicle' of January 2, 1938, reported that 'leaders of International Jewry' had met in Geneva, Switzerland to set up a $2.5 BILLION fund to undermine the economic stability of Germany.
However, Jewish boycotts against Germany failed to bring that nation to its knees as [because] Hitler had already freed Germany from dependence on Jewish Usury. Since economic pressure by World Jewry could not break the back of Germany, it was determined that an actual war would be necessary to destroy Hitler [the German People for they had thrown off the control of the International Banks]. This desire to decimate Germany is understandable when one recognizes that Jews are a parasitic race and as parasites will fight to the death when the host attempts to expel them.
The Jewish desire for war was admitted by Rabbi Felix Mendelsohn in the Chicago "Sentinel" of October 8, 1942, where he states: "The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the Fundamentals of Judaism."
Thus, Rabbi Mendelssohn Flatly expresses the view that WW II was a Jewish War. This Jewish scheme came to fruitation in 1939, Germany invaded Poland. Britain and France, under Jewish domination, then declared war on Germany, conveniently ignoring the fact that The Soviet Union [Under Jewish rule] also invaded Poland.
|
THINK ABOUT IT DAMN IT; USE YOUR HEAD, IF ENGLAND AND FRANCE DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY JUST BECAUSE THEY INVADED POLAND THEN WHY DID THEY NOT ALSO DECLARE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA ALSO INVADED POLAND WHEN GERMANY DID? |
James Forestall, later to become Secretary of Defense in his diary of December 27, 1945, notes that he played golf with Joseph Kennedy FDR's Ambassador to Britain, who told him that ex‑Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain 'stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war.' For his candor and later opposition to the bandit state of Israel,
Forestall was murdered in 1949 [ruled a 'suicide']. Jews throughout the world screamed that Germany was intent on ruling the world, but General George C. Marshall admitted after the war, in testimony before Congress [it is recorded in the Congressional Record], that No proof could be found that Hitler planned any conquest of the World. In fact, Hitler's actions against Czechoslovakia over the Sudentenland and Poland over Danzig were just part of Hitler's long stated desire to re‑acquire the territory taken from Germany after WW I in the Treaty of Versailles [is that not what the Jews claim to be doing in Palestine at the present time?].
While stones are being cast, it should be recalled that after Germany took back the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia, Poland seized the territory of Treschen from the Czechs which it had no claims toward it. So, after the Jews had ignited a war in Europe, it was found to be necessary to draw America into that war as France had fallen and Britain tottered on the brink of defeat.
To bring the U.S. into this Jewish war, International Jewry had the services of a master at corrupt politics, the one and only Franklin Delano Roosevelt; who will, without doubt, someday go down as the Greatest Traitor America has ever known. Interestingly enough, Col. Curtis Dall who was once FDR's son‑in‑law accused Roosevelt of being partly Jewish.
In any event, Roosevelt was surrounded by plenty of Jewish advisors such as Bernard Baruch, S.I. Rosenman, Sidney Weinburg, Sidney Hillman and Felix Frankfurter. For the first time, Jewry had a President who was totally subservient to them and they spared no effort to keep him in office. For example, when it appeared that Senator Huey Long would defeat Roosevelt for the 1939 Democratic nomination, he was assassinated by Dr. Carl Weiss, a Jew. Nevertheless, American public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to any involvement in WW II. Many Americans realized they had been duped into WW I and were not interested in losing the lives of their loved ones in a war that offered no benefits to the U.S.
In effect, Americans were heeding the advice of George Washington in his 'Farewell Address' [that is why the current campaign to discredit our founding fathers is being waged, so that we will disregard their God given advice ‑‑ just as the Prostitute Clergy of Organized Religion of today are bringing disgrace and shame upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; so that the younger generations will disregard the teachings of the True Men of God] where he warned that Americans must not become involved in entangling alliances with foreign nations.
Those Patriots who followed Washington's sound advice were Disparagingly Referred to as ‘Isolationists,' but they were, in actuality, neutralists. Thus Congress, acting on the will of the people, passed the Neutrality Act of 1935 which embargoed any U.S. arms from being sent to a warring nation. About three years later, in 1938, Representative Louis Ludlow of Indiana introduced a resolution requiring a public vote of support of any declaration of war by Congress. Roosevelt and the Jews knew this measure could easily destroy their efforts, so an all out attack on the resolution was launched. As a result, the Ludlow bill was narrowly defeated.
The Jews had good reason to block the resolution for the American Institute for Public Opinion [AIPO] released at that time a poll showing 83% of the citizens opposed to U.S. intervention in an European war. Moreover, in April 1939, during the height of war fever, a whopping 95% opposed American entry into a war against Germany. That's right, virtually every citizen was soundly against the U.S. involving itself in a foreign war [but unfortunately this fact has been forgotten as a result of a deluge of false propaganda by our controlled news media]. As a result, Congress strengthened the Neutrality Act by barring commerce and travel, as well as arms, to any belligerent power.
At this point, the Jews began to show signs of desperation but these wily manipulators of world events still had a few tricks up their collective sleeve. So, in 1939 an immense propaganda campaign, the likes of which had never before been seen, was launched. No stone was left unturned in Jewry's assault on the minds of the American people. One was bombarded with the most outlandish lies about Hitler and Germany from all sides; in newspapers, magazines, books, radio and motion pictures. FDR also unleashed the powerful, persuasive techniques of the federal government in the blitz to 'hate Germany.'
To get an idea of just how far this propaganda attack went, one should note that Jew Theodore Kaufman wrote a book entitled 'Germany Must Perish,' which outlined a plan to exterminate Germans by sterilizing 48 million of them. Believe it or not, this call for genocide by a Jew was well received in many influential circles. Conversely, Germany never carried out a 'holocaust' against the Jews, but after the war, was accused of doing so any way. This 'holocaust' hoax trumped up by Jewry has been used since WW II to divert attention from their own machinations to plunge America into the maelstrom of yet another war.
The Jewish orchestrated assault of hate against Germany was successful in cowering Congress into lifting the arms embargo and allowed the free flow of weapons to Britain and later to the Soviet Union. This action made U.S. ships carrying the arms fair targets for German subs; But no attacks occurred [but American submarines were attacking German shipping in violation of the Neutrality Act], which is certainly odd behavior for a 'madman' [Hitler] bent on 'world rule.'
While Congress succumbed to the barrage of hate propaganda, the public remained totally against the war. For instance, in October 1940 about 83% polled were opposed to U.S. involvement. In April 1941, it was 85% against and in July 1941, opposition was pegged at a healthy 79%. Not surprisingly, the pollsters quit asking the question at this point, as FDR and Jewry had all but gotten war officially declared.
By 1940, Roosevelt had rammed through Congress a draft and conscription although polls indicated at least 50% of the public was against such a move. By now it should be perfectly obvious that World Jewry had begun planning for U.S. entry into the war at least three years before Pearl Harbor, despite overwhelming opposition.
|
The final, sorry episode of this disgusting chain of events is that Washington knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor at least 12 hours before the blow fell, but refused to warn military officers there. [what other name could this be known other than TREASON] The U.S. had been forewarned since the Japanese Message Code had been broken and America was able to monitor Japanese Dispatches. No word was sent to Pearl Harbor by FDR and the Jews as the messages revealed that the attack should be called off if it appeared that the American were prepared. |
Speaking of Peal Harbor, it is important to understand the complete facts surrounding the 'surprise attack.' While 95% of all respondents were opposed to war in 1939, about 90% indicated they were willing to fight if directly attacked. Operating on this information, Jewry did everything possible to goad either Germany or Italy into attacking America. However, the bait was refused as Hitler was attempting at that time to negotiate a peace with England, which was flatly rejected by the Jew lackey Churchill. Thus Jewry's attention turned toward Japan, which had a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy. Japan had been engaged in a war with China which FDR and the Jews tried to use as an excuse for American intervention, even though the events in Asia were of no concern to America. Jewish, not American, interests however were what concerned Roosevelt and in July 1941, he froze Japanese assets in the U.S. and embargoed trade. This was reason enough to declare war, but Japan humbly proposed to sit down and negotiate U.S.‑Japanese differences. Instead of accepting the offer, FDR insulted Japanese Ambassador Nomura and refused to meet with Prime Minister Konoye.
As a result, Konoye and his 'peace party' were replaced by General Tojo and his 'war party,' Yet Japan continued to make peace overtures only to have them all flatly rejected. Finally, on November 26, 1941, Roosevelt sent an ultimatum to Japan which amounted to a virtual declaration of war. This ultimatum, according to Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, was actually drafted by the Jew Harry Dexter White [Weiss] in collaboration with Jew Treasury Secretary Harry Morgenthau. It was this ultimatum, penned by two Jews, that forced Japan to attack or else 'lose face,' which to Oriental thinking is a fate worse than death.
So International, Jewry by going through the 'back door' had successfully ensnared America into WW II; a war that would cost millions of lives and billions of dollars.
The bottom line of the war would be a world under the total subjugation of Jewry through its twin arms of Communism and Zionism. These facts have been covered up and ignored in the mass media, Charles Lindberg, for one, recognized where the finger of proof pointed. In his 'Wartime Journals,' he states that 'the Jews, the Roosevelt administration, and British sympathizers combined to encourage the U.S. to enter World War II.'
Lindberg and other patriots sought to stop Jewry's war plans by setting up the America First Committee. The committee found widespread support, but could not overcome the billions spent by Jews to brainwash the public into accepting war after Pearl Harbor. And it is Jewry which best recognized why the U.S. entered WW II.
The above quotation from a Jewish newspaper is an admission that the U.S. entered WW II only at the behest of World Jewry, a war Jewry declared all the way back in 1933!!! Of course, this admission was intended only for consumption by a Jewish audience to keep them in the know, which tends to make it all the more revealing. Any American involvement in a foreign conflict should be judged as to whether it is in the best interest of the American nation; yet the U.S. entered WW II because it was in the best interest of International Jewry.
Thus, the Jews forced the U.S. into war against the public's will in 1941 and the $64 million question is will it happen again? Events are already pointing towards a build‑up of war hysteria. Without a doubt, Jewry is leading America by the nose towards war in the Middle East on behalf of the bandit state of Israel. Will we learn from the lesson of the past or will we once again find ourselves forced into war for the benefit of World Jewry?
The Biggest Lie
The biggest lie in modern times has been told by the controlled propaganda machine. It has to do with the number of Jews who died during World War II. Jewish periodicals and periodicals controlled by them usually set the figure between six million and nine million.
A research student, who has given the matter much though, explodes this lie with some very devastating logic and statistics. The following is a summary of his research. "Tabu," or "taboo" implies that certain persons or things are unsafe for casual contact and are not to be lightly approached, and this definition of the ancient custom of many savage tribes made by the Encyclopedia Britannica describes most exactly the attitude of practically all American "media" toward the fantastic figure of the "Six Million Jewish Victims" who, allegedly perished in Nazi concentration camps of Buchenwald, Sachsenhousen, Auschwitz, etc.
During the past years this "tool" was so much used, and abused, by the World Jewry and its mouthpieces that it began to lose its cutting edge, and many bitter complaints were voiced that the world had "swept those poor 'victims' under the rug" and does not want to remember them anymore.
The Eichmann Trial gave a splendid opportunity to brush off the dust from the ghosts of those "victims," and the world press did it really with a vengeance; every day one could read the screaming headlines about the killer of those "Six Million Jews" and this sacramental figure was repeated "ad Nauseam" in all possible combinations. Let us dare, however, to approach this sacred "Taboo" without prejudice, fear and trepidation. Let us treat it rather as a simple arithmetic problem using for our calculations only such data which nobody who is of a sane mind can call as being "Anti‑Semitic" in origin.
Returning back to the same Encyclopedia Britannica, we find there in Vol. XIII, p. 63‑B, [1953 Ed.] such an interesting, if somewhat ambiguous, sentence about those "victims": "If but a fraction of the atrocities reported were accurate, then many Thousands of defenseless Jewish non‑combatants, men, women and children were butchered after September 1939."
The authors of this article mention Thousands and Not Millions of the possible "victims," and put a cautious "IF" at the beginning of the sentence. Had they some ground to put in doubt the veracity of those reports? Apparently yes, and this can be proved by the following revealing information: "Dr. Aaron Ohrenstein, Chief Rabbi of Bavaria, was sentenced to one year in prison for fraud, falsification of sworn statements of the non‑existent 'victims' of Nazi terrorism." [21]
We don't know, unfortunately, how many phony "dead souls" this honorable doctor included in his report, and how many other doctors and common mortals did follow in his steps but were not caught in the act. It is safe to guess, however, that this Rabbi was not alone, because only by concentrated and highly organized efforts of many willing collaborators could it be possible to create and to sustain such an Absurd Myth.
Just for the sake of comparison it might be mentioned here that Japan which fought for many years was mercilessly bombed and was the victim of the first two atomic blasts, lost in dead during the past war was 3.1 million "Only." Right from the start of our investigations we are confronted with such a puzzling problem: Which of the figures of "victims" mentioned by the American press is the exact one: four million? six million? nine million? or still more?
Time Magazine once dared to publish the lowest figure of four million.
The Los Angeles Mirror in an article of April 19, 1961 tells us as follows: "The actual [?] count exceeds 6 million victims."
Newsweek Magazine assured quite a few times its credulous readers that the number of "victims" should be at least seven million. Rabbi Schultz of New York adds to the six million Jews killed by Nazis 3.4 million of the Soviet Jewry liquidated during the post‑war purges thus bringing the total to the staggering figure of 9.4 million "victims."
The generally admitted number, as every child in America knows, is Six Million, which is easy to remember and to repeat. But the so‑called "official" estimate released once by the joint Anglo‑American Committee fixes with a surprising accuracy the number of "victims" at exactly 5,721,000! Let us admit for a moment that this is the correct answer to our question, and let us see how the Jewish‑owned statistics comply with it.
Total number of the World Jewish population
in 1938 as per information of the Jewish
statistical Bureau in the U.S. 15.7 million
Natural increase in two decades
information of, the Jewish World Congress 1.0 million
Total 16.7 million
Less the "victims" 5.7 million
Should be now [May 1974] 11.0 million
But in accordance with the data supplied by the same Congress there are:
Jews in the Soviet Union 2.0 million
Jews in the U.S. 5.2 million
Jews in other countries 4.6 million
Or a total of 11.8 million
(Time, February 18, 1957)
It is already 0.8 million more than it should be in accordance with the first calculation. Consequently the World Jewish Congress itself tacitly agrees that the number of "victims" cannot be even 5.7 million, but should be about 4.9 million. Since it would be quite difficult for us to check up on the number of Jews now residing all over the world outside the Soviet Union and the U.S., let us admit the figure of 4.6 million as given by the Congress is the correct one.
But according to the last Soviet census of population the number of Jews living there is slightly above 3 million, and NOT 2 million as claimed by the Congress [22]. Subtracting this "lost" million of Jews "found" now in the USSR from the above number of "victims" we shall get our second "corrected" figure: 4.9 million, minus 1 million, equals 3.9 million. But if the said Congress could "adjust" the Soviet Jewish population by one third, should we admit without questioning the suspiciously low figure of 5.2 million Jews now, allegedly, residing in the United States?
According to the figures released once by the American Jewish Committee the Jewish population of the U.S. was in 1917 3.27% of the total; in 1927 3.58%; and in 1937 3.69%. Everybody knows that besides the normal natural increase there was during the last two decades a tremendous influx of Jewish immigrants, both legal and illegal, to the hospitable American shores.
But, surprisingly enough, the relative proportion of Jews to other populations of the U.S. registered a sharp Drop and is now, if we have to believe the Congress estimate, only 2.9% of the total. [5.2 million of 180 million]. How could such a "miracle" happen?!! Would it not be more logical to suppose that this ever‑increasing in the past years percentage should be now somewhere, "The holocaust instills a guilt complex in those said to be guilty and spreads the demoralization, degeneration, eventually the destruction of the natural elite among a people. Transfers effective political control to the lowest elements who will cowtow to the Jews." [23]
Let us approach the same question from another angle. Time, (October 31, 1960), quoting the Yearbook of American Churches for 1960, reported that there are 5.5 million of "practicing" Jews in the States. Or, in other words, since the total officially admitted number of Jews is only 5.2 million in America, More than a hundred percent of the Jews are registered with their religious communities?!
How could such a second "miracle" happen? That not all the Jews residing in the States are the "practicing" ones proves the footnote in the same Time Magazine of February 11, 1957 where it is stated that only 10.6% of the New York City population profess Jewish Faith, although the TOTAL percentage of Jewry in that City is about 28%. So, admittedly, more than one half of the N.Y.C. Jews are religiously indifferent and are not registered with their synagogues. According to the statistics, out of 100 Americans 62 belong to one or another church group.
Assuming that other Jews residing in the States are more religious than their New York confreres, we shall apply that average rule to the whole American Jewish community. Then, if there are 5.5 million of "practicing" Jews [62%], there should be besides a balance of about 3.3 million [38%] of those who are not "practicing." Adding those two figures together we get 8.8 million which should be, approximately, the actual number of Jews now residing in the States. This figure, being about 4.9% of the total American population, is in accord with our first calculation based on the percentage. It is, without any doubt, far more plausible than the ridiculously low figure of 5.2 million as given by the Congress.
This excess of the Jewish population in the States, [8.8 million, minus 5.2 million, equals 3.6 million], gives us the full right to cut down drastically the number of the "victims" for the third, and last, time because, as it is quite obvious from the above calculations, the number of the American Jews was also "adjusted" by more than one third. Otherwise it would be simply impossible to sustain for so many years the myth of the Millions of Jewish "victims."
And, finally, we get: 3.9 million, minus 3.6 million "found" in the States equals: 0.3 million; which is the actual approximate number of Jews who "Probably" perished in Europe during the last war. It might happen, of course, that we are here a few tens of thousands "victims" off the mark, but, in all probability, the figure cannot exceed 0.4 million and should be between 200 and 400 thousand.
Consequently the world Jewish population at present should be such:
In the Soviet Union 3.0 million
In the U.S. 8.8 million (*)
In other countries 4.6 million
Total 16.4 million
As an additional, if indirect, proof of the massive forgery of the number of "victims" let us quote here a few revealing passages taken from the pages of the American press:
Reuter, (Sept. 13, 1958), reported that in the famous Buchenwald camp where, allegedly, Millions of Jews alone perished, a memorial was dedicated to the 56,000 prisoners of All Nationalities who died there during the war. How is it possible for millions of Jews to have died there, when only 56,000 of all nationalities ‑ which would have included the Jews who said to have died there???
Newsweek, (Oct. 27, 1958), said that a certain Sorge Schubert, who was in charge of the Sachsenhousen camp, was accused of murdering 198 Jews and 10,000 Russians. Isn't it amazing the Jews claim millions died at Sachen-Housen but Newsweek reported that only 198 Jews died there.
Time, (March 23, 1959), stated "Erich Koch, (Gauleiter of Ukraine)...stood accused of responsibility or complicity in gas‑chamber and concentration camp death of 4,000,000 Russians, 160,000 Jews and 72,000 Poles."
The director of Auschwitz has been filmed on video-tape admitting that the so-called Gas Chamger, there, was constructed after the war.
In a dramatic and unprecedented filmed interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives at the Auschwitz State Museum; admits on camera that "Krema I," the alleged "homicidal gas chamber" shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, is, in fact, a reconstruction, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union - apparently on the direct orders of dictator Joseph Stalin. What Piper said, in effect - and on camera - was that the explosive Leucher Report was correct: No Homicidal Gassings took place in the buildings designated 'Homicidal Gas Chambers' at Auschwitz!
Ironically, for someone to even suggest such a thing could bring a jail sentence in more than one country, including enlightened nations like France, Canada and German. (Just ask British historian David Irving). The videotape on which Piper makes his revelations was taken in mid-1992 by a young Jewish Investigator, David Cole. It has just been released, on January 1, 1993, although Cole announced his project at the 11th International Revisionist Conference at Irvine, California last October.
Like most Americans, since his youth Cole had been instructed in the "irrefutable fact" that homicidal gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. The number of those so executed - also declared irrefutable - was 4.1 million. Then came the Leucher Report in 1988.
This was followed by a "re-evaluation" of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.1 million). As a budding historian, and a Jew, Cole was intrigued. Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted the 4.1 million "gassing" deaths at Auschwitz was labeled an anti-Semite, neo-Nazi skinhead (at the very least). Quietly, because of revisionist findings, the official figure has lowered to 1.1 million. No mention of that missing 3 million.
In the words of Dr. Wilhelm Staglich, another internationally known historian, "The extermination thesis stands or falls with the allegation that Auschwitz was a 'Death Factory.'"
With the Leucher Report in mind, Cole took his video equipment to Auschwitz and interviewed official personnel there. Piper was the most important of these interviewees. Following his comment that the "homicidal gas chambers" were fabrications, Piper reveals, on camera, how walls were knocked down, holes made in the ceiling and "Zyklon B induction chimneys" installed on the roof so that the building could be exhibited to tourists from all over the world as proof of the "final solution." And Piper doesn't stop there.
He describes other "proofs" of the "final solution," which are also "reconstructions." He discusses the routine use of Zyklon B to delouse buildings and the personal effects of internees, and he admits, on camera, that the Leucher Report's findings concerning Zyklon B residues in the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz are right.
He then, paradoxically, affirms his belief, not only in homicidal "gassing chambers," but also in the "human soap" tales and the stories about "human skin" lampshades, both of which allegations which long ago have been totally debunked. And the revelations go on. In the video, you tour Auschwitz with Cole and hear him being told that the main camp "gas chamber" (Krema I) is in its "original state."
You will see the undaunted Cole ask so many questions about the obviously ridiculous nature of this "gas chamber" that the guide feels it necessary to call her supervisor over to answer the young historian. The Cole videotape proves that the people who run the Auschwitz State Museum had made a practice of fabricating "proofs" of homicidal gassings.
Keep in mind that over the years, millions of tourists have been told that Krema I is in its original state,[24] We believe, all that is stated above should be more than sufficient to prove that the cautious approach of the Encyclopedia Britannica to the number of Jewish "victims" was, indeed, quite understandable.
We are also inclined to agree with this usually reliable source of information that the total number of those Jewish "victims" should be expressed in Thousands and Not in millions which are the result of the most shameless and arrogant Jewish propaganda machine which increased the actual number of Jews who perished during the last war at least Fifteen-Fold! [25]
This is but one of three problems which have plagued the propagandists who want to claim that Hitler exterminated the Jews of Central Europe, "Six Million" of them: The second is that despite snooping all over Europe and elsewhere they have not found any Third Reich order to exterminate the Jews; the third is that the "Six Million" exterminated Jews nowhere left any skeletons, not even any ashes.
Even if the six million had been cremated they would have piled up a mountain of 60,000 metric tons [2240 lbs. per metric ton] of ashes. When the Soviet‑Bolshevik‑Jewish‑Russians murdered the Polish POW's at Katyn, a few years later the corpses of 4,200 were found with a bullet in their necks. But of the six million allegedly "gassed Jews" No Remains, No Graves, No Bones, No Ashes, No fragments of any kind have been found!!!
Where the Jews of Central Europe Went
But what has been found is hundreds of thousands of Jews in countries where they had not been in 1939. On June 11, 1973, the International Tribune, a Jewish‑controlled paper, boasted that; "About 500,000 of Israel's 2.6 million Jews had been in a Nazi concentration camp." Obviously if there had been a Hitler order to exterminate the Jews their bones [or their ashes] would be in Central Europe. Some other examples: in 1939, France had 200,000 Jews, but now it has 900,000; Great Britain then 300,000, now 600,000 Canada then less than 150,000, now 400,000; Argentina then 200,000, now 800,000.
In the U.S. where there were perhaps five million, there are now, according to what Ben Gurion, while he was alive, estimated, from nine to twelve million, so many in fact that the Census Bureau has been forbidden to count them, as the sheer numbers of them would be embarrassing for the Jews, and would completely destroy the "Six Million" MYTH!
The fact is Jewish casualties during the war can only be compiled by equating the Jews in the various countries of the world now [or in 1950] with those in 1933‑1939. Instead propagandists subtract the Jews in Central Europe after the war from those there before and call the difference "massacred." Even reputable historians, as for example John Gunther, fall into this elementary fallacy: of dishonesty. He wrote: "Of the 3,500,000 Polish Jews who lived in that country before the war, not less than three million were murdered by the Germans. The total number of Jews surviving in Poland is only between 70,000 and 80,000." [26]
The millions of Jews who retreated into Soviet‑Russia and who fled into other countries Gunther simply writes off as "massacred." In 1930 there were 2,488,000 Germans in East Prussia. When by 1946 the Soviet‑Russians and Poles got finished raping and looting and terrorizing, only a few thousand East Prussians were left there. Do the likes of Gunther conclude that the Russians and Poles "massacred" the other two plus million East Prussians??? They do not. Even though in fact over 200,000 were murdered by the expulsionist Poles and Russians, they blithely pass over these and assume all the 2,488,000 are safe in Germany!
What Happened to the Germans
Of East Prussia, Silesia, Sudentenland?
The propagandists, who call every Jew no longer in Central Europe "exterminated," do not call the 4,558,041 Germans no longer in Silesia after the Poles terrorized them in 1945‑1946 murdered, though twenty percent of them were; they smugly call them "transferred" to Germany; so with the 1,895,015 Pomeranians, the 407,500 Danzigers; and the 3,912,849 Germans of the Sudentenland, of whom 210,000 were clubbed and raped to death, and only 100,000 remain in the Sudentenland!
But when the 600,000 Jews in Germany in 1933, only some 30,000 were found there in 1945, the propagandist scream that the other 570,000 had been exterminated! When in fact, they were in most cases all the while collecting indemnities from the West German people, safely in New York, Israel and Argentina!
For more than thirty years hordes of official and official snoopers have sniffed at every document of the Third Reich, and they have cross‑examined and threatened and blackmailed every possible German in the search for some document or order in which Hitler ordered the extermination of Jews. And the more they scratched around the more they came up with the opposite. At least three historians in the last few years may be thought to have unwittingly frustrated the last hope of finding any Third Reich order to exterminate the Jews.
Historians Find No Third Reich Order For "Exterminating" The Jews
Dr. John Lukacswrites; "No document, no written or even spoken evidence connects Hitler directly to the Wannsee decision." [27]
Nor does he anywhere else cite any such document. And in fact the Wannsee Conference, held January 20, 1942, itself does not at all contemplate extermination, but the deployment of "the Jews capable of work," like road‑building, in the East, but "It is not intended to evacuate Jews over 65 years of age" nor "Jews who are serious war‑wounded cases and Jews with war decorations" [presumably from World War I]. [28]
As for the block‑busting Hoax of the Twentieth Century, so the Los Angeles Herald, June 11, 1977, reports, it "presents the massacre of six million Jews...(as) a myth perpetrated by Jews to elicit sympathy" for a Palestine homeland.
The latest to frustrate all hope of finding a document authorizing the massacre of Jews is Professor David Irving's Hitler's War (Viking Press, N.Y. 1977, 926 pates). Irving writes categorically: "...the incontrovertible evidence is that Hitler ordered on November 30, 1941, that there was to be 'NO LIQUIDATION' of the Jews" [29] And, in October, 1943; "Hitler was still forbidding liquidations..." [30]
Instead A Third Reich Order Was Found To Feed And Clothe Camp Inmates Well
Although no order whatsoever has been found for Hitler's ordering the massacre of any Jews, a secret Hitler‑Himmler directive has been found for October 26, 1943, to every commandant of the nineteen German wartime concentration camps. It is directed personally and secretly to each of them, and is very specific and comprehensive. The recipient commandant and his administrator had to attest by signature that they had carefully read the Order. The Deutsche National Zeitung of August 12, 1977, carried the German text and a photo facsimile of the Order. By way of introduction it recognizes the contribution of the concentration camps to the Armament program of the previous two years. It goes on that this level of achievement can only be maintained, "...if we keep up the work potential of our inmates and further improve it."
Before it was unimportant if prisoners furnished useful labor or not, "Now, however, the work potential of the prisoners is of importance and all the measures of the commandants, the leaders of the 'V‑Dienst' and doctors have to give priority to keeping the inmates healthy and able to work."
The directive adds that it is not from sentimentality but their importance for final victory which; "... dictates that we concern ourselves with the well‑being of our prisoners...at most ten percent should at any time be unfit for work because of illness."
To maintain this goal, the camp commanders have to see that there is:
1). Right and suitable serving of rations,
2). Proper and suitable clothing,
3). The application of all natural health measures,
4). The avoidance of all exertions not directly needed for the task at hand,
5). An awarding of prizes for superior work.
The Secret Order of October 26, 1943, then separately explains each of those directives.
There are twenty‑one subheads on "Rations." The first six prescribe the preparation of potatoes and vegetables: how long to soak in water, what percentage to mix in raw, about 10 percent, the proper use of spices. The next fifteen subheads stress the quality. Warm victuals should not be over‑cooked, but should be served hot and consumed hot.
The cooks are especially enjoined to provide the proper spices, and not too much salt, not as much as 2‑3 grams a day; "contrary to soldiers' rations, meat is to be cut up and cooked with the vegetables. Only heavy laborers are to get additional sausage in full pieces."
|
How about that almost six million Jews have been resurrected since the end of World War II, No wonder they deny God ahd the Lord Jesus Christ: They resurrect themselves whenever they wish and as many times as they wish. Boy what a bunch of crap anyone with a lick of common sense can see the claims of the Jews and their "Six Million" is nothing but a fantastic lie to make money off the Christian Sucker! |
On and on it goes even to the point that the statement is made; "If a special food might help a sick prisoner he should when possible get it."
It also explains why, in the face of the bloated Jewish six million figure, the International Search Service in Arolsen/Waldeck, Germany, whose function it is to verify as many concentration camp casualties as possible to help Jews collect indemnities, has as of December 31, 1975, come up with only 357,190 deaths in German concentration camps from any and all causes!
More indicative of all the shenanigans it explains why, though the likes of Wiesenthal [the Weasel] claim six million Jews were "gassed" by Hitler‑Himmler, up to June 30, 1965, a total of 3,374,500 Central European Jews had come up very much alive Blackmailing West Germany for reparations, Presumably for having suffered Death!
And according to the Deutsche National Zeitung, August 12, 1977, the issue which carried a photographic facsimile of the Hitler‑Himmler Order to treat Concentration Camp Inmates well, reports that as of now almost six million Jews have presented claims for reparations.
Obviously the Hitler‑Himmler Directives for treating Jews and others well in the nineteen Concentration Camps served their purpose of keeping them alive and well! Today, all officials seeking to continue in office or to seek higher office in the United States must not only make a ritual pledge of eternal and unquestioning faith in the Myth of the Holocaust. For to question the Myth of the Holocaust means a challenge to the Jewish world dictatorship, and it must be punished at once by the most severe sentence. Thus the most fantastic elaborations on the basic lie of the "Six Million" appear regularly on American religious programs, in educational books, and in the press.
Among the rare public figures who have dared to question the Myth of the Holocaust are such individualists as the actor Robert Mitchum, who told an Esquire interviewer, in response to a question about "the six million," "So the Jews say." So the Jews say? shrieked the horrified interviewer. "Yeah," GROWLED Mitchum, "so the Jews say."
Another actor, Ronald Reagan, while seeking public office, told a Jewish audience in California that, "It might help your cause if you would limit your claims of victims to numbers that you could actually prove."
A reporter noted that, "...the audience began to hiss like geese, in a rapidly rising cacophony while the aspiring politician dashed to the wings, never to reappear in the particular auditorium."
Whatever Reagan's doubts about "the six million," he has since kept them to himself. The Reagan Administration will be remembered for the ultimate enshrinement of "the final solution." Two government buildings on the Washington Mall have now been given by "our government" to the Jews for a "Holocaust Memorial."
The Washington Mall, like the Roman Forum, is the center of American aspirations for our Republic, and runs from the White House to the Capital with its principal adornment the magnificent Washington Monument. To the consternation of most American, the Washington Monument can now be called "Jew Alley." Many native Washingtonians have begun to express criticism of this amazing development. In the Washington Post, April 25, 1983, William Raspberry writes on the editorial page, "I simply don't understand it."
He points out that although this is to be an official American monument, neither the perpetrators nor the victims were Americans. He quotes a Howard University professor as wondering why there shouldn't be a Slavery Memorial on the Mall to honor the memory of the slaves, or a Wounded Knee Memorial for the Indians.
What he doesn't say is that the erection of a Jewish Memorial on the Washington Mall is a boast of absolute power, that the Jews have achieved absolute power over their Goyim slaves in America. We can understand that there is a huge memorial to Karl Marx erected in Red Square in Moscow. Are we incapable of understanding why a memorial to the Jews is erected on the Washington Mall?
Raspberry, who is black, goes on to tweak the big noses of his Jewish employers, the Meyer family who own the Washington Post, by saying that "a pledge that nothing of this sort will ever be permitted to happen again" worries him, because it is happening right now. He doesn't mention the obvious example, the Rosh Hashanah Massacre of Arab women and children in Lebanon, but of course Raspberry fails to understand two crucial factors;
The Holocaust Myth that has been promoted by world Jewry during the past 40+ years is showing signs of cracking. Various hate organizations, such as the Wiesenthal Center has forced many Americans to develop a guilt complex for the so‑called terrible suffering that Jews were forced to endure during the time when those "Nasty Nazi's" were allegedly hunting down Jews throughout the ghetto's of Europe. One survivor has claimed that she escaped from a death camp, only to be chased around in the forest by a bunch of Nazis carrying a portable gas chamber.
While the above story certainly defy common logic, to think that German soldiers would lug a gas chamber around in the night in order to "gas" their victim, when it would have been much easier to just shoot her. We would, however, agree it "could" be possible, as insane as it would be to do so. Many of the stories totally defy all the principles of science. For instance Filip Muller stated in his book, "Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in a Gas Chamber," that Nazi doctors would cut the legs off of many of their victims (presumably for some evil Nazi experiment) and would throw these body parts into buckets, which would then leap and jump around.
In 1985, Ernst Zundel of Toronto, Canada was on trial for publishing books that questioned the reality of the Holocaust. During that trial another survivor, Arnold Friedman, testified (with a straight face) that he could tell what nationality of Jew was being gassed by the color of the smoke and flames ascending from the crematoria smokestacks.
For example: blue flames meant it was a Hungarian Jew, green flames meant it was a Polish Jew. And while all these Jews were being gassed and burned, Kitty Hart, (a holocaust survivor ‑‑ naturally!) stated in her book, that she was able to watch the speed of the gassing and burning (The Jews were being gassed and cremated in just 10 minutes) while sunbathing on a sloping green lawn.
There are numerous stories told by so‑called "survivors" all trying to out do the rest. But the story of the Holocaust has been well described as a holoHOAX. A Hoax that has victimized millions of people. But this cruel lie is beginning to develop some serious cracks. These cracks will continue to widen until the lies of the Jews will stand forth as bright as sunlight. At which time the world will realize just what a terrible Hoax has been perpetrated by the Jews, just so they might obtain financial gain from it.
During the Zundel trial mentioned above, the need arose to have testimony from an unbiased expert in the field of gas chambers. At the recommendation of Bill Armontrout, the warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City, Fred Leucher was contacted. Mr. Leucher, according to Bill Armontrout, "...is an engineer specializing in gas chambers and executions. He is well versed in all areas and is the only consultant in the United States that I know of."
Fred Leucher was requested by the defense attorney to make a critical examination of the gas chamber sites and made a report to the court. The report has become known as The Leucher Report. This report from an unbiased engineer totally destroys the so‑called holocaust "Myth." The Leucher Report, according to David Irving, the famed British historian, is a document that is going to have to be dealt with by any historian who wants to claim credibility. Fred Leucher, after careful research, examination and analysis, stated in the conclusion of his report: "After reviewing all of the material and inspecting all of the sties at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, your author finds the evidence as overwhelming. There were no execution gas chambers at any of these locations. It is the best engineering opinion of this author that the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have then been, or now, be utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers."
This report by Mr. Fred Leucher is the most devastating blow to the Holocaust "MYTH" that has ever been produced. Mr. Leucher is an expert in the field of gas chambers and is the only consultant that the warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary would recommend to prepare an unbiased analyst of the so‑called gas chambers. Now, those who continue to promote a Jewish "Holocaust" are going to have to deal with it, if they are going to claim that there is no bias in their historical research.
1950's: James Forestall former Secretary of Defense (a modern aircraft carrier is named after him) drew on long experience in government and Wall Street to prove that Jews caused WW II. For his patriotism he was vilified by the press and was supposedly driven to suicide.
The Encyclopedia Judaica and Martin Broszat, the director of the quasi‑official Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, concedes that No Gassings Took Place At Dachau. And Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles revealed recently, to a radio audience in Southern California that, "...There were no gassings" At the infamous Treblinka Death Camp. That "it" never happened at all, and second, that the Jews are attempting to place the rest of the world on notice that "they" are sacred, and that no one must ever harm a hair on their heads.
It's quite all right to massacre all the Goyim or non‑Jewish cattle, in Cambodia, Vietnam, Africa, or Lebanon; this has nothing to do with the "sacred" presence of the Jew. "Never Again!" the well‑publicized slogan of the Jews which refers to the Myth of The Holocaust, should more properly be "Never," meaning that not only did it "Never" happen but that it is all right for the Jews to Massacre the Gentile Cattle whenever it suits their purposes, because the Myth of the Holocaust gives Carte Blanche to the Jews to Kill as many Gentiles as possible, "The Diminution, the killing out of the Goyim." As Old Anselm so lustfully put it, because it is obvious that the more Gentiles that are killed, the fewer remain alive as a possible threat to the Jews.
The Myth of the Holocaust is interpreted by the Jews as giving them permission to maintain international murder squads whose assassins routinely carry out executions in every country of the world, not only against "enemies of Israel," but also against those who are merely suspected of being "potential enemies of Israel." It pays to be careful.
In no country are the murder squads of the Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence Service, given greater freedom than in the United States. Co‑operation with the Jewish assassins is the first line of business for the CIA, the FBI, and the IRS. The Mossad routinely gives these government agencies lists of American individuals on its hate lists, who are to be given "special attention." These lists comprise more than half of all the IRS "special audits" of American Citizens.
Despite the frenetic co‑operation of official American bureaus with the Israeli assassins, the favor is rarely returned. The Jews treat the American Goyim with justifiable contempt, and rarely lose an opportunity to spit in their faces. Our Marines soon found this out in Lebanon, when the Israeli soldiers routinely threatened them, offensively cut across marine lines, and shot at them.
Menachem Begin's political stance at that time was to maintain a strong Israeli military presence in Lebanon, despite President Reagan's frequent whines that the Israelis really ought to pull out of that war torn country. At these requests, the Israelis responded with the assassination of President Gemayel, and the Rosh Hashanah Massacre of women and children. The latest requests for Israeli withdrawal were met with the "mysterious" explosion which blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, with great loss of life. It is confidently stated that this explosion will never be solved. As long as the Jews, Walt Rostow and Henry Kissinger (both Zionists) were selling out U.S. interests things were fine.
Secretary Shultz must wonder when Begin will order him to be murdered, and President Reagan and others as well. The Israelis are the most likely suspects in the U.S. Embassy explosion. An extremist named Abu Nidal was named in Jack Anderson's column, April 25, 1983, Washington Post; "...secret State Department reports quoted two highly placed intelligence sources explanation that the explosion was in Israel's interests as it aided to 'divide and conquer' to disrupt the PLO by setting one faction against the other. The sources said Israel had secretly provided funds to Abu Nidal's group."
From the outset, the Myth of the Holocaust has had its problems with "the numbers game." It has not been easy to sell the story of the "extermination" of an entire people, when that people is more numerous, more visible, more prosperous, and more powerful in more countries than at any time during its history. It is even more difficult to sell the story of "survivors of death camps," who survived, not one year, but stays of four to six years in "death camps," in which, according to the testimony of the "Survivors," "Everyone was being killed every day"
Survival, not merely in one "death camp," but tours of five or six camps over a period of four to six years. The casualty rate would be higher on a bus tour of the Bronx. It took a certain amount of raw courage to fix on the number of those "exterminated" at the magic figure of "six million" during a period when the world census of Jews showed an increase from ten million to twelve and a half million [at that rate we better not have any more wars and exterminations of the Jews or else the world could not contain them for their number after such a war]. Even the most hardened Jews shrank from the certain exposure and censure of peddling such fantastic lies to the most gullible of the Goyim. Fortunately, they did not have to.
If Ronald Reagan expressed some hesitancy at accepting the magic figure of six million early in his career, other Goyim, notably, the great evangelists, showed no such qualms. There is not some rivalry among the million dollar a week stooges who jumped on the Golden Bandwagon, but there seems to be little doubt that it was not Billy James Hargis, the homosexual Bible‑ thumper, but Billy Graham, "that nice boy from North Carolina," who first struck gold in the Myth of the Holocaust. Graham soon proved that his loyalty to God was surpassed only by his loyalty to the State of Israel, while Billy James Hargis and Rev. Carl McIntire huffed and puffed in his well‑tailored suit. In recent years, they have been surpassed by two even smoother peddlers of "Fundamentalist Christianity," Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Each day these servile shabez goi pay homage to the Myth of the Six Million, urging their bewitched television audience to send more money to them, and of course, to Israel. Although their cut come off the top, Israel does get a fair share of the take, but the supposed recipient of all their fund‑railing, God, is said to get nothing at all.
Although the United States boasts of being the birthplace of "investigative journalism," where an aggressive Mike Wallace thrusts a microphone into the face of a cringing quack while denouncing him for over‑charging an elderly patient for an aspirin, the Myth of the Holocaust continues to enjoy complete immunity from the prying activities of ten thousand young journalists who dream of the Pulitzer Prize, the Book of the Month Club, and the Hollywood contract.
These dreams can become reality, as Woodward and Bernstein discovered when they published their White House fantasies as fact, but the Myth of the Six Million is secure from any invasion by these "great journalists" or any of their compatriots, as none of them dares to question the sanctity of this never‑to‑be‑questioned figure.
For years, Jews refused to provide any proof acceptable in court which would substantiate these claims, even though a $50,000 reward was offered for proof that any Jew had been gassed in any type of "Holocaust" operation during World War II, yet this astonishing offer never excited the curiosity of any "investigative journalist" in America.
In the ordinary course of events, a twenty dollar bill or a two‑Martini lunch is all that is required to set them on the track. Until these highly trained professionals take up the scent along the dog‑run, we continue to be plagued by the Jewish claims that six million of their brightest and their best were foully done to death during World War II. If a $50,000 offer could not bring forth proof of even one death, how much would it cost to find proof that six million died?
The Record of History shows that only Christians have been the victims of the Historic Massacres! The Jews, when they did not do the killing themselves, as they always prefer to do, were always in the background as the only instigators of these crimes against humanity. We can and we must protect ourselves against the bloodthirsty bestiality of the Jew by every possible means, and we must be aware that the Christian creed of love and mercy can be overshadowed by the Jewish obsession that all non‑Jews are animals to be killed.
The foregoing account of the Jews shows that the Jews desire to destroy all non‑Jews that they consider dangerous to them and to rule the others. The Christians and Arabs are high on their list for murder. The evils of the Jews are countless.
Deceit and lies are two of their best tools. They love the "God's Chosen" lie. The Jews are mostly Khazars. Khazars have no identity with Israelites at all. The Jew lie on this subject is carried by Christian Churches out of ignorance or as a pay‑off for favors. During the time of Christ, the Jews were Israelite mixtures and this and the Talmudic idiocy is what Christ condemned the Pharisees for.
The next lie is that Christ was a Jew. Nowhere in the Bible is Christ referred to as a Jew. The Bible says Christ was an Israelite. The present day Israelites are the Anglo‑Saxons, Germanic and Kindred Peoples, their descendants in accordance to Bible prophecy. No one stops to ask the following two questions or contemplate the answers:
1. Who are the scribes and Pharisees, as described in the New Testament?
Answer: They are the Jews.
2. Who was/is Christ?
Answer: He was/is the Son of God.
3. Who did Christ say was His Father?
Answer: Almighty God.
4. Who did Christ say was the Father of the scribes and Pharisees ‑‑ the Jews?
Answer: Their Father was Satan.
Therefore if the Jews father was Satan and Jesus' Father was Almighty God ‑‑ then it is not possible for Jesus to have been a Jew!!!!!!!
To make a strong case for these Jew lies and deception we find that Jesus said that the Talmudic Jews were of their father the Devil! He said they were liars, thieves, murderers and were adulterers. The word adulterer is so wide in scope that the Jews make sure it is avoided. The Jews even changed the Commandment "Thou shalt not adulterate" to "Thou shalt not commit adultery." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" covers the intended reference. Adulterate takes in the total scale of evil.
Adulterate means mix, make impure, change, un‑natural, deceit, debase, pollute, contaminate, false, lie, corrupt, pervert, wicked, cruel, sinful and all manner of evil practiced by the Jews in their pursuit of deceit as demonstrated in the writing, "The Secret Holocaust" by Eustace Mullins. Christ told us the Jews were adulterers [worshiped other gods]. This brings us to the "Six Million Holocaust" lie that Dr. Butz's book "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" so ably describes. Mullins explains how this was profitable to the Jews. But it was also a necessity that the World War II and the Six Million lie be kept alive.
The real Holocaust is the Sixty‑Six Million Holocaust that the Jews performed and engineered in Russia. The cruelties that went with it are unthinkable as explained by Mullins. This is not like the German Six Million which is a coverup [to keep people from discovering just what the Jews did in Russia after they took control] for the Sixty‑Six Million, and is a proven known truth and a dress rehearsal for the torture and death of the other World Christians and Moslems [if they can take complete control of the world].
The Arabs can tell you what they have gone through in the last few years and are still going through today. How can this be? The Jews brag that it is "our terrible power of the purse!" Even today, U.S. citizens don't know the Jews own the U.S. money system known as the "Federal Reserve System," and even though the U.S. Congress is able to change it, they are too cowardly in the face of the death that awaits them.
Likewise, when the Jews tell Congress to send aid to their brother Jews in Russia, or to the Israelis, or to send your sons to war for Jew profit, the Congress obeys without hesitation, and they do it promptly. The Jew‑controlled news media sees that the citizens approve also. So when you hear the word "holocaust" remember that there is the big lie of the six million holocaust that the Germans were accused of, and there is a true sixty‑ six million holocaust that the Jews keep covered up.
It is like the first little boy who knocked the daylights out of the second little boy, and the first boy immediately saying, "He hit me! He hit me!" The innocent second little boy found out how shouts prevailed, as in the case of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The second little boy was punished. The lying first little boy went free. So it is every day with the in Russia and Communism world‑wide, and the Israelis in the Palestine area. Their lying shouts prevail; and with the terrible power of the purse and lying press, they forge ahead.
Christ died for our sins that we may have eternal light and joy, but Christians today must fight and resist the devil in righteous anger or receive torture, suffering and death; because that is what this evil Talmudic‑crazed Jew element (not humans) have in store for all resistors. Look at Poland and all Jewish‑communist controlled areas of the world. Poland is 90% Catholic and anti‑ Jew Communist.
However, they are still prisoners of the Jews. This is only one example. The Commandment says "thou shalt not murder." Death is the punishment for breaking a Commandment. We would point out that the Jews are NOT chosen people. Jesus Christ was not a Jew.
The Jews lie about the Jewish extermination in a German holocaust. The real holocaust was a Christian Holocaust by Jews of sixty‑six million, mostly Christians. To you who would like to deal with the Jewish Problem in a positive manner, we exhort you to stand behind and get involved in the faithful proclamation of the Good News of the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This message rent the veil of the Jewish political, religious, and economic world two thousand years ago under the anointed lips of Jesus Christ and it will happen again here in America under the Spiritual Anointing of Kingdom Ministers of the Gospel of the Kingdom. This message is the only hope for White Western Culture and will be the catalyst, that spiritual spark, will ignite the soul of the entire west, from California to the most remote white western nation in Europe, to bring forth the next imperium of white western rule. John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State: "I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved of by the Jews...It is impossible to hold the line, because we get no support from the Protestant elements in this country. All we get is a battering from the Jews."
1950: April 24: A California District Court rules that the U.N. Charter has become, "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This decision is overturned by the California Supreme Court on April 17, 1952, but ONLY because the U.N. Charter (which is considered a treaty) provisions referred to in the case are not "self-executing." The California Supreme Court quotes U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall as saying in Foster v. Neilson (1829) that a treaty is, "to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of Legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision."
The California Supreme Court then cites judicial decisions concerning treaties that have been self-executing, and it further cites Articles 104 and 105 of the U.N. Charter itself which would be self-executing and therefore upheld as "the supreme law of the land." Article 104 states: "The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes." And Article 105 provides: "1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. 2. Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with Organization."
1950: January: State Department White Paper issued declaring that the United States would not defend South Korea or Formosa if they were invaded. The bait was accepted: On June 9, 1950, South Korea was invaded. The Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is a Jewish organization that uses quasi‑legal measures to promote Zionist interests and suppress resistance to ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government). This strategy includes court actions like the ACLU, plus mass pressure tactics such as boycotts and organized call-ins, plus individual pressure tactics such as brain‑washing (otherwise known as "sensitivity training"), political pressure, disinformation, lies, etc. ADL official Hyman Hays said on 2/1/50.
1950: Bible prophecy declares that the far eastern nations such as China, Korea, Viet Nam, etc., will invade the nations of Israel. [31]
Preparation For The Kings of The East
"And I saw...seven angels having the Seven Last Plagues; for in them is filled up the Wrath of God. And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass. And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues ...And I heard a great voice...saying...Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the Wrath of God upon the earth...And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared...to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." [32]
This will, we believe, be the preparation for the final battle that Jesus will win to overthrow the armies of this end time system and establish His Kingdom. But how have the kings of the east been prepared for this great battle? Can we identify HOW and WHEN this prophecy is to be fulfilled? "The American public has a right to know just what part Alger Hiss has played in formulating the policy that has helped in bringing about the collapse of nationalist China and the spread of Soviet‑directed Communist power and influence throughout so much of Asia." [33]; "The Honorable Dean Acheson has said that America failed in China because of the fumbling of Chiang Kai‑shek. That statement is historically incorrect...The Secretary of State now admonishes the people to quit trying to pull some secret from under the bed, from under the chair, or from under the rug, and to attribute to such secret, America's failure in China." [34]; "Secretary Acheson asserts the State Department does not pay salaries to the pro‑Soviet enemies of our nation; well, if it does not, who sold out China, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria..."; "It is difficult to believe Stupidity alone has lost the peace for the United States and made our sacrifices in vain." [35]; "I would be Disloyal to my country and a betrayer of the trust which so many Americans defended during the past war (WW II), and to the memory of my two brothers and the many thousands like them who did not return, if I were to keep silent on a subject which affects the security of every American." [36]
America Betrayed
By Joseph P. Kamp
China may have been the battleground; but when the Chinese Communists triumphed over the Nationalist forces...Soviet Russia won a major victory...and the United States suffered a Crushing Catastrophic Defeat. It was bad enough, and to the everlasting shame of America, that this defeat came about, in part, because our war‑time leaders were parties to a betrayal of a sincere friend and courageous ally who trusted us. But it is far worse...that traitors in our own State Department were permitted to betray American security, and to jeopardize the safety of the American people by helping to ASSURE a Communist conquest of China.
This smashing Russian victory imperils the whole American security position in the Pacific. It doomed North Korea, all Southeast Asia, and now, the Philippines are on the brink of falling to certain conquest by Communism (This is being written in 1990). It surrendered to Russia all the important fruits of our bloody and nightmarish four year war with Japan. It is no exaggeration to say that in its potentialities it is by far a more ghastly American Defeat than Pearl Harbor. How did China fall? Who caused it to happen? Who permitted it to happen?
Principal Architect
One of the principal architects of the American China policy between 1941 and 1947 was the Jewish traitor Alger Hiss. He was convicted by an American court and branded by an American jury as an undercover agent of the Soviet Government in our State Department. Which leads to the question: Were there other Soviet agents in the State Department during the years of World War II and when China was being lost to Communism?
The American debacle in East Asia was Not something which Had to happen! China fell because of Satan's influence in causing treason and conspiracy. Mismanagement in our own State Department opened the doors of the Far East to our Soviet enemy. During World War II, American influence and power in the Far East were unquestioned because of our military victory over the Japanese Empire.
The U.S. military and naval forces were predominant in China, Japan, Korea, Burma and the Philippines. China was ruled by Chiang Kai‑shek was unswervingly loyal to American interests. Although Mao Tse‑ tung's Communist forces were poised to challenge the National Government after V‑J Day, their rule in 1945 was confined to regions of rural North China. Their chances of victory were small. However, in four short years after the actions of Washington, the State Department, had tossed away all this military and political might. The story of HOW this happened is an amazing betrayal of America's security by its own officials. Actually, if Joseph Stalin himself had written the directives which the State Department followed in China from 1941, they could not have served Russian interests more directly.
Forces Who Won China for Communism
Three forces reveal themselves as working tirelessly over the years to undermine the American position in the Far East were:
A). Soviet Russia and its political apparatus in China and America;
B). The group of Leftist (Read that Communist) writers, correspondents and 'China experts' who labored skillfully between 1937 and 1948 to smear Chiang Kai‑shek in American public opinion, and to create a fatal ideological breach between China's National Government and the United States;
C). The group of Communist and pro‑communist officials in the American State Department, together with their "Liberal" dupes who maneuvered the key American decisions which deprived China's Government of effective American aid in each major crisis of its struggle with the Chinese Communists.
The murder of over 100-million Chinese and thousands of American Soldiers can be laid at the feet of the traitors in the Truman Administration and the State Department! When we put together the separate strands, we see each of these three fitting unmistakably into the familiar pattern of Soviet infiltration and conquest.
The Role of Soviet Russia
No Soviet policy has been more unremitting or more patiently pursued than the subjugation of China. After the Jewish Bolshevik triumph in Russia in 1917, Lenin and his associates confidently believed that they would take Central Europe, then the next area which would be won would be Asia, which includes China. One of the early declarations of the new Communist government concerning Communism's next objective was made by Gregory Zinoviev, President of the Comintern at Baku in September 1920.
The Soviet Government had assembled a "Congress of the Peoples of the East" at Baku, to stimulate the spread of Communism in Asia. Zinoviev declared: "The real revolution will blaze up only when the 800‑million people who live in Asia unite with us, when the African Continent unites, when we see the hundreds of millions of people in revolt. Now we must kindle a holy war against the British and French capitalists. We must say that the hour has struck when the workers of the world are able to arouse tens and hundreds of millions of peasants to Create a Red Army in the East."
The early leaders of Soviet Russia developed a detailed Strategy of Communist action among so‑called "colonial people" among whom they included the Chinese. This strategy was set forth explicitly in the directions drafted by Lenin at the second Communist International Congress in 1921. Later it was amplified by the "Those on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi‑colonies" drafted under Stalin's direction in 1928. It was believed that in China a popular Communist movement could be developed with the Russian Comintern aid. The Chinese Communist Party was set up in Shanghai in 1920 under the direction of Russian agents of the Comintern.
At first, Russia believed that Chinese Communism could best grow by an alliance with Dr. Sun Yat‑sen's Kuomintang. The terms of co‑operation were worked out in 1923 in conferences between Dr. Sun and Soviet agent Adolph Joffe. For four years, the Communists worked inside the Kuomintang, plotting skillfully to win control of the organization from within. During this period a small army of trained Communist activists were sent into China by the Comintern to "advise" the Kuomintang leadership. The most famous of these were Borodin, political adviser, and Galen or Bluecher, Soviet military strategist. Among other Comintern agents who were in China during this period were the Americans Earl Browder and Grace Hutchins.
Chiang Halts The Communists
The obstacle which stopped the Communists from achieving their China goal at that time was Chiang Kai‑shek. Chiang had been sent by Dr. Sun to Moscow in 1924 for a six month study of the Communist system. He learned the strategy of the Communists so well that he was able to successfully use it against them when he returned to China. Succeeding Dr. Sun in the leadership of the Kuomintang after Dr. Sun's death, he turned the Kuomintang sharply against the Communists in 1926. The Communists, under Borodin's direction and help from Madame Sun Yat‑sen, Wang Ching‑wei, and other trustful Kuomintang politicians, set up a rival Chinese capital in Hankow, and attempted to constitute themselves as the central government.
In 1927 Chiang drove them out of Hankow, and the Russian advisers made a hasty retreat back to the Soviet Union. The first phase of Russia's campaign for China was ended with utter defeat. Russia never forgave Chiang for the part he played in their staggering set back. By his alertness, the Communist (Or was it God's time‑table for Asia) had been turned back for at least two decades. After 1926, Chiang Kai‑shek became smear target No. 1 for the Communist. To understand some of Russia's later actions, we must remember the hatred of Chiang Kai‑shek by Russia.
After the collapse and expulsion of Communism in 1927 from the cities, it was revived in rural China as the alleged champion of agrarian grievances. For this new role, Stalin hand picked Mao Tse‑tung in 1929 as the Chinese leader. Mao, who was actually an intellectual, took on a new personality as a simple, homespun peasant leader. He began a myth that was widely spread in America by Communist Left Wing writers that Chinese Communism was not Stalinism at all, rather just a mild form of Chinese "agrarian democracy" in the Jerersonian tradition.
Three Successive Strategies
After this rebirth of the party, Chinese Communism passed through three successive phases:
(1) 1929‑37. A Period of Armed Insurrection against the Central Government of China.
It was during this period that the Chinese Red Army was created under the command of Chu The. The armies first base was the South‑Central province of Kiangsi. Chiang drove Chu The's forces from Kiangsi in 1933 which began the "Long March" for relocation of the army in the bad lands of Shensi province in Northwest China. At the end of eight years, they were reduced so badly that Mao was actually negotiating with Chiang for safe conduct to Russia. Suddenly, a new turn in history gave the Communist a spectacular opportunity for a comeback.
(2) 1937‑42. The Period of the so-called "United Front" with Chiang.
Russia in 1937 became extremely jittery over the danger of a Japanese attack upon Manchuria. Stalin decided that it was more important to have Chiang Kai‑shek's powerful army on his side in case of attack rather than continue the revolt of Mao Tse‑tung's Communists. Stalin was extremely fearful throughout this period that Chiang might make a deal with Japan and leave Russia to face the Japanese military might alone. The Chinese Communists were instructed to make a temporary peace with Chiang until the Japanese threat was over. Mao never merged his armies, but kept them autonomous, ready to resume the civil war when Japan's threat passed. This "United Front" continued until a non‑aggression pact was signed between Russia and Japan in 1942. It was called the Molotov‑Matsuoka pact. With no threat from Japan, Russia changed its policy toward China quickly. No longer needing Chiang Kai‑shek as an ally, Mao's Communists resumed their fight for power.
(3) 1942‑49. The Period of the Resumed Civil War, Culminating in the Triumph of Communism in 1949.
Mao now devoted his full energies to seizing territories and infiltrating into North China. Mao's army was only 70,000 men in 1937; but by the end of World War II, it stood at over 1‑million. He now occupied a much larger territory in the rural areas of Hopei, Chahar, Jehol, Shansi, Shantung, Kiangsu and Anhwei.
These contained a population of 80‑million. Mao was advancing while Chiang Kai‑shek was still fighting the war with Japan. The non‑aggression pact between Russia and Japan freed Mao to occupy much of China because Chiang was now fighting two fronts. This is why the Communists were so strong after World War II in China.
The Plan For China
The Communists realized that they could not take China until Both Japan and the United States were eliminated from Asia. Japan was eliminated after the Midway failure in 1942. Stalin knew that a combination of the United States and Chiang Kai‑shek's National Government would permanently lock Communism out of China.
How Was American Withdrawal To Be Achieved? Obviously, Russia could not expel America from China y force because American military and naval might was too great at that time. The only other choice was to induce America to leave on its own. Somehow, America MUST be persuaded to withdraw from China and leave Chiang Kai‑shek's Government to its own fate. Fantastic as it seems, that was precisely what they accomplished in the incredible years between 1942‑47.
By conference table trickery and giant propaganda programs, by the Jewish controlled media, the American people bought Russia's lies as they are buying the lie of "Glasnost" today. At the peak of American power, we were induced to GIVE away the largest populated nation on earth to Communism. When the TRUE history of 1948 is written, and it will be someday, it will be recorded that Mao did NOT conquer China, rather the United States turned China over to Stalin. America could have stopped Mao at every turn by simply providing the supplies Congress had voted to give Chiang's Government.
To comprehend the difficulties which had to be overcome between 1942‑47 before Mao's Communists could rule, it is only necessary to reconstruct what had to be done. In listing these difficulties it will be indicated the American blunders (?) which permitted Communism to make its steady advancement.
(1) It was necessary that the Chinese Communists come out of WW II with an army and territorial control in China great enough to give them a fighting chance ‑ with Russian aid ‑ against Chiang Kai‑shek's forces. Russia was successful as we say, Mao Tse-Tung emerged from the war with just such a physical power.
(2) It was necessary that the United States consent to Russian entrance into The Japanese war before Japan was crushed, in order that the Russian armies might have Physical Possession of Manchuria and inner Mongolia on V‑J Day. The International Jews ruling Russia knew that unless her armies actually occupied Manchuria and Mongolia, the United States would turn these key areas over to Chiang Kai‑shek when WW II ended, and Chiang would then be too strong for Mao to overcome. The United States not only permitted but beseeched the Russians to come in.
At Yalta in January 1945, it actually bribed Russia by giving them Port Arthur, Dairen, the Kurile Islands and Outer Mongolia, to enter the war against Japan, which Russia wanted to do all along. The U.S. did this despite the fact that General MacArthur had sent a message to the Jew President Roosevelt before he left for Yalta informing him that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, and Russian help would Not be needed. But thanks to the Yalta double cross of China, and Eastern Europe Manchuria along with the Eastern European Countries was taken by Russia, instead of the United States, and, after being looted of over 2‑billion dollars worth of industrial installations, was turned over by the Russians in 1946 to the Chinese Communists. The loss of Manchuria doomed Chiang's chances of defeating the Chinese Communists by his own efforts, and eventually cost him the civil war.
(3) It was necessary that Russia get arms and planes from America with which to seize Manchuria. Russia had no effective army in Siberia after the old Far Eastern Army had been sent West during the Stalingrad crisis, and no surplus of arms with which to equip one. So it was necessary that the United States be persuaded to equip a new Far Eastern Army with which Russia could enter the Japanese War.
And fantastic as it seems, the United States did actually equip the army with which Russia snatched Manchuria. In 1944 at a Moscow conference attended by Winston Churchill and American Ambassador Standley, Stalin received the promise of additional lend‑lease aid to equip a new Far East army of 1‑million men. Under this pledge, Russia's Far East army received $1.6‑million of American lend‑lease materials in 1944‑45.
Thus the United States supplied Russia with the arms with which she robbed America's ally, Chiang Kai‑shek, of the richest province in China. Incidentally, Nationalist China received little more than half this amount of lend‑lease from America during the whole four years of the American‑Japanese war.
(4) It was necessary that the United States withdraw its armed forces from China as soon as Japan gave up to give Mao a clear field in his revolt against Chiang.
Under pressure of Communist sympathizers and "Liberals" in Washington, the U.S. speedily demobilized its China forces after the Japanese armies surrendered and left Chiang alone to fight Mao and his Russian backers.
(5) It was necessary that the United States should not supply arms to Chiang's Armies; and at the same time, the U.S. should offer NO obstacle to the supply of arms by Russia to the Chinese Communists.
The United States, immediately after V‑J Day, destroyed the huge stockpiles of lend‑lease arms in India which were on their way to Chiang's armies. In March 1946, General Marshall, on Washington orders, clamped down a ten month embargo on the sale of American munitions and parts replacements to Chiang's armies. At the same time that the U.S. was cutting off needed arms for Chiang, Russia was turning over to the Chinese Communists the immense captured Japanese Kwantung army stockpiles in Manchuria ‑ Japan's greatest reserve of material.
(6) It was necessary that the U.S. declare its neutrality in the contest between Chiang and Mao. The Chinese Communists would not have had the slightest chance, if America had adequately backed Chiang's cause, which in common sense it should have done in it's own interest.
Instead, America washed its hands of all responsibility for Chiang's position in China after the Stilwell recall in 1944, and maintained a detached neutrality in the civil war. Worse, it materially aided Mao's rebellion during the twelve month period between December 1945 and December 1946, by insisting upon three successive truces, just when Chiang's strength was at its greatest. These truces came at times when the Communist armies were in distress. General Marshall wasted a year by attempting to force Chiang to take the Communists into his government in a coalition. This allowed the Communists to regroup and rearm.
(7) It was necessary when the tide began to turn against Chiang that the U.S. make no intervention or take action through the United Nations to halt Russian maneuvers against the Government of Chiang Kai‑shek in China.
The turn of the tide against Chiang came in 1947. Washington, momentarily stirred to alarm, sent a mission to China, headed by General Wedemeyer, to ascertain what steps America could take to halt the Chinese Communists.
General Wedemeyer returned to present a realistic report pointing out how the Communists could be stopped by American action insisting upon a United nations trusteeship for Manchuria. Before his return, the anti‑Chiang forces had regained power in the State Department. General Wedemeyer's plan, which could have saved China, was suppressed by the State Department, and was not even revealed to Congress and the American people until two years later, after China had already fallen. The Communist infested State Department transferred General Wedemeyer away from Washington to a secondary post in San Francisco.
(8) In the last hour when it became obvious that without American intervention all China would fall to the Communists, it was necessary that the United States be seized by a state of failure and permit its allies in China to go down in total defeat.
Even Russia believed that there was some strategic point at which the United States would throw off its neutrality and forbid the Chinese Communists to advance further. If this had been done at the Yangtse River line in 1948 or the Hunan‑Kiangsi line in 1949 or even at the Formosa line in 1950, there is no question that the Chinese Communists would not have risked further advance.
But President Truman rebuffed Chiang's appeal for help in 1948 while Nanking and Shanghai were still safe, and the Dean Acheson rejection of the Formosa defense appeal in 1950. These were open signals to the Communists that they could advance without the slightest fear of American intervention. These were the "impossibles" which happened in China which paved the way for Mao Tse‑tung's victory. The question becomes ‑ Who were the False Leaders in Washington who betrayed the allies in China to the Communists in preparation for the Kings of the East?
The Role of American Communists
And Communist Fronts
In the Communist rule‑book the open Communists are the SHOCK troops who force agitation and draw the fire of the opposition. According to the Revolutionary Catechism, Men and Women infiltrate governments in secret to destroy it in preparation for the New World Socialistic Order (Read that Jewish Controlled World Order).
It is these people who do the Real work of destruction from within while our attention is drawn toward the vocal, visible Communists. Men who moved in respectable non‑Communist circles were the real movers, and shakers, such as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore and Lawrence Duggan.
Most vocal in the fight to swing American public opinion against Chiang Kai‑shek and in favor of Mao Tse‑ tung were the Jewish propaganda organizations which the Communist Party set up in China. These organizations spearheaded the "hate" campaign against Chiang which "Liberal" groups and individuals began to repeat. Within the Communist Party, there has always been a small group of expert propagandists who specialize in agitation of the Far East. Most influential of these was the "Millionaire Communist," Frederick Vanderbilt Field. He secretly infiltrated the respectable Institute of Pacific Relations where he was elected as secretary of the American Council of the IPR. Mainly through his influence, the Institute swung against Chiang Kai‑shek and pro‑Communist during WW II.
A new organization was created from the IPR called Russian War Relief in 1942. Others in this select group working with Field were Anna Louise Strong, Agnes Smedley, Harry Gannes, and General Victor A. Yakhontoff. Favoring the Communist Party but not admitting actual membership were Maxwell S. Stewart, Harriet Lucy Moore, Kate L. Mitchell, T.A. Bisson, Mildred Price, Dorothea Tooker, Maude Russell, Philip J. Jaffe and Arthur Upham Pope.
American Friends of the Chinese People
The first organization of the Communist Party set up for subversion of China was the "American Friends of the Chinese People," set up in 1933 with Maxwell S. Stewart as national Chairman. They sponsored a slick paper magazine, China Today. During the war with Japan, the magazine extolled Mao Tse‑tung at every opportunity. It made him appear to be another Washington and Jefferson in China.
The first Editor of China Today was Philip J. Jaffe, a well financed pro‑Communist. He used the name J.W. Phillips. For a long time, Maxwell S. Stewart was listed as a Contributing Editor. In 1938 the Managing Editorship was given to Max Granich, later named by FBI agent Larry E. Kerley as a member of the Russian spy ring operated by Vassili M. Zubetin, General Secretary of the Soviet Embassy at Washington, and as a go‑between for other Red agents.
China Aid Council
For Left‑Wingers who preferred not to have direct ties with the Communist Party, a second organization was founded in 1937, the China Aid Council. It was affiliated with the Communist‑front "American League Against War and Fascism." Working closely with this Council was the "Washington Committee for Aid to China." Top officers of the Institute of Pacific Relations appeared actively in these organizations, including Owen Lattimore, F. Mortimer Graves and Wm. L. Holland.
The China Aid Council was primarily a fund‑raising organization to appeal to public sympathy for China in its war with Japan. The council had a working arrangement with the Red‑controlled "China Defense League" in Hong Kong headed by Communist supporting Madame Sun Yat‑sen. Moneys raised by the Council for relief of war victims ended up in the hands of Madame Sun to transmit to the Chinese Communist at Yenan.
The Secretary of the Council, Mildred Price, a former employee of the Communist "Federated Press," was the wife of Harold Coy, who during the WPA years, was in top charge of the Communist‑dominated Federal Writers' Project. It was very significant that both these organizations (Friends and the Council) were later listed as Communist fronts by the Justice Department. The grip which the pro‑Communist elements had secured on the China fund raising field was demonstrated in 1942 when a federation of all China relief organizations was created by the Red Cross ‑ the United China Relief, headed by Paul Hoffman. Edward C. Carter of the Institute of Pacific Relations turned up as the chairman of the China Program Committee to decide where the money would be sent. Carter, then at the peak of his career as a pro‑Soviet Washington manipulator, permitted $900‑thousand in relief funds to be sent to madame Sun Yat‑sen, who used it for her Communist activities in China.
Arthur Upham Pope's Activities
Arthur Upham Pope started "American Committee for Chinese War Orphans." This Committee was combined with the China Aid Council in 1940. Pope became Treasurer and the main individual in the Council. Pope had his finger in many pro‑Soviet pies during the war years. Overseer of the "Iranian Institute," he included more of Asia to include China under the new name "Asia Institute."
Pope was very good at extracting contributions from the rich. He made the Asia Institute in New York a busy center for pro‑Chinese Communist activities. Another Leftist organization concerning China was the "American Committee in Aid of the Chinese Industrial Co‑operatives." Under the direction of Miss Ida Pruitt, the committee conducted successful fund‑raising campaigns. The Chinese co‑operative movement flourished in both National and Communist areas of China, but the Committee showed interest only in the Red China area.
Amerasia Begins Its Seditious Career
A second pro‑Chinese Communist magazine made its appearance in 1937. This was Amerasia, later to be convicted for setting up a traffic in stolen State Department confidential documents. Amerasia, from its beginning, was a thinly disguised Communist magazine. Its publishers were Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Philip J. Jaffee, both active in Communist Party activities. Jaffee had been the first editor of China Today. Because of its obvious Communist identity, the list of sub‑editors and contributors to Amerasia was eye‑opening. Its first editorial board in 1937 included Owen Lattimore, T.A. Bisson, William T. Stone, Kenneth W. Colegrove, Cyrus H. Peak and Robert K. Rauschauer. Writers who appeared in its pages were John K. Fairbank, Edgar Snow, Nathaniel Peffer (his wife was Assistant Editor) Anna Strong, Bruno Lasker, Benjamin H. Kizer, Lawrence K. Rosinger, William C. Johnstone, Pardee Lowe, Maxwell S. Steward, William L. Holland, Ernest O. Hauser, and Harriet Lucy Moore.
The relationship between Amerasia and the Institute of Pacific Relations was so close for a time that the two organizations occupied offices in adjoining buildings at 129 East 52nd Street, New York, with the wall of the building cut out to permit a special doorway connecting the offices. Amerasia maintained high level scholarship which gave it credibility in the eyes of the public on Far East problems. Until its real identity was revealed in 1945, it was read with trust by teachers, clergymen, government officials, editors and other leaders that mold public opinion. During its eight years, it consistently was anti‑ Chiang and pro‑Communist.
Communists Influence American Withdrawal From China
All these various organizations preached pro‑Mao Tse‑tung in such a way that public opinion was swayed against our loyal ally Chiang Kai‑shek. The Communist Party needed America out of China militarily at all cost. They began propaganda to persuade mothers and sweethearts of our men to cry for demobilization and come home. William Z. Foster, National Chairman of the American Communist Party, told the delegates to the Communist national convention on November 18, 1945: "On the international scale, the key task, as emphasized in Comrade Dennis' report is to STOP American intervention in China...The war in China is the key to all problems on the international front, and it is here above all else where we have to deal the hardest blow to reaction."
The campaign came to a climax in December 1945. On December 2nd, the National Maritime Union (Under Communist control) staged a nation‑wide 24‑hour "protest" strike to "bring the boys back from China." In New York 125 ships lay idle; 40 thousand seamen demonstrated in San Francisco. On December 4th the Communist Party staged a monster "Get Out of China" rally in New York.
On December 6th the United Auto Workers (Also under Communist Control) held an "Atomic Energy and Foreign Policy" demonstration in Madison Square Garden, with Brig. Gen. Evans Carlson demanding an "end to China intervention." On December 17th Gen. Carlson was again making a speech by telephone from California to an American Youth for Democracy (Another Communist Front) "G.I. Dinner" in New York.
The theme for the hundreds of speakers at thousands of rallies was the same ‑ immediate withdrawal of all American forces from China. Brig. Gen. Evans F. Carlson had spent time between the wars as a sympathetic guest of Mao Tse‑tung's army. He then wrote a book in 1939 praising the Chinese Communists. He led the campaign to bring the boys home.
Carlson had a brilliant record in World War II; but as an intimate friend of Communist Earl Browder, he was used by them as a front for their demonstrations. Other tactics on the Congressional front was a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American troops from China.
This resolution was sponsored by Representative Hugh De Lacy of Seattle, Washington, a one‑term pro‑Communist Congressman who was elected by pretending to be a Democrat and winning election as a Roosevelt New Dealer. De Lacy made the China issue his principal activity while in Congress. De Lacy was successful in his aim of putting anti‑Chiang Kai‑shek publicity on the front pages of the Nation's newspapers. His resolution failed however.
A third propaganda strategy was the staging of soldier demonstrations in the Pacific armed forces. This was to force our leaders into immediate demobilization. Leaders of this agitation turned out nearly every time to be service men with pre‑war Communist records. Their object was to frighten Congress into rushing out of the Far East. All these Communist inspired activities were taking place at a critical moment in time for China.
Committee For A Democratic Far Eastern Policy
The American Communists achieved their demobilization of the American military in China. They were now ready to intensify their nationwide propaganda campaign against Chiang Kai‑shek and win admiration for Communist Mao Tse‑tung.
In 1947 the "Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy" was launched to achieve their task. All the familiar participants reappeared as sponsors. Maude Russell was executive director; Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Arthur Upham Pope and Nym Wales were Board Members. The Committee was a misinformation center on China from 1947‑49. This Committee united all important Communist Party activities in China ‑ and was listed by the Attorney General of the U.S. as a Communist front organization.
The Role of The Writers
Without Russian and American Communist aid, Mao Tse‑tung could not have overthrown Chiang Kai‑shek, our staunch ally. But what is not so clearly understood is the immense role which "Liberal," Left‑wing and pro‑Communist Americans played in the neutralization of the U.S. in National China's fight against Communism. The propaganda comprised two phases:
1). To destroy confidence in Chiang Kai‑shek's Government by smearing him as a "dictator," a "reactionary" and a "corruptionist;"
2). To sell Mao Tse‑tung and the Chinese Communists to America as "agrarian democrats" who were "not Communists at all," but merely "Liberal reformers."
These two ideas had to be implanted into American minds before military and financial aid could be cut off. Eugene Lyons' book The Red Decade described how completely the Leftists had captured and controlled the literary field in America during the 1930's. Beginners in book writing who bucked the Red trend soon found themselves discriminated against by book publishers, magazine editors, book reviewers (They had fallen under the control of the Jews), so they could not get published. The whole literary community went to work to Discredit Chiang Kai‑shek in the public opinion. From an American hero, Chiang soon was toppled with the applause of the American people. In the mass circulating Saturday Evening Post Edgar F. Snow started the creation of the Mao Tse‑tung legend in 1937. This series was later published as "Red Star Over China." Other writers picked up the theme. Journalists would travel to China, visit Mao, return and write in glowing terms about Mao. Some of those writers were: Anna Louise Strong, Anges Smedled, Vincent Sheehan, Illona R. Sues, Evans F. Carlson, James Bertram, Nym Wales, Jack Belden and Harrison Forman.
Capturing The Correspondents
All news reaching America from China was now consolidated into the hands of a few pro‑Communist correspondents. These were: Betty Graham ‑ representing the N.E.A.; Jack Beldon ‑ I.N.S.; Israel Epstein ‑ allied Labor News; Mark Gayn ‑ Washington Post; Gunther Stein and Hugh Deane ‑ Christian Science Monitor; T.A. Bisson ‑ Institute of Pacific Relations; Elsie Fairfax‑Cholmely ‑ Reader's Scope; and free lance writer Agnes Smedly. These led other Leftists and easily led journalists into their orbit, such as: Theodore H. White ‑ Time Magazine; Harold R. Isaacs ‑ Newsweek; Darrell Berrigan and Walter Rundle ‑ United Press; Preston Grover and Toby Wyant ‑ Associated Press; Lawrence K. Rosinger ‑ Foreign Policy Association; Leland Stowe ‑ New York Hearld Tribune; Brooks Atkinson ‑ New York Times; Eric Severeid ‑ CBS‑TV; R.P. Martin ‑ New York Post and Harrison Forman a freelance writer. Theodore H. White's book, Thunder Over China, receive sponsorship of the Book of the Month Club. Notice: Almost all of these writers were Jewish!
The Institute of Pacific Relations Leads Off
Leading the way in smearing Chiang in 1943 was the Institute of Pacific Relations. The I.P.R. was funded by Carnegie Foundation money and the contributions of "Big Corporations." They were to be an unbowed fact‑finding agency. Were they unbiased? Of course not ‑ they were controlled by the Jewish Communist from the beginning.
During the late 1930's, the Institute had been taken over by pro‑Communists, which held key offices on the secretariat and manipulated the organization for Soviet purposes. The Secretary‑General was Edward C. Carter, also a founder and National President of the "Russian War Relief." He was the recipient from Stalin the "Order of the Red Banner of Labor." In 1938 Carter signed a statement, published in Soviet Russia today, defending the Moscow Trials.
Owen Lattimore was the editor of the Institutes official organ, Pacific Affairs. He had been a member of the Editorial Board of Amerasia, which was owned by two outright Stalinists ‑ Philip J. Jaffe and Frederick V. Field. In June of 1937 he and two companions, Philip Jaffe and T.A. Bisson, made a trip to Yenan to meet the Chinese Communists. He consistently favored the contents of Pacific Affairs toward the Communists.
Frederick V. Field was an open Communist and columnist for the "Daily Worker." He was Secretary of the American Council. Harriet Lucy Moore, Trustee, was Editor of the Bulletin on the Soviet Union and the American Quarterly published by the "American Russian Institute." She was also a contributor to Amerasia and Board Member of "Russian War Relief."
Among the Trustees were men of Leftist backgrounds such as Henry A. Wallace, Alger Hiss, F. Mortimer Graves, Len DeCaux, Donald G. Tewkesbury, Lauchlin Currie and Maxwell S. Stewart, former Associate Editor of the Moscow Daily News.
Behind these people were innocent reporters and writers who knew nothing of the "Conspiracy" for World Government. The Institute of Pacific Relations was controlled by a permanent Executive Committee of eight, chosen from the Trustees. Carter, Lattimore, Field and Miss Moore voted for each other and could pick up on additional vote from an "innocent." They gained control of the IPR permanently.
On July 14, 1943 the Far Eastern Survey, official publication of the Institute, came out with a supposed objective analysis of the China situation. It was a poisonous attack on China's Government, and a lavish praising of the Communist Chinese. "There are two Chinas," said the article. "One is now generally called Kuomintang China: the other is called Communist China. However, these are only party labels. To be more descriptive the one might be called feudal China: the other democratic China."
What made the article all the more amazing was the fact that its author was T.A. Bisson. Bisson was a graduate of the New York Communist Party front, the "Friends of the Chinese People," which had been listed by the Attorney General as a Communist‑controlled organization. He was a speaker with Earl Browder and Philip Jaffe at public dinners given by the "Friends" on November 10, 1934 and October 9, 1935. He was listed in 1938 as Contributing Editor of China Today, a Communist‑published Chinese monthly, and in 1939 as a member of its Editorial Board. In 1937 his name appeared as a member of the Editorial Board of Amerasia, owned by Jaffe and Field. In 1939 his name appeared on the notorious list of 400 who endorsed the Hitler‑Stalin Pact. It was this "impartial" authority that the IPR chose to "prepare the Way for the Kings of the East."
Because of the intellectual standing of the Institute, the Bisson report started a chain reaction of anti‑Chiang editorials and articles in the American press. In the bleak mood of 1943, American editorialist's wanted a scapegoat for the Allied set backs in China, so the Communists controlled IPR handed them one; Chiang Kai‑shek.
Soon all the American press was parroting the IPR line, that Mao Tse‑tung was not a Communist but an "agrarian democrat." Which is almost the same way the press fawned over Castro a few years later! The IPR added fuel to the flames in 1944 when Lawrence E. Salisbury, Editor of the Far Eastern survey, said that the word Communist was used in connection with the Chinese Communists: "The term can be used correctly only in quotation marks."
The Amazing Stilwell Interlude
Immediately following the Institute of Pacific Relations attack upon Chiang Kai‑shek came the Stilwell Case, an incident which did more damage to Chiang Kai‑shek in American opinion than all that had come before. Since most Americans viewed the Stilwell Case solely on a controversy between an American military hero and a stubborn Chinese, sympathy was one‑sided for Stilwell.
General Joseph W. Stilwell was selected by General Marshall in December 1941 to go to China as American Chief of Staff of Chiang Kai‑shek, and as commander of the China‑Burma‑India Front. Stilwell had some real qualifications for the job. He knew China. He had been Military Attaché to the American Embassy in 1937‑38. He also had some serious Disqualifications.
After his death, the Leftist writer, Theodore H. White, persuaded Stilwell's widow to publish his war time Diary. The book exhibited Stilwell as a petty vengeful man who was consumed with the desire to destroy Chiang Kai‑shek. His contempt for Chiang caused one continuous intrigue behind Chiang's back with the U.S. Government to secure supreme power unto himself in China.
Since Washington gave authority to Stilwell to administer Lend‑Lease supplies to China, he was in a position to humiliate Chiang Kai‑shek at every turn by withholding supplies. China was the only country that the U.S. Government did not turn over Lend‑Lease outright to the head of that Government. Stilwell used Lend‑Lease in China as a club on Chiang in order to receive his every demand.
Very early, Stilwell aligned himself with pro‑Communist Chinese. He was friendly toward the Communist long before he was made Commander in China. Alger Hiss pilfered State Department papers in 1938 (Pumpkin Papers). Some of Stilwell's reports as Military Attaché to the Embassy was found among them. These reports praised the Communist guerrilla army as the only effective Chinese force against the Japanese.
In Chungking his closest political advisers were John P. Davies and John S. Service, BOTH admirers of Mao Tse‑tung. Stilwell wanted Chiang to transfer troops to the Southern front that were containing Communist troops in the North. If Chiang had followed Stilwell's advice, it would have released the Communist troops to overrun the rural areas of Central China. They would have been able to seize Shanghai and Nanking immediately after V‑J Day to end WW II.
On September 19, 1944, Stilwell received from President Roosevelt an ultimatum to Chiang Kai‑shek to make Stilwell the supreme head of the Chinese National army. Chiang promptly demanded that Stilwell be recalled. Roosevelt complied over General Marshall's protest. This incident gave fuel to the pro‑Communist writers to help destroy Chiang. Stilwell was a hero in America, and this was used to turn public opinion against Chiang. This attack on Chiang was led by Brooks Atkinson's series of articles in the New York Times. This completed the smear campaign of Chiang.
When the Communist military offensive burst over China in its real fury in 1947, the major part of the American press was already anti‑Chiang. Most papers parroted the Communist invented slurs against Chiang, such as ‑ inefficiency, undemocratic, corruption ‑ which created a frame of mind in the U.S. toward China which coincided with the State Department policy of inaction.
With the press turning thumbs down on military aid, the little group of schemers in the State Department and in the Institute of Pacific Relations which had manipulated this situation were able to do their hatchet job upon Free China in 1948. Communism had won its propaganda war.
Betrayal in The State Department
The greatest outside influence toward Chinese Communism in the 1930‑40's came from the State Department. The State Department policy that dealt most closely with China was the Office of Far Eastern Affairs. All decisions concerning China were cleared through the Far Eastern Office, and through an Assistant Secretary who specializes in Far East matters. The President and Secretary are too busy to consider any matter except the most important problems. He must rely upon his Far Eastern Office specialists for the facts and conclusions upon which he makes his decisions.
With the Secretary dependent upon Assistants, the situations lends to ready‑made infiltration. Just a few men with definite ideas as to what they want to accomplish can exercise great influence over State Department policy toward China or anyone else. This is exactly what happened. During the confusion and changing personnel of the war period, Soviet sympathizers succeeded in penetrating the Far Eastern Office. Some of them reached positions where they exercised far‑ranging influence over American policy toward China. Two successive Directors of the Office, Maxwell M. Hamilton and John Carter Vincent, were willing instruments of this intrigue for overthrow.
The Role of Alger Hiss
Whittaker Chambers was a go‑between for the Soviet‑Washington espionage ring later exposed. He pin‑pointed this highly‑placed Soviet ring in the State Department that gave key information to understand mysterious policies in the Far East. He helped to many to understand the amazing Yalta sell‑out of China to Russia in 1945.
Alger Hiss was at Yalta as State Department adviser to President Roosevelt. At the Yalta Conference, he sat behind Roosevelt. At the Yalta Conference, he sat behind Roosevelt who was only weeks from his grave, whispering advice into his ear on the vital decisions which gave China, Poland and Eastern Europe to Stalin.
We are told by Edward R. Stettinius in his book, Roosevelt and the Russians, that Hiss was one of four State Department experts who were sent ahead to prepare the American notes and directives for the Conference. From the decision of the United States District Court jury, Alger Hiss was an undercover Russian agent. Just like the Revolutionary Catechism says, pretend to be loyal and destroy as fast as you can without getting caught.
Hiss arrived at the State Department in 1936 as assistant to Assistant Secretary Francis B. Sayre. In 1938 he was transferred to the influential post of assistant to the Director of Far Eastern Affairs. He made his first important link with State Department China policy, over which he later exercised great influence. A large number of the stolen Hiss documents which Whittaker Chambers presented in the two Hiss trials were confidential papers of the Far Eastern Office.
At the time Hiss reached the top in the Far Eastern Office, American China policy was adrift. It was a moment when a determined Communist in a key position could turn American china policy in directions which could vastly aid Russia's plans for East Asia. Hiss was soon promoted to Directorship of the Office of Special Political Affairs.
He now was one of the top policy makers in the State Department. His selection to advise President Roosevelt at Yalta, and his later selection as Secretary of the United Nations Conference at San Francisco, indicates how high he had climbed ‑‑ and just how high those over him were to be in a position to appoint one of their own in such a high office. Somewhere on this climb, he formed an alliance with Dean Acheson, then Assistant Secretary of State and later Undersecretary. Even after His had been convicted at his second trial, Acheson declared on January 25, 1950: "Whatever the outcome of any appeal which Mr. Hiss or his lawyer may take in this case, I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss."
The Enigma of Acheson
Dean Acheson had a unique ability to give an appearance of righteousness, of being right. He achieved an amazing national reputation for sincerity. He also was gifted in winning the good will of Leftist and minority groups with political power. It was Dean Acheson who wielded the real power in the State Department, first under Cordell Hull, then Edward Stettinius, then James Byrnes, and finally under George C. Marshall. Hiss could not have found a better man to cultivate.
Gradually, Hiss became known as Acheson's right hand man in the Department. Hiss's brother Donald was also named as a member of the Communist apparatus in Washington. He was also in the State Department and later became a member of Acheson's law firm. During those years, the line in Washington to follow was Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins's "Trust Russia" policy. Acheson faithfully followed this policy and implemented it in the State Department.
Although it seems probable that his motive was simply political expediency, Acheson was one of the strongest voices for "working with Stalin" and appeasing his demands. He was so biased for Stalin that when General MacArthur announced a policy of peace that would have thwarted Russia's designs on the Far East, Acheson issued a public rebuke to MacArthur on September 30, 1945, informing him that the State Department, not the Army, was making American policy in Japan. Acheson was one of the architects of Dumbarton Oaks and the United Nations both of which served Russian ends by diverting American attention from the post‑war Russian territorial gains.
Not everyone in Washington was taken in by Acheson's Russian line. One man was Adolph A. Berle Jr., Acheson's Assistant Secretary of State. At the time he dissented, he was the New York Chairman of the (Socialist) Liberal Party. He wanted to Socialize America by passing laws, not by violent overthrow as Stalin wanted. Testifying under oath before the House un‑American Activities Committee on August 30, 1948, Mr. Berle Said: "In the fall of 1944 there was a difference of opinion in the State Department. I felt that the Russians were not going to be sympathetic and co‑operative. The opposite group in the State Department was largely the men ‑ Mr. Acheson's group of course, with Mr. Hiss as his principal assistant in the matter at that time Mr. Hiss did take what we would call today, the pro‑Russian point of view."
The tone of the Daily Worker (A Communist paper) during this period indicated that the anti‑Acheson group included Joseph C. Grew, Julius H. Homes, James C. Dunn, E.F. Drumright and Eugene Dooman. Acheson and his group were rated high among the Communist party at that time. Adam Lapin, Washington correspondent for the Daily Worker, wrote an article that appeared June 7, 1945.
Acheson was characterized as: "...one of the most forward looking men in the State Department." This was not Berle's first contact with the Communist problem in the State Department. It was Berle that Whittaker Chambers had first gone in 1939 with his amazing story of Hiss's Communist identity. Berle referred the story to Dean Acheson. But Acheson declared that he could vouch for both Alger and Donald "absolutely." The whitewash gave Hiss five more years of opportunity in the State Department ‑ five more years to serve as a traitor and serve the interests of Soviet Russia.
The Hushed Up Amerasia Case
The hold Acheson had gained on the State Department by 1945 was revealed in the events which followed the Amerasia Espionage Case in 1945. This case was the first to disclose the presence of Soviet agents in the State Department. The F.B.I. received evidence early in 1945 that someone in the Department was feeding confidential reports and papers to Philip J. Jaffe's pro‑Communist Magazine, Amerasia.
After months of investigation, on June 6, 1945, the FBI arrested the following individuals on charges of stealing or receiving top secret Government documents: Kate L. Mitchell ‑ Editor of Amerasia; Philip J. Jaffe; Co‑Editor of Amerasia; Mark J. Gayn and John S. Service; Writers State Department; Emmanuel S. Larsen; State Department; and Andrew Roth; Liaison Officer between the Office of Naval Intelligence and the State Department.
The FBI search of the Amerasia offices in New York revealed more than 100 files of top secret and highly confidential documents which had been stolen from the State, War and Navy Departments, and from the O.S.S., and the O.W.I. during the war. Among the papers found was a detailed report showing the disposition of all the units in Chiang Kai‑shek's army ‑ information which would be of priceless value to the Chinese Communists.
The exposure of this would have shaken the State Department and would have weakened the pro‑Communist dramatically. No such thing happened. Some Mysterious influence promptly went to work to HUSH UP the whole scandal. Department of Justice representatives presented the case to the Washington Grand Jury in such a way that ONLY Jaffe, Larsen and Roth were indicted. Gayn was cleared, even though 200 secret documents were found in his apartment.
The FBI evidence showed that Service had been in improper correspondence with Jaffe from China. It showed that Max Granich, a Russian agent, working under Vassili M. Zubelin, General Secretary of the Russian Embassy at Washington, had been assigned to act as go‑between for Jaffe and Service.
Even so, his case was dropped. Later, the indictment of Roth was dropped, even though he played an important role in Jaffe's activities. Jaffe was allowed to plead guilty and was fined $2,500; Larsen was fined $500. A hint as to the influences which were at work to HUSH the case is seen in the fact that F. Mortimer Grave, Trustee of the Institute of Pacific Relations took the initiative in raising a sizable defense fund for John S. Service. When an attempt was made by outraged Congressmen to institute a House Investigation, mysterious influences again intervened, and Administration leaders succeeded in smothering it.
Acheson Gets Rid of Grew
Some strange maneuvers now took place in the State Department. Undersecretary Grew, who had long been under fire by the Left Wing press because of his opposition to Russian plans for Japan, had co‑operated with the FBI in pressing the indictments. The Communist Party had revealed the Russian line by a resolution passed by its National Board on June 2, 1945 containing the demand: "Remove from the State Department ALL pro‑Fascist and reactionary officials."
Of course, in Communist double‑speak, "pro‑Fascist" and "imperialist" are code words for opponents of the One‑Worlders line. It was generally recognized that the actual TARGET of the Resolution was Grew. On August 14, 1945, Acheson presented his resignation to the new Secretary, James F. Byranes. He said he would not come back if Grew remained. Acheson had President Truman's ear; because on August 16, Grew resigned and the President named Dean Acheson as Undersecretary in his place.
There was no more talk of a follow up of the Amerasia case. With Grew out of the State Department, other loyal Americans were transferred out of Washington. Adolph Berle was now with the Embassy in Brazil. James C. Dunn was made the Ambassador to Rome. Julius Holmes and Eugene Dooman were retired. The Communist Daily Worker shouted victory. In its issue of October 7th, the Daily Worker said: "With the Assistant to Assistant Secretary of State Dunn, Eugene Dooman, who was Chairman of SWINK, the powerful interdepartmental committee representing State, War and Navy, and the former acting Secretary Joseph C. Grew OUT, the forces in the State Department which were relatively anti‑imperialist (Anti‑American) were strengthened."
With Acheson's advent to the Under-secretaryship in 1945, he became the actual chief of the State Department for all practical purposes.
Other Communists In The State Department
If Alger Hiss had been the only Communist "plant" in the State Department throughout the pre‑war and war years, the situation would have been bad enough. The testimony of Miss Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker chambers and of Heda Massing, the former wife of Soviet agent Gerhard Eisler, disclosed that SEVERAL parallel Communist nests existed in the Department during the years when Hiss was making his climb to the top.
In the Trade Agreement Division was another undercover Communist, Henry Julian Wadleigh. He was later named by both Miss Bentley and Chambers. Wadleigh, an economic analyst, appeared at the second Hiss trial, and confessed that he turned over approximately 500 confidential documents to Russian agents while in the State Department. Two even more important Communist betrayers were Noel Field and Lawrence Duggan. Field, an official of the Western Europe Division, had been important enough to be named as Secretary of the American Delegation at the London Naval Conference early in the Roosevelt Presidency. From testimony presented to the Committee on Un‑American Activities by Miss Bentley, it appears that Field was the head of one of the Russian centers in the State Department in the early Thirties. Hiss and Field were working together as late as 1946 as brought out in Hiss's second trial. After Field left the State Department in 1936 to take a post with the League of nations in Geneva, he appears to have fallen into bad favor with his Soviet masters.
In September 1949 the press reported his disappearance, together with his wife and brother, somewhere behind the Iron Curtain in Czechoslovakia. Lawrence Duggan was an even more important State Department figure. He was the son of the Carnegie‑endowed Institute of International Education, and his family ties is what gave him a quick rise in the Department.
Between 1935‑44, he was chief of the Division of American Republics ‑ a position ranking just below an Assistant Secretaryship. Duggan committed suicide by leaping from a sixteenth story window in New York after being named by Miss Bentley as one of her former contacts in the State Department. His name also appeared in the Whittaker Chambers "Pumpkin Papers." A third confirmation came from Hede Massing's testimony at the second Hiss trial. Mrs. Massing told in detail of repeated meetings with Duggan, first through Noel Field's introduction, while she was serving as Soviet a secret agent in Washington. Contact with Duggan and Field was her principal espionage task in the Soviet secret service.
Hiss, Field, Duggan and Wadleigh were the principal individuals in the State Department RED apparatus before and during the war years that were in position to influence policy decisions Yalta was a clear indication of that influence. There were many lesser functionaries in the Department who were tried by unimpeachable evidence to the Communist underground.
Aldo A. Marzani, member of the Presentation Division of the O.S.S., was transferred to a similar post in the State Department in 1946. Marzani was proven to have been a CARD‑CARRYING member of the Communist Party in New York under the alias Tony Whales. He was trapped when he perjured himself by denying Communist affiliation in his application papers to the State Department. He was tried and convicted and given a prison sentence. Harold Weisberg was dropped from the State Department in July 1947: "...for known association with agents of Soviet Union intelligence and economic section sections."
Before his employment in the State Department, Weisberg had supplied confidential Senate information to the Communist newspaper Daily Worker. He was also exposed as Gardner Jackson's agent to bribe David Mayne to produce forged papers trying to smear martin Dies by connecting him with William D. Pelley, Silver shirt leader.
The reason for the attempted smear tactic was that martin Dies was the first Chairman of the un‑American Activities Committee. Jackson had been employed and financed to "get" Martin Dies by Roger N. Baldwin, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, and J. Raymond Walsh, then Research Director of the C.I.O. labor union. Mayne was prosecuted and convicted. Weisberg was later a correspondent for the Communist party magazine Friday. Even with this type of known background, he had no trouble becoming a State Department employee ‑ Red influence was THAT strong.
Robert T. Miller III, was appointed Chief Information Officer of the State Department in 1944 and was later Assistant Chief in Charge of Publications, Division of Research. He went to Moscow in the thirties where he married a staff member of the Moscow Daily News. He was described in a Government memorandum as; "...in all probability, the greatest security risk the Department has had." His State Department file revealed that he furnished material to a known Soviet espionage agent. In late 1946, after 2 years on the payroll, Miller was permitted to resign, when his associations had been exposed.
Mrs. Rowena Barlow Rommel held a series of important posts after 1943. In 1948 she was assigned to the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Co‑operation. She succeeded in becoming a key figure in State Department personnel and reorganization matters. She was responsible for placing Miller, and others, in a post where he had access to confidential data.
Gustavo Durand was Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State from 1943046 when he was permitted to resign. It was disclosed that he had been a member of the Comintern, and a member of the NKVD, the dread Russian Secret Police. In 1935 he had been a major in the International Army fighting FOR Communism in Spain. Not in the State Department proper, but in a position where she could vitally influence Government policies concerning Soviet undercover agents, was Miss Judith Coplon, analyst in the Alien Registration Division in the Department of Justice. Miss Coplon was later convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment for stealing secret government documents. She went to trial again for having passed the documents to the accused Soviet spy Valetin Gubitchev.
Dropped from the State Department in July 1947, were Weisberb and nine minor employees charged with alleged association with agents of Soviet intelligence and economic networks. These nine were Harold Bellingham, Woodrow Wilson Borah, Irving Goldman, Florence Levy, P. Bernard Mortman, Alexander Lesser, James Ansara, and Leonard C. Rennie.
Later revelations disclosed that these constituted only a handful of the actual Communist sympathizers or members who were entrenched in the Department at the end of the war. In the initial "Loyalty" investigation held following the Truman Order of 1946 a total of 285 officials and employees of the State Department receive UNFAVORABLE reports from the Department's own security committee. Of these, only 79 were dropped from the Department or permitted to resign. According to a letter written by then Secretary James F. Byrnes to Representative Sabath, 40 of the 79 discharged employees were found to have had "close connections or involvements with foreign governments," meaning Russian agents.
Dean Acheson never cleaned up the State Department. He brushed off the Dies Committee evidence in 1941. In response to a Resolution of Congress, the Un‑American Activities Committee turned over to the Department of Justice a list of 1,100 names of Federal employees with Communist affiliations. Conspicuous on this secret list was the name of Alger Hiss. The Department of Justice "investigation" was announced several months later with 2 of the 1,100 fired. The other 1,098 were cleared including Alger Hiss. Note: The F.B.I. did not clear them, but the Justice Department! Ten years later Hiss was Convicted as a Communist Spy!
Institute Of Pacific Relations Gets The China Jobs
Between 1941‑46, the Institute placed its choices in high executive positions in American Agencies dealing with war‑time China. During these years, it became a virtual feedline to supply anti‑Chiang and pro‑Communist minded executives for the key American posts in China.
After Pearl Harbor, American Agencies working with China mushroomed overnight into sizable establishments. Executives familiar with China were needed quickly. The situation was ready made for the Institute. As a recognized authority in the Far East, the Institute became an employment agency for "China experts," all with the Mao and anti‑Chiang slant. Busy government heads found it convenient to permit the Institute to screen their China personnel for them. Two men gave the China appointments.
F. Mortimer Graves, Trustee of the I.P.R. and Administrative Secretary of the Council of Learned Societies. The other was Edward C. Carter, IPR's Secretary‑General. Both were known as men of pronounced pro‑Communist leanings. Graves had been chairman of the Washington Committee for Aid to China, an organization affiliated with the American League for Peace and Democracy, which was cited repeatedly by the FBI and other government agencies as a Communist front. As head of the Washington Committee, Graves promoted a Paul Robeson concert on April 25, 1941. Half the profits were pledged to the National Negro Congress, the Communist Party organization in the Negro community.
Graves hired Owen Lattimore, editor of Pacific Affairs and fellow Editorial Board member Jaffe and Field of Amerasia. Lattimore was President Roosevelt's own choice as "American Adviser." He secured the position of Pacific Area Director of the O.W.I.
He secured all personnel from the Chinese Division of the Chinese daily Communist newspaper in New York, the New China Daily News. William L. Holland, research director of the IPR was appointed as Deputy Director for the Far East for the OWI, and later for its successor, U.S.I.S. At the close of the war, he had a staff of 109 working under him in Chungking interpreting American democracy to the Chinese.
The staff was top‑heavy with Chiang critics and admirers of Mao Tse‑tung. While in China, Holland detached one of his staff, Abraham Pivowitz, to serve with Communist leader Mao Tse‑tung as public relations man. Holland's associations are indicated by the fact that he had been secretary of the China Aid Society, affiliated with the American League for Peace and Democracy, listed as a Communist front by the Department of Justice. Joseph F. Barnes served in the Washington office as Deputy Director of the Overseas Branch of the OWI.
He was a member of the Secretariat of the IPR for several years. He authored articles appearing in the Communist weekly New Masses and in the magazine Soviet Russia Today. He was one of the three IPR officers who founded Russian War Relief July 29, 1941. He was a long time friend of Communist Frederick V. Field (Mrs. Barnes was Field's former wife).
He was partner with Field in a travel agency that specialized in Russian tours. Barnes later became one of two publishers of the New York Star, a Left Wing daily, which was the only daily to support Henry A Wallace for President in 1948. Another Deputy Director of the OWI was George E Taylor, former IPR staff members. In 1944 he was joint author of the play "The Phoenix and the Dwarfs" which displayed the Chinese Communist as heroes and derided the National Government.
Serving with the War Man Power Commission was Maxwell S. Stewart, IPR Trustee. Mr. Stewart's wife, Marguerite Ann Stewart, was the secretary of the IPR and author of an IPR published book, Land of the Soviet, which was described by the Joint Fact Finding Committee of the California Legislature as "pure pro‑Soviet, pro‑Communist propaganda." Both Mr. and Mrs. Stewart were former teachers at the Moscow Institute.
Stewart had 52 citations for affiliations with organizations and activities which had been described by the Department of Justice or the Un‑American Activities Committee as Communist and subversive. Quite a record. Benjamin Kizer, another IPR Trustee and former writer for Amerasia, was appointed first Director of U.N.R.R.A. in China. Kizer approved the setting up of a separate organization to send U.N.R.R.A. supplies to Red‑controlled China.
William T. Stone, Vice‑President of the Foreign Policy Association and IPR member, received the high post of Director of the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs in the State Department. He was close friends with the pro‑Communist Far East group and had been a member of the Editorial Board of Communist Philip J. Jaffe's Amerasia. John King Fairbank, formerly of the IPR staff, was appointed Director of the OWI, later called the U.S.I.S. in China, succeeding Holland. He was the son‑in‑law of the famous Dr. Walter B. Cannon, prominent in Communist fellow‑traveler organizations before his death. He was an Amerasia contributor.
Lawrence E. Salisbury was editor of the Far Eastern Review, the IPR official publication. He was appointed Assistant Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs in the State Department in 1942. At the close of the war, four IPR staff members held executive offices in the China Section of U.N.R.R.A. and three others were engaged n research at General MacArthur's Section of O.W.I. The influence of these IPR men proved to be a vital factor in the discrediting of Chiang Kai‑shek and National China in American public thinking.
Pro-Reds Take Over Office of Far Eastern Affairs
The continuing objective of the espionage ring was to take over the Far Eastern Office in the State Department. The Far Eastern Office was where decisions were made concerning China. This office was invaluable to the Communist cause. The entrance of Alger Hiss into the Far Eastern Office as Assistant Director in 1938 was the beginning of the Leftist infiltration into that office. He made the appointments to this office because of his intimacy with Dean Acheson.
Maxwell M. Hamilton was Chief of the Far Eastern Office. Hamilton presided over the office from 1937 to 1943 ‑ six decisive years in determining China's fate. Because of Maxwell's Communist front affiliations, he was named with Donald and Alger Hiss by the House Committee on Un‑American Activities in 1941 as one of the 1,100 Communist fellow‑travelers on the payroll cited for investigation to the Justice Department. During Hamilton's Directorship, two other men rose to the office of Assistant Director ‑ George Atcheson, Jr. and Lawrence E. Salisbury.
John Carter Vincent became Director of China Affairs in 1944. He was advanced to the post of Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs in 1945. He was a former Counselor of the Embassy at Chungking. He disliked the National Government of China. In Washington Vincent became very close to Owen Lattimore and the Institute of Pacific Relations group.
In 1945 there was enough evidence of his association with the Soviet Embassy that warnings were given to President Roosevelt about sensitive information being leaked through him. An O.S.S. official revealed the leaks. Vincent was later promoted to U.S. Minister to Switzerland.
The Wallace Trip To China
In 1944 the anti‑Chiang, pro‑Communist group in Washington played for all of China. They convinced President Roosevelt to send the Vice‑President, Henry A. Wallace, to Chungking to iron out the difficulties between Chiang Kai‑shek and the Communist. In Chungking Stilwell, Davies, Service, Ludden and others in the plot had worked out a program that was to turn over China to the Communist. Central to this program were demands which were to be presented in ultimatum form to Generalissimo Chiang Kai‑shek. They were:
1). Chiang must grant a coalition government with the Communists;
2). He must consent to the sending of an American observation mission to Yenan, the Communist capital; thus, in effect initiating direct American relations with the Chinese Communists; and
3). He must yield supreme command of the Chinese National Army to General Stilwell, which has been discussed earlier.
The President instructed Wallace to convey this ultimatum verbally to Chiang. To make certain that Wallace did not get his signals crossed, he sent Owen Lattimore, John Carter Vincent, and John Hazard with the Vice‑President to China. When Dean Acheson and Philip S. Jessup prepared the notorious White Paper on China in 1949, the Henry A. Wassace report to the President was mysteriously omitted. The White Paper declares that No written Wallace report was found, although Wallace published in 1950 a document which he claimed was his Suppressed report. After the death of President Roosevelt in 1945, Ambassador Hurley was instructed by cablegram from Acting Secretary of State Grew to follow the Wallace policy as the official policy in China. Since it was suppressed, the only guide was provided by the pro‑Communists in the State Department.
Hurley Enters The Picture
On August 18, 1945, President Roosevelt appointed Major General Patrick J. Hurley as his special envoy to China. On November 30th, he named Hurley Ambassador to China. His mission was to persuade Chiang to grant a coalition government with the Communists. He went to China with a sympathetic attitude toward the Communist.
He nearly had Chiang convinced when Stilwell went over his head to Washington. This brought him disillusionment with his whole purpose for being there. His disillusionment was completed when he discovered that his Embassy at Chungking was packed with pro‑Communists. He learned that Davies, Service and Ludden gave details to General Stilwell not subject to his review, then sent these reports to Washington which contradicted his recommendations. These reports also reached the hands of the Chinese Communists and stiffened their attitudes in the conferences. The FALSE reports were that Chiang was on the verge of collapse, and the U.S. must begin to win the goodwill of Mao Tse‑tung.
The climax came in early 1945 when Charge d'affaires George Atcheson, Jr. sent a report to Washington recommending the sending of American arms to the Communists, all while Hurley was away from China in Washington. Hurley had not bee consulted; therefore, Hurley returned to China and sent home 11 Embassy officers whose pro‑Chinese Communist sentiments were too open to give them further usefulness in China.
Most important were:
1. George Atcheson Jr. ‑ Charge d'affaires;
2. John P. Davies Jr. ‑ 2nd Secretary;
3. Fulton Freeman ‑ 2nd Secretary;
4. Arthur Ringwolt ‑ 3rd Secretary;
5. Raymond P. Ludden;
6. John S. Service;
7. Edward E. Rice;
8. Philip D. Sprouse; and
9. Hungerford B. Howard.
All these men were dismissed for their pro‑Communist position, yet NONE of their careers in government were injured when they returned to Washington. Davies, the worst offender, became a member of the top Planning Board, which drafted over‑all State Department policy representing the Far East. Ringwalt was rewarded by John Carter Vincent by being appointed Chief of the China Division where he was in supervisory authority OVER Hurley.
Edward E. Rice and Fulton Freeman became Assistant Chiefs of the China Division. Atcheson and Service were sent to backstop General MacArthur in Japan, but Service was rejected by MacArthur. After Dean Acheson became Secretary, Service was placed in charge of promotions and placements at the State Department, an extremely strategic position for a pro‑Communist. Ludden, Sprouse and Howard were sent back to China in the Consular Service.
Hurley Resigns and the situation is Hushed Up
Hurley returned to Washington in November 1945 determined to have a showdown with the Secretary of State Byrnes concerning the wrong State Department program in China. After a conference with Byrnes, he agreed to return to China under certain stated conditions. His new directives were dictated in his presence and left with the Far East Department for overnight copying. Then John Carter Vincent got his Communist hand on the new directives.
When Hurley returned to the State Department to pick up his directives, he found that Vincent had Rewritten them in several important particulars, apparently with the consent of Byrnes. Hurley, angered by such a breach of faith, resigned the Ambassadorship, demanding a searching investigation of the role of pro‑communists in State Department policy.
In his resignation he characterized the pro‑Communists in the Chungking Embassy in the following words: "The professional foreign service men sided with the Communist armed party and the imperialist bloc of nations whose policy it was to keep China divided against herself. Our professional diplomats continuously advised the Communists that my efforts in preventing the collapse of the National Government did not represent the policy of the United States. These same professionals openly advised the Communist armed party to decline unification of the Chinese Communist Army with the national Army unless the Communists were given control."
Despite General Hurley's demand there was NO Congressional investigation. Chairman Tom Connally of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee cut short the taking of evidence on Hurley's charges before the pro‑Communist higher‑ups in the Department were uncovered. The Mysterious Power had once again protected Communism in the State Department.
The Marshall Fiasco
With the appointment of General George C. Marshall as special envoy to China by President Truman, all State Department opposition to the advancement of Communism collapsed. Whether he realized it or not, Marshall's mission was doomed from the start. Marshall was not permitted to go to China with an open mind and with open instructions. He was hand cuffed by explicit directives, drafted by John Carter Vincent's staff in the Office of Far Eastern Affairs. These directives were little less than a program to turn over China to the Communist. General Marshall was limited in his work in China by three basic specifications which were contained in the State Department drafted Truman statement of December 15, 1945.
1). Marshall Must insist upon a coalition government for China with the Communists;
2). He Must serve notice on Chiang that "United States support will not extend to United States military intervention to influence the course of any Chinese internal strife";
3). He Must notify Chiang that even further United States economic aid for China would be contingent upon his acceptance of American demands for coalition with the Communists.
Since Chiang's only hope of successful resistance to the Communists depended upon American military and economic aid, the Marshall proposals closed the door upon the only steps which could have saved him. James F. Byrnes, in his book Speaking Frankly, tells us how hastily these decisions of China policy were made in the Department. "Before Ambassador Hurley's resignation, the State Department had prepared a statement of policy on China, the first draft of which I showed to the Ambassador a few days before he resigned. As soon as President Truman appointed General Marshall his personal representative in China, I asked the General to study the draft ‑ The Sunday before I left for Moscow, Undersecretary Acheson, General Marshall and members of his staff met in my office. By the end of the morning's discussion, we had agreed upon the statement of policy that subsequently was approved by the President and released to the public on December 15th."
This explanation is very revealing. It tells us that the FINAL American policy which doomed China to Communism was written by John Carter Vincent and his staff of pro‑Stalin appeasers in the Office of Far Eastern Affairs ‑ presented it ready made to Marshall ‑ in the final morning session which approved it, Dean Acheson was called in to sell the Vincent plan to Marshall. General Marshall wasted a year attempting to pressure Chiang into taking the Communists into his government, crippled Chiang's hopes of checking the Communists militarily by insisting upon a series of truces and, finally, in punishment of the Chinese for not signing on the dotted line, declared an embargo of American shipments of war material to China. When he returned to China. When he returned home in January 1947, the chance to save China from Communism was gone.
John Carter Vincent gave further proof of his subversive pro‑Communist line. The first victim of his venom was General MacArthur. MacArthur, at a critical point in his effort to keep Russia out of a vetoing role in Japan, had issued a warning against the threat of Communism in the Far East. Vincent, taking his cue from a previous outburst by Dean Acheson, rushed into print a rebuke of MacArthur.
On September 4, 1946, the New York Herald Tribune quoted Vincent as declaring that MacArthur, by his attack on Communism, was violating the State Department directives for Japan. These directives, MacArthur said, sought to use Japan for "building a bridge of friendship to the Soviet Union." The Vincent outburst was too tactless for endorsement every by the State Department higher‑ups, and it was later disapproved. But in late 1946, Vincent pulled an even worse boner.
Under the terms of the Yalta Pact, the port of Dairen in Manchuria was to be internationalized. In disregard of the Yalta provisions Russia had proceeded to make Dairen a closed Russian city. When an American naval vessel attempted to enter the port in December 1946, it was ordered out by the Russian commandant. Here was favorable opportunity for the United States to have showdown with Russia concerning its violations of the Yalta and Sino‑Russian Treaty pledges in Dairen and other parts of China.
Mr. Vincent authorized a spokesman to declare that Russia was within its rights. Acheson's group in the State Department proposed a conference between Russia and China which would clarify the real status of Dairen. Russia simply ignored the proposal ‑ the incident was dropped ‑ leaving Russia in full possession of Dairen. For those zealous actions, Vincent was promoted to become the Minister of Switzerland.
The fall of China to Prepare the way for The Kings of The East every step of the way was aided by Dean Acheson. He had control of the State Department behind the scenes under four successive Secretaries of State which was the continuous link which bound together this Satanic conspiracy. The other people came and went, but Acheson remained the constant figure. With his rise to the Secretaryship in 1949, Acheson found himself in the position to strike the final blow at Free China and deliver it to the Communists.
By 1949, the myth of Mao Tse‑tung's "democracy," of his "non‑Stalinism" had been exposed. The fall of Nanking and Shanghai had struck the American people like a numbing shock. The mood of 1949 was one of bewilderment, finally recognizing the United States had let down its ally, China, in a dishonorable record of betrayal from Yalta onwards. Military aid to National China had been urged by resolutions passed by two of the most potent pressure groups in America ‑ the American Legion and the American Federation of Labor.
When many Americans were feeling ashamed for our actions in China, one man stood firmly and insolently against any change ‑ and by his insistence, he completed the ruin of China and insured the triumph of Communism. That man was Dean Acheson ‑ once a Lawyer for the Soviet Government.
While Free China was in its last gasp in the summer of 1949, Acheson commissioned the Institute of Pacific Relations Communist Philip S. Jessup to compile a White Paper on China, which was one continuous tirade against Chiang Kai‑shek. Nationalist China asked for aid in fighting Communism: Acheson instead gave China 1,100 pages of abuse and carefully edited Half-Truths. The Communist Philip Jessup, as the American Ambassador at‑Large in the Far East stated to the other Far East nations that while Communism was a menace: "...it is not a danger which need cause consternation. Certainly no such feeling of fear or panic exists in the United States, and I can see no reason why it (fear) should exist here."
With Mainland China lost, the remaining fragments of the anti‑Communist Army in China gathered on Formosa. They only asked that America guarantee the security of the island against Communist attack. Has Revelation 16:12‑14 now come to pass? "And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared...to gather them to the battle of that GREAT DAY OF GOD ALMIGHTY."
1 Corinthians 10:1‑4 states: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that Spiritual rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
It would appear that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament which led Israel out of captivity; that it was Jesus Christ the Savior of the New Testament who stood upon the top of Mt. Sinai and thundered down the Laws of Almighty God with His own mouth. It was Jesus, as the Lord God of the holy prophets, Who prophesied concerning the future, and the human prophets wrote the words on paper for us. The Supreme Court of the United States in a 9‑0 decision on February 29, 1892 declared the United States to be a Christian Nation. Being declared a Christian does not make you one; however, this nation has promoted Jesus as the Only Savior of the world more than any nation on the face of the earth.
The United States, Great Britain and Germany have published 95% of all the Bibles on the earth and have sent 98% of all missionaries to other nations. But what does this have to do with World Conditions? Such as Communist encroachment upon our freedoms, terrorism, international trade imbalances, the Federal Reserve System controlling our economy, the Korean conflict the Cuban crisis, the Viet Nam War (excuse me, Police Action), and the Communist controlled and dominated United Nations Organization?
Scatter The Power of the Holy People
The prophet Daniel wanted to know the outcome of all these horrible end time events. So he asked: "...O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?" 1
He was given the answer in verse 9: "...the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."
Daniel was told one way that we could tell when this time period would come in verse 4: "...many shall run to and fro (world travel), and knowledge shall be increased."
Knowledge is doubling every 2 ½ years. That is quite an increase. But the GREATEST witness given to Daniel that would reveal that the end was near is found in verse 7: "...and when He (The Lord Jesus Christ) shall accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."
Jesus Christ our Savior says that HE will scatter the military power of the Holy People (The United States, the Israel that was prophesied to come in the latter days ‑‑ the nation of the regathered Tribes of Israel). but why would our loving Savior do such a thing, and is He righteous in this judgement? Reason: To prepare the way for the kings of the east. 2 Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament and the Lord God of the holy prophets. Look what He instructed ancient Israel, and it is for our learning today. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning..." 1
Now let's see what Jesus told Israel: "If ye walk in my statutes, and keep (obey) my commandments, and do them; then I will give..." 2
The blessings of proper amounts of rainfall was predicted upon obedience. Likewise proper crops, good cattle, peace, and every blessing conceivable to man. Obedience was required to receive these blessings. Is it any different with Christians? Don't we have a covenant with God through Jesus Christ and ratified by His Blood? Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Lord God of the holy prophets, also instructed Israel concerning Disobedience. "But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these Commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant..." 3
God proceeded to describe all the Curses that He would bring upon them. He would allow them to happen as a Penalty for Disobedience. He said: "...they that hate you shall reign over you..." 4
How would those who hate us rule over us? Leviticus 26:19 says: "And I will break the pride of your (Military) power..."
God has made it clear that there will be a scattering of the people who are called "holy" at the end of the age. And He said it will be by those that Hate us. Is this military unpreparedness happening to the United States (Modern day Israel ‑‑ not the bastard, thieving, murderous country in the Middle East), after World War II, the most powerful nation on earth, in fact, the most powerful nation that ever existed in the known history of the world?
Are we declining militarily before the eyes of the world? Is it coming true that our allies can no longer trust us to come to their aid? Has our State Department been the very administrators for the Overthrow of many of our allies for Communism? We have already described to you the fall of China, which we believe was to "prepare the way for the Kings of the East."
Greatest Conspiracy in World History
Frank Murphy was a Supreme Court Justice when he discovered that there was indeed a PLOT to destroy the United States of America. He had a meeting with Congressman Martin Dies, the Chairman of the House Committee on Un‑American Activities. According to the American Opinion Magazine, February 1972, p. 14, Murphy told Dies: "We're doomed! The Communists have control completely. They've got control of Roosevelt and his wife as well."
In 1949 Murphy was to be released from a Detroit hospital completely recovered from an illness, but suddenly had a heart attack and died. Congressman Dies was convinced he was murdered. 5 James Forestall, America's first Secretary of Defense, became very dismayed over the deliberate refusal of the United States to win World War II two full years before the hostilities ended. The U.S. by agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill of England, rearmed Russia with Lend‑Lease war materials paid for by American tax payers, and then waited until Russia could march into Berlin, therefore capturing all of Eastern Europe for International Jewish Communism. Forestall stated: "These men are not incompetent or stupid. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor." 6
When you vocally speak out against the conspiracy for world government, you make enemies in high places. The following was recorded in the Congressional Record, December 6, 1950, p. 16179: "The Communists both American and European, had good reason to hate Jim Forestall: he hated them.
He emerged from the Second War dedicated to the destruction of Communism. He had opposed every concession to bring Russia into the war against Japan. He fought General Marshall's effort to force Chiang Kai‑shek to coalesce with the Chinese Communists. He battled those men in the State Department who tried to give the Mediterranean to Russia."
Forestall knew the world of free enterprise was under siege the world over. In the book Meeting At Potsdam, Charles L. Mee, Jr., p. 26, it says: "(He)...was alarmed by what he took to be Roosevelt's trust in Stalin...Forestall's nightmare was that Capitalism itself was under siege all over the world. During the war his personal files fattened alarmingly ‑ filled with names of journals and organizations and individuals who were 'under Communist influence.'" Forestall had discovered the insiders plans. He told a friend: "They're going to catch us unprepared. American soldiers will be dying (In Korea) in a year." 1
Forestall wrote to his priest, Monsignor Sheehy, often about the threat of the overthrow of the U.S. Government by the Communists. Sheehy said: "Many, many times in his letters to me Jim Forestall wrote anxiously and fearfully and bitterly of the enormous harm that had been, and was unceasingly being done, by men in high office in the United States Government, who he was convinced were Communists or under the influence of Communists, and who he said were shaping the policies of the United States Government to aid Soviet Russia and harm the United States." 2
A freshman Senator came on the scene about this time named Joseph McCarthy. It was: "...Forestall who personally alerted the freshman Senator to the Communist menace and 'named names' to him of key persons in our federal government who were consistently shaping our policies and programs to benefit Soviet Russia." 3
On June 10, 1947, a memorandum was sent from the Senate Committee on Appropriations to Secretary of State George C. Marshall, which read in part: "On file in the Department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet Espionage activities in the United States which involves a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions...There is a deliberate, calculated program carried out, not only to protect Communist personnel in high places, but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity... Should this case break before the State Department acts, it will be a national disgrace." 4 Marshall failed to clean house. Why? He was part of the coverup! McCarthy went to work against these people. Concerning Marshall's failure to act, McCarthy said: "If he was wholeheartedly serving the cause of the United States, these decisions were great blunders. If they followed a secret pattern to which we do not as yet have the key, they may very well have been successful in the highest degree." 5
Just after Thanksgiving, 1949, McCarthy had three visitors come to his office. They: "...showed the Senator a One-hundred page summary of Communist subversion in the United States, including serious penetration of the State Department. The report, which had been prepared under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover (Former head of the FBI), had already been supplied to the White House, the Secretary of State, and heads of other federal departments concerned. It Detailed the operations of spy networks operating in the U.S. Government and involving a large number of State Department employees, some in very high positions. Senator McCarthy read the report and was so shocked by what it revealed that he committed himself to do something about it..." 6
McCarthy saw a Giant conspiracy. Why wouldn't high officials in the State Department and the Secretary of State reveal the concentration of Communists if they were not part of that conspiracy? The State Department conducts the official policy of the U.S. with foreign nations. Could our State Department have been taken over by Communists to aid in the overthrow of non‑Communist governments? We will see! "McCarthy also told the American public that it was at the Yalta conference in 1945 that Roosevelt and Stalin Planned, not only the Korean War that the United States was then involved in, but also the Vietnamese war that was to follow some 10 to 12 years later. It was on September 23, 1950, that McCarthy charged: 'Here (Yalta) was signed the death warrant of the young men who were dying today in the hills and valleys of Korea. Here was signed the death warrant of the young men who will die tomorrow (Yet 10 to 12 years away) in the jungles of Indochina (Vietnam).'" 7
McCarthy saw a deliberate Conspiracy to send Americans to die in foreign lands in no‑win wars to break the will to protect the world against communism. The plot was to make the American military look weak and incapable of winning, and the Communists unstoppable. Men in our own State Department were directing the plan, and it was being concealed by the Secretary of State and others in high positions. McCarthy wrote: "How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? They must be the product of a great Conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A Conspiracy of infamy So Black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men..." 8; "What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence...The laws of probability would dictate that part of...(the) decisions would serve this country's interest..." 9
On July 30, 1953, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published a report that proved Senator McCarthy to be accurate in his accusations. The report was entitled "Interlocking subversion in Government Departments." Part of the text stated: "The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States Government, and this penetration has not been fully exposed. This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to the top-level policy and operating positions in our Government. Despite the fact that the FBI and other security agencies had reported extensive information about this Communist penetration, little was done by the Executive branch to interrupt the Soviet operatives in their ascent in Government..."
Why have you never read any reports concerning the Communists penetration into our government since the early 1960's? W. Cleon Skousen, assistant to J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI found the Communist program for takeover. There were 45 points.
Point #33: "Eliminate ALL laws or procedures which would interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus."
Point #34: "Discredit and eventually Dismantle the FBI."
Point #35: "Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities."
Our ability to defend ourselves is now gone. Senator Joseph McCarthy had uncovered a GIANT conspiracy that had taken over our State Department. He had a list of 81 people that were security risks in this one department. Notice the results of McCarthy's investigation:
"1). Fifty‑seven of these cases were later summoned by a Loyalty Board, and Fifty‑four of the accused confirmed McCarthy's charges by RESIGNING under fire.
2). By November of 1954, ALL of the eighty‑one persons on McCarthy's list had left government employ by dismissal or resignation.
3). The Senate International Security Subcommittee revealed that on June 27, 1956, the State Department's own security chief, Scott McLeod, drew up a list of 847 security risks in the State Department." 1
Senator McCarthy concluded that the purpose for the great conspiracy was: "...to diminish the United States in world affairs, to weaken us militarily, to confuse our spirit (will) with talk of surrender in the Far East, and to impair our will to resist evil. To what end? To the end that we shall be contained and frustrated and finally fall victim to Soviet intrigue from within and Russian military might from without." 2
Senator Joseph McCarthy paid with his reputation and his life for exposing this great conspiracy. "Louis Budenz, a former member of the Communist Party, said this about the Senator: 'The Destruction of Joe McCarthy leaves the way open to intimidate any person of consequence who moves against the conspiracy. The Communists made him a symbol to remind political leaders in America not to harm the Conspiracy or its world conquest designs.'" 3
A Great Conspiracy To Seize Christ's Kingdom
What is the actual objective of the Jews? It is certainly not benevolent and peaceful for their utterances and actions prove otherwise. What, then, is their goal? "The two internationales of Finance and Revolution work with ardour, they are the two fronts of the Jewish Internationale. There is a Jewish conspiracy against all nations." 4
The Scriptures are very clear concerning a diabolical conspiracy to destroy the way of peace and enslave mankind.
"And the Lord said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem." 5 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 those who had everything to gain, materially, thereby which have falsified the facts regarding the identity of the race of the Book and assigned to the Jews the promises and blessings which belong to the House of Israel.
"Of course, you do resent us. It is no good telling me you don't. So let us not waste any time on denials and alibis...We understand each other perfectly. I don't hold it against you... We are the stiffnecked people who never accepted Christianity, and we are the criminal people who crucified its founder...your loose, contradictory charges against us are not a patch on the blackness of our proved historic offense.
You accuse us of stirring up revolution in Moscow. Suppose we admit the charge. What of it?...You make much noise and fury about the undue Jewish influence in your theaters and movie palaces. Very good; granted your complaint is well founded. But what is that compared to our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws and your government, and the very thoughts you think every day? 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' which shows that we plotted to bring on the late World War. You believe that book. All right...we will underwrite every word of it. It is genuine and authentic. but what is that besides the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have carried out, which we never have denied because you never had the courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant for anybody to read? If you really are serious when you talk of Jewish plots, may I not direct your attention to one worth talking about? What use is it wasting words on the alleged control of your public opinion by Jewish financiers, newspaper owners, and movie magnates, when you might as well also justly accuse us of the proved control of your whole civilization...you have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt.
We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest great war but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of nearly every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life, we are still doing it. And no one can tell how long, we shall go on doing it.
Look back a little and see what has happened... Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of social conscience or by any sentimental questions about human equality.
Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone. But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia...we did it solely by the irrestible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda. We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the world, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents of our racial tradition.
In conclusion; you want to deal effectively with the Jewish problem. The go forth teaching, proclaiming, and promoting the great news of Identity and the Kingdom of Christ. Within this message lies the beginning of the Western Christian rule and the death of world Jewry." 1
Ezekiel also recognized this conspiracy of the Inhabitants of Jerusalem: "Moreover the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord's house, which looketh eastward: and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men...Then said he unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city [Jerusalem]...Son of man, thy brethren [Israelites], even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, get you [Israelites] far from the Lord 2: unto us is this land given in possession." 3
This caused the Jews to brag: "Thus saith the Lord God; because the enemy hath said against you [Israel], aha, even the ancient high places are our's in possession: Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Because they have made you [Israel] desolate, and swallowed you [Israel] up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers and are an infamy of the people." 4
Then we have proof that Ezekiel is talking about the Jews: "Therefore, ye mountains [nations] of Israel, hear the word of the Lord God; Thus saith the Lord God to the mountains [nations] and hills [small nations], to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about; Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea [the Jews, Esau/Edom - Esau is Edom 5 Edom is in modern Jewry 6], which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey." 7
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. Theologians have completely failed to examine the evidence to see whether the Jews are really entitled to the position of the modern Judeo-Christian Church 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 has 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. In doing so 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.
"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
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 as they boldly pursue their aim to gain world control.
Ample evidence has been furnished demonstrating the fallacy of assigning to the Jews the prophecies and blessings pronounced upon the House of Israel. The present so-called return of the Jews to Palestine is not in conformity with the great prophecies of the restoration of the House of Israel to the land of their forefather, a restoration which is to be accomplished by peaceful means alone after a sincere change of heart and genuine spiritual revival on the part of God's Israel people. The Zionists, however, are fulfilling ominous prophecies which foreshadow the coming of evil, not the coming of peace. Their move toward Palestine is a harbinger that the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord is very near.
Zionist activities in Palestine and the establishment of the new state of the Israelis have led many Christians to assume that Israel is being restored to her land again in fulfillment of the prophecies of the prophets of the Lord. If such a supposition were true, then all the activities of the Zionist Jews would be found to be in conformity with every requirement set forth by the prophets concerning the marks which were to identify latter-day Israel. Also, they would be following the method by which the prophets predicted the restoration would be accomplished. Actually, the Zionists are not in possession of any of the necessary identification marks; nor are they proceeding to possess the land according to Biblical requirements.
The blessings of God that we once took for granted in this former great Christian nation have been removed. Our people are bewildered and are striking out in all directions trying to point their fingers at the problem. The Judeo- Christian churches remain strangely silent about affairs of state. The different denominations within the mainline Christian movement teach only their own doctrine. Yet, none of them really teach "The Way" that Christ taught. They don't seem to realize that religions are man-made and "The Way" of Christ is an ethic, a way of life and a lifestyle "The Way" of Christ is not a religion. Secular politics and "The Way" of Christ are irrevocably intertwined.
If it is true that events in the history of Christianity are directly correlated to secular history, and one affects the other, then we should be able to list chronologically the events that have caused us all to be in the bondage of secular humanism or modern Pharaseeism. The State is now god. Whether one believes in the conspiratorial concept of history or not is immaterial. In all probability, most of those who have participated in what is termed a conspiracy didn't know they were participants! Each of us, as we read and watch and learn, will tend to align ourselves with one of the two camps. Either God is God, or man is god. "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the stranger [zuwr, a racial alien] shall swallow it up." 2
Much thought has been given as to whether we should start at the "beginning" or start at the "time of Jacob's trouble," 3 and then go back to an earlier period and discuss the monumental historical events that prepared the way for the "time of Jacob's trouble." Both periods are equally important but if we start with the last half of the study, the incidents of history are fresher and more important in our minds. We will see the development of Mystery Babylon as described in the Bible in the Revelation of John.
We have arrived exactly as John said we would! So many can't see it because we have been taught never, never to associate "religion" with politics. Those are the two subjects that we are never, never to talk about with friends or in public. But they are the two subjects that we should discuss whenever we have the opportunity.
This historical review will discuss actions of practically every religious organization in the Western World as well as the pseudo-religions of the secret societies. As a people, we have been taught not to write about or discuss certain issues or incidents. It is for that reason that we never read a history book that puts them all together.
Ministers and secular historians have stated many times that, "I know about these things but I have to feed my family and prepare for my retirement. After I retire, I will talk about them." But they never do. "The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." 1
The Key Is The International Banking Dynasty: When one studies the life-style and practices of ancient Babylon, one sees the exact image of the modern world. Then it was just one city that influenced the peoples and countries of most of the known world, as described in the Bible.
A group of German Archaeologists, under the leadership of professor Robert Koldeway, undertook the monumental task of excavating ancient Babylon. From 1899 to 1917 they literally churned up the desert at the site of Babylon, sixty miles south of modern Baghdad. They found a city which would look very much like a modern American city. Wise, straight streets and cross streets allowed for majestic travel. Babylon was a commercial metropolis but it was also a very religious city. There were 53 temples of the chief gods, 55 chapels of Marduk, 300 chapels for the earthly deities, 600 for the heavenly deities, 180 altars for the goddess Ishatar, 180 for the gods Nergal and Adad and 12 other altars for different gods.
Banks which loaned money at usury [interest] were everywhere and the rate of interest was 20 percent and sometimes more. They had a system of stocks and bonds. They had a place down along the river where every morning the prices of goods, both incoming and outgoing, were fixed. It was called the Quay.
The morals were that of an alley cat. Every woman had to go to the shrine of Aphrodite once in her life and consort with a stranger. When a pregnancy occurred, the child was "passed through the fire of Molech" [or sacrificed by fire to the god Molech]. Thus, the idea of abortion could possibly have been created at that time.
To compare the morals of today with the Babylonian system, just recently the famous bordello called the Mustang Ranch near Las Vegas, Nevada has been incorporated and its stocks placed on the board of the New York Stock Exchange! The system of medicine as we know it today, where the symptoms are treated and not the cause, was created right there in Babylon. It was to Babylon that Israelites from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin went as captives. They were basically an agriculturally-oriented people, believing in God's laws, as written, without modification or "situation ethics" applied. They came out as believers in the Babylonian Talmud instead of the Bible and with the professions par excellence of merchants, bankers, and traders. 2
How Was Babylon Reinitiated In The "Latter Days?": This brief description of ancient Babylon was presented to provide the bride to modern times. This lesson in history now begins at the time when usury [interest] was introduced to our people in the Christian Western world. As you read of these historical events, the incidents may seem a little different from what you were taught in school. You must remember, "To the victor belongs the spoils." Also, the victor always writes the history.
As an example, we were all taught that Oliver Cromwell was the "Great Benefactor" and "savior" of England. We will learn that those benevolent titles were given by the victor in the great battle that became the start of Mystery Babylon in which we live.
Thomas Cromwell, a close relative and ancestor of Oliver, was the singular person who caused the first revolution of the 1500s in England. The intellect, the charisma, the cunning, the brutality and the sinister mind of this man completely overwhelmed all of England, including King Henry VIII, parliament, and the common Englishman.
He had a very receptive person to work with in King Henry VIII. The king was an overbearing, overweight and obnoxious individual who had dreams of playing god. Thomas Cromwell knew this and took advantage of it. In all probability he was sent back to England specifically to do what he did.
For you see, Thomas Cromwell was trained by the Venetian traders who were famous money lenders of the time. He was trained by Machiavelli and he carried Machiavelli's book, The Prince wherever he went. It was this book that trained his cunning and sinister mind. He was in the courts and lived in the manner of the families of the Borgias and the Medicis. He was a member of the Rosicrucians, an early occult organization that later became a part of the Freemasonry movement.
Thomas Cromwell returned to England and started loaning money to the poorer nobles, charging interest [usury] which is against God's Law. He titled himself a "scrivener," which is something between a money lender and an attorney. He became an influential and busy member of parliament and five years later, in 1528, he was able to convince the Catholic Cardinal Wolsey that he needed a man to oversee his business affairs with the various monasteries in England. It was the very job for which he had trained for so long.
He started suppressing the influence of the smaller churches and monasteries. Some of these had existed as Christian Churches long before the Roman Catholic Church came to England. Extensive writings of historians, both secular and Christian, reveal that the Christian church in England was started by Joseph of Armathea very soon after the Resurrection of our Savior.
Of course it was Cardinal Wolsey who received the blame and resentment from the people of England for this suppression. They felt that Wolsey had to be removed and Cromwell, in true Machiavellian style, placed himself between the people and Wolsey. In his genius, he saw Wolsey disgraced and removed, and Cromwell stepped into the close company of Henry VIII. Wolsey had been the minister to the King and represented a very powerful position in the affairs of the country. Cromwell played on the King's ego and between them, the king became the head of the Christian Church in England.
From there it was a downhill slide. Cromwell dissolved a large number of the Christian churches and monasteries and divided the money received from their dissolution between himself and the king's treasury. The king got 20 percent and Cromwell and his henchmen got 80 percent.
Thomas Cromwell acted as a completely despotic dictator. He was ruthless and totally authoritarian. The people of England were extremely upset over the situation but did nothing. King Henry VIII also obtained more and more power, both in secular and religious affairs. King worship actually existed in England.
Thomas was extremely close to the king and his power and influence continued to increase until finally he overstepped his bounds, even with the king. Thomas Cromwell was executed in 1540 and the people of England, including the nobility, actually applauded as he hung on the scaffold. But the family of Thomas Cromwell became extremely wealthy and influential from the money he stole from the churches and monasteries. (History Of The England People, John Richard Green)
What has been related about the life and affairs of Thomas Cromwell is a perfect example of Hegellian Dialectics in action. Hegellian Dialectics is described as an idea which is placed in motion and is called the thesis. This argument may take some years to take effect. Then, a counter idea, called the antithesis, is brought to bear against the thesis. This counter antithesis also may take some years to become fruitful. As a result of this clash of ideas, a resulting state of affairs called a synthesis drops out. The synthesis is always different from either the thesis or the antithesis. When the power brokers of the world use this, and they do, it is a very easy matter, in time, to control the affairs of the entire world.
The Hegellian Dialectics occurred naturally in the world for many centuries, probably as long as recorded history. However, this situation in England with the affairs of Thomas Cromwell and King Henry VIII, was probably one of the first examples where it was intentionally placed in motion. It was conceived and directed by the international money lenders for the purpose of ruling the world. This will become very apparent as we continue with our history lesson.
So Thomas Cromwell and his thesis created a dictatorial, authoritarian system where the government was sovereign and the king was god. This condition persisted for nearly one hundred years in England
The Reformation In England: The despotic system that Cromwell created in England was a fertile seed-bed for the growing Protestant Reformation. We will see that this became the antithesis of this great conspiracy. The resultant synthesis became the start of Mystery Babylon as will be shown. The Roman Catholic Church had been in a violent struggle with Jewry for centuries, particularly over the issue of usury, the loaning of money for gain, or interest. When Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church, he retained the same position with respect to usury.
But when Luther died in 1546, just six years following the execution of Thomas Cromwell, the second generation of Protestant Reformers apparently was of a different opinion. Maurice Pinay in his book, The Plot Against The Church states that Martin Luther was nationalistic in his thoughts and anti-Jewish and the second generation was more "Judeo-Christian" in their thoughts and actions.1
Apparently Mr. Pinay was referring, at least in part, to the role that John Calvin played in the Christian thinking in England. Calvin changed the centuries-old Christian belief against usury by stating that usury was permissible if it was kept within bounds. The B'nai-B’rth convention of Paris, France in May, 1936 claimed that John Calvin was of Jewish extraction and that his name was originally Cohen.2
Even though the Catholic Church in England was not closely aligned with Rome, this clash which broke out between the Catholics and the Protestants was extremely vicious. The leaders in England felt certain that there were outside forces fanning this instigation. 3 What happened next would eventually encompass the entire Christian West, including the future United States of America, and then finally include the entire world. That is the world as we see it today.
Now we come to Oliver Cromwell, who was born at Huntingdom, in England, on the 25th of April, 1599. He was the only surviving son of Robert Cromwell, the second son of Sir Henry Cromwell. His mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of William Steward and sister of Sir Thomas Steward. "I was by birth a gentleman," so he told his first Parliament, "living neither in any considerable height, nor yet in obscurity."
The genealogists of later times have tried to discover traces of "historic descent," both with the Cromwell family and the Stewart family but whatever they came up with, they were only inventions of the imagination. Both the Cromwells and the Stewarts were "newfound nobility" because, "both families had grown in wealth and importance at the dissolution of the Monasteries and Churches. The Cromwells of Huntingdon were descendants of Sir Richard Cromwell, otherwise called Williams, a kinsman of Thomas Cromwell, the 'Hammer of Monasteries,' under Henry VIII." 4
Oliver Cromwell became a powerful man in England through his membership in the Parliament. He was well liked among the Protestants, particularly the "Non-Conformists." He was a very religious man. He was also a man with great ambitions. Charles I was King of England at the time.
Charles I found himself in opposition to Parliament and the international money lenders. Manasseh Ben Israel, a money lender in Holland, offered, with the help of other German and French money lenders, to assist Cromwell by financing the overthrow of the British throne [by loaning the money at interest of course].
Fernandez Carvajal of Portugal, often referred to in history as "The Great Jew," became Cromwell's chief military contractor. He provided Cromwell's army with the best arms and equipment money could buy [at usury or interest]. A very complex and competent underground was organized in England under the command of another of Manasseh Ben Israel's agents named Desouze. Fernandez Carvajal used his influence to have DeSouze appointed Ambassador to Portugal. In the Ambassador's house, protected by diplomatic immunity, the leaders of the World Revolutionary Movement (WRM) made their plans to create the Great Revolution of England that was to culminate in the forming of the Bank of England in 1694. (Pawns In The Game, William Carr; History of The Bank of England, Francis; Menasseh Ben Israel's Mission To Oliver Cromwell, The Jewish Intelligences, Lucien Wolf)
The world in general, and Protestants in particular, are still suffering from this contrived action on the part of Oliver Cromwell. We have the Irish Republican Army and the Sinn Fein, which is an Irish patriotic organization advocating boycott and resistance against England.
The Sinn Fein was founded by Arthur Griffiths in 1905. He was succeeded as president in 1917 by Eamon de Valera. By that time the Society was controlled and subsidized by the Clan-na-Gael and Germany. After the start of the World War in 1914, it asserted itself as the open foe of England.
Richard Dawson in Red Terror and Green, page 176, published a dispatch sent to Count von Bernstorff, the German Ambassador in the United States at that date. The document was marked "very secret" and dated April 18, 1916. It read as follows: "Judge Cohalan [of New York] requests the transmission of the following remarks: The revolution in Ireland can only be successful with the support of Germany: otherwise England will be able to suppress it, even though it be only after a hard struggle. Therefore help is necessary. This should consist principally of aerial attacks on England and a diversion of the fleet simultaneously with the Irish revolution. Then if possible a landing of arms and ammunition in Ireland and possibly some officers from Zeppelins. This would enable the Irish ports to be closed against England. The services of the revolution, therefore, may decide the war."
The part played by the Irish-Roman Catholic church in Irish National and International politics is gathered from the following telegram from Count von Bernstorff to the German Foreign Office. "The Bishop of Cork having died, there is a sharp contest over the succession. The present Assistant Bishop, Daniel Cohalan, is the choice of the local clergy; but England is using unusual efforts to have appointed. Is strongly anti-German, although Germany, at our request, released him shortly after the outbreak of war. Assistant-Bishop Cohalan is cousin of Judge Cohalan, and strongly Nationalist and pro-German. He was the intermediary between the insurgent Cork Volunteers and the British military authorities, and publicly exposed the gross breach of faith of the English with the surrendered men. Hence the effort to defeat him through the English Envoy at the Vatican. It would have a great moral effect in Rome of Cohalan were chosen. If Germany can exert any influence to bring about this result it would defeat the English intrigue against her interests."1
Dr. Daniel Cohalan was chosen.
Let us repeat that by a close study of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the Knights of Columbus, one cannot fail to see the control that Freemasonry exercises over the Irish-Roman Catholic church. This, unfortunately, is a phase of the international situation which is generally overlooked. In an effort to dissociate politics from religion, writers on these subjects have lost sight of the fact that they are viewing a fight between two theocracies, Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry.
The Irish Republican Brotherhood
The Fenians: Founded 1857-1858: Concerning this famous Secret Society, Captain Pollard writes: "From its earliest days to the present time the I.R.B. has existed as a militant revolutionary secret society, with the avowed object of separating Ireland from all connection with the British Empire and establishing an independent Republican Government." 2
The founders of this movement were Colonel John O'Mahoney and a barrister, Michael Doheney, both of whom had fled from Ireland for their share in the rising of 1848. Both these men took refuge in France, at that time a hot-bed of secret Carbonarist societies, such as the Communistes Revolutionaries, the Constitutional Society with its 'Acting Company', the Seasons and many others, and it was in Paris that these two fugitives lived with James Stephens, the real head and organizer of the Fenian movement, who was also a refugee.
In 1857 a messenger was sent from New York to James Stephens, then in Dublin, asking him to get up an organization in Ireland on resources provided from the United States; and it is clear that Stephens had already cut-and-dried plans in his mind as to how this was to be done. He stated his terms, which were agreed to, and on St. Patrick's Day 1858, the I.R.B. movement was initiated by Stephens and Luby in Dublin. In 1859 the I.R.B. exacted the following oath: "I, A.B., in the presence of Almighty God, do solemnly swear allegiance to the Irish Republic now virtually established; and that I will do my utmost, at every risk, while life lasts, to defend its independence and integrity; and finally that I will yield implicit obedience in all things, not contrary to the laws of God, to the commands of my superior officers. So help me God. Amen."
The organization made rapid headway, but the weight of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy was surging against the movement, and in due course the Brotherhood was excommunicated; in 1861 no Fenian could get absolution.
In November 1863, the Fenian organization assumed a new character. A grand national convention of delegates met at Chicago and avowed the object of the Brotherhood, namely, the separation of Ireland from England, and the establishment of an Irish republic, the same changes being first t be effected in Canada. Another grand convention was held in 1864 at Cincinnati, the delegates at which represented some 250,000 members, each of which members was called upon for a contribution of five dollars, and this call it is said, was promptly responded to.
About the same time a Fenian Sisterhood was established, and the ladies were not inactive; for in two months from their associating they returned upwards of 200,000 sterling to the Fenin Exchequer for the purpose of purchasing arms and other war material. 3 To raise money the Fenians issued bonds redeemable 90 days after the establishment of the future Irish Republic. Availing themselves of the remarkable documentation furnished by Captain Pollard we gather the following facts: "The American Fenian Brotherhood was a separate organization, distinct from the Irish Fenian Brotherhood or I.R.B. having its own leaders; but both organizations were on the same lines and had their officers, both civil and military oaths, emblems, and passwords, funds and stores of arms." 4
All was well till September 14, 1865 when the Dublin authorities, who were thoroughly well informed, raided the offices of The Irish People and arrested the staff. James Stephens was arrested with the rest but, "escaped through the nominal complicity of a warder, John Breslin, who was also a member of the I.R.B. Stephens had received some twenty-five thousand pounds, little of which was spent in Ireland, and in later years it was a matter of common knowledge that Stephens, besides being Head Center, had also an agreement with the British Government, which threw a peculiar light on his immunity from arrest and his later escape from prison and leisurely retreat to France." 1
On March 5, 1867, "Colonel" Kelly, heading a dissident group of Fenians, established a Directory separate from the original I.R.B. in London. "Kelly, it should be noted, was the inventor of the Committee of Safety, later known as the Assassination Committee, whose function was to shoot people suspected of 'treason' to the Brotherhood.
In 1869 new influences in America and Paris succeeded in reforming the I.R.B. Directorate in London, and the organization became not only a mainspring of revolutionary endeavor in Ireland, but a definite element in the complex machinery of world-revolution.
In March 1865, the Fenians joined the amalgamation of subversive Secret Societies under Karl Marx, known as the International Association of Working Men, founded in London on September 28th. It is, at all events, clear that Marx and the leaders of the I.R.B. were in close touch and that Marx knew, even if the mass of Irish dupes did not, that the Irish revolutionary dream of the I.R.B. and Fenian leaders was no merely nationalist rebellion, but was to be a social revolution. The function of the Fenian 'General' Cluseret and his relation to the International are not precisely clear, but he appears to have acted as a chief of the military rather than the civil side of the secret Lodges. During his stay in England on his Fenian mission he paid particular attention tot he problem of how London might be captured, held and burned ...After the suppression of the Paris branch of the Internationale it was Cluseret who organized the workers as a secret communist revolutionary society." 2
We are told of Cromwells part: "Cromwell's conquest of Ireland in the middle of the seventeenth century made slaves as well as subjects of the Irish people. Over a hundred thousand men, women and children were seized by the English troops and shipped to the West Indies, where they were sold into slavery..." 3
On September 11, 1655 came the following decree from the Puritan Protectorate by Henry Cromwell in London: "Concerning the young (Irish) women, although we must use force in taking them up, yet it beinge so much for their owne goode, and likely to be of soe great advantage to the publique, it is not in the least doubted, that you may have such number of them as you thinke fitt to make use uppon this account." The "account" was enslavement and transportation to the colonies.
A week later Henry Cromwell ordered that 1,500 Irish boys aged 12 to 14 also be shipped into slavery with the Irish girls in the steaming tropics of Jamaica and Barbados in circumstances which killed off White Adult Slaves by the thousands due to the rigors of field work in that climate and the Savage Brutality of their Overseers. In October the Council of State approved the plan.
Altogether more than one hundred thousand Irish were shipped to the West Indies where they died in slavery in horrible conditions. Children weren't the only victims. Even eighty year old Irish women were deported to the West Indies and enslaved 4 Irish religious leaders were herded into, "internment camps throughout Ireland, and were then moved progressively to the ports for shipment overseas like cattle." 5. By the time Cromwell's men had finished with the Irish people, only one‑sixth of the Irish population remained on their lands. 6
Cromwell did not only enslave Catholics. Poor White Protestants on the English mainland fared no better. In February, 1656 he ordered his soldiers to find 1,200 poor English Women for enslavement and deportation to the colonies. In March he repeated the order but increased the quota to "2,000 young women of England." In the same year, Cromwell's Council of State ordered all the homeless poor of Scotland, male and female, transported to Jamaica for enslavement. 7 Of course, Cromwell and the Puritan ruling class were not the only ones involved in the enslavement of Whites. During the Restoration reign of Charles II, the king with Catholic sympathizers who had been Cromwell's arch‑enemy, King Charles enslaved large groups of poor Presbyterians and Scottish Covenanters and deported them to the plantations in turn.
Legislation sponsored by King Charles in 1686, intended to ensure the enslavement of Protestant rebels in the Caribbean colonies, was so harsh that one observer noted, "The condition of these rebels was by this act made as bad, if not worse than the Negroes." 1
Also: "By far the largest number and certainly the most important group of White indentured servants (Slaves) were the poor Protestants from Europe." 2 There were four categories of status for White People in colonial America: White freemen, White freemen who owned property, White apprentices (also called "indentured servants," "redemptioners" and "free‑willers") and White Slaves.
The attempt by Abbot Emerson Smith, Galenson and many others at denying the existence and brutal treatment of White Slaves by pretending they were mostly just "indentured servants" learning a trade, regulated according to venerable medieval Guild traditions of apprenticeship runs completely counter to the documentary record. "...the planters did not conceive of their (White) servants socially and emotionally as integral parts of the family or household, but instead viewed them as an alien commodity ...Having abandoned the moral responsibility aspect of pre‑capitalist ideology, masters enforced an often violent social domination of (White) servants by the manipulation of oppressive legal codes... transform(ing)...indentured servitude, with its pre‑industrial, moral, paternalistic superstructure, into a market system of brutal servitude...maintained by the systematic application of legally sanctioned force and violence." 3
Informal British and colonial custom validated the kidnaping of working‑class British Whites and their enslavement in the colonies under such euphemisms as "Servitude according to the Custom" which upheld the force of "verbal contracts" which shipmasters and press‑gangs claimed existed between them and the wretched Whites they kidnaped off the streets of England and sold into colonial slavery. These justifications for White slavery arose in law determined by penal codes. In other words, White slavery was permitted and perpetuated on the claim that all who were thus enslaved were criminals. No proof for this claim was needed because the fact of one's enslavement "proved" the fact of one's "criminality." The history of White Slavery in the New World can be found within the history of the enforcement of the penal codes in Britain and America.
Slaves were made of poor White "criminals" who had stolen as little as one sheep, a loaf of bread or had been convicted of destroying shrubbery in an aristocrat's garden. They would be separated from their parents or spouse and "transported" to the colonies for life.
In 1655 four teenagers were whipped through the streets of Edinburg, Scotland, burned behind the ears and "barbadosed" for interrupting a minister, James Scott, while he was preaching in church. 4 The "convict" label was so ubiquitous that it prompted Samuel Johnson's remark on Americans: "Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be content with anything we allow them short of hanging." But even an exclusive focus on the indentured servant or "apprentice" class cannot conceal the fact of White Slavery because very often the distinctions between the two blurred. Through a process of subterfuge and entrapment, White apprentices were regularly transformed into White slaves, as we shall see.
White Slaves were owned not only by individual aristocrats and rich planters but by the colonial government itself or its governor. White Slaves included not just paupers but such "wicked villaines" as "vagrants, beggars, disorderly and other dissolute persons" as well as White Children from the counties and towns of Britain who were stolen from their parents through no Harriet Beecher Stowe rose to prominence in chronicling the anguish and hardship of these enslaved White Children.
A large number of the White Slaves arriving in America described as "convicts" were actually political prisoners. Of the Scottish troops captured at the battle of Worcester more than 600 hundred were shipped to Virginia as slaves in 1651. The rebels of 1666 were sent as slaves to the colonies as were the Monmouth rebels of 1685 and the Jacobites of the rising of 1715.
1650: The Marquess of Montrose, James Montrose, was a Scottish Coventanter who was in opposition to Cromwell. He, because of a burning desire to avenge the death of King Charles I, gathered a small army and attacked England in rebellion against Cromwell. He was captured and executed.
1651: Charles II, who was in exile in France, invaded England. He was defeated and retreated to France.
1652: England was involved in another contrived war with the Dutch. All of these wars and skirmishes were financed by the money lenders with funds loaned at usury [interest].
1653: Cromwell proclaimed himself Lord Protector of England. England became involved in more wars. These were contrived wars similar to the "police actions" of the United States' war in Vietnam.
1656: Trouble started in the American Colonies. This was also a contrived "police action." England's loss of the American Colonies because of our War of Independence, and what they immediately planned to do about that loss, will be discussed in detail later in a future issue.
1657: Death of Oliver Cromwell. Son Richard named Protector. Two years later, he became disgusted with the intrigue and resigned.
1660: General Monk occupies London. Charles II proclaimed.
1661: The truth was revealed regarding the intrigue entered into by Cromwell and his two cohorts, Ireton and Bradshaw. The public became incensed and violent. The bodies of Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were exhumed and hung from gallows on Tyburn Hill, London!
1662: Religious strife was engendered to divide members of the Protestant denominations. Non-Conformists to the established Church of England were persecuted.
1664: England is again involved in war with Holland. Wars and "police actions" are used extensively to fuel the fires of the Hegellian Dialectics to create the economic and political world that is desired for the self-chosen few. We cannot over-emphasize this point and we must take the study of it seriously. These wars made England a debtor nation [sound familiar?]. The Bible says that, "...the borrower is servant to the lender." 1
1665: A great depression settled over England. Depressions are often used for the same purpose as wars. Unemployment and shortages of food undermined the health of the people and the Great Plague broke out. The Great Fire of London, known as "The Great Cleanser," ended the plague.
1666: England involved in war with France and Holland. More money loaned at interest to all three nations.
1667: Cabal agents start new religious and political strife [the events of the group that is now known by that name is very important because the families involved come on down through history and were the promoters of the doctrine of "Dispensationalism" and the Balfor Declaration, which provided for the new state of Israeli in the Mideast].
1674: England and Holland make peace. The men directing international intrigue change their characters. They become peace-makers instead of the war-makers [just like what is going on between Russia and the West at the present time]. They elevate plain Mr. William Stadholder to the rank of Captain-General of the Dutch Forces [remember, Manasseh ben Israel was a powerful figure in Holland]. Stadholder became William Prince of Orange. It was arranged that he meet Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England.
1677: Princess Mary of England married William, Prince of Orange. To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York, who was slated to become James II.
1683: The "Rye House Plot" was hatched. The intention was to assassinate both King Charles II and the Duke of York. It failed.
1685: King Charles II died. The Duke of York became James II of England. Immediately a campaign of L'Infamie was started against James II [The name L'Infamie was given during the French Revolution in 1787 to a group in France who planted disinformation and other propaganda to cause the public to react violently against targeted leaders].
One must keep foremost in mind that the "great conspirators" always take advantage of any weakness of the flesh or the carnal mind to destroy a person. If they can find nothing carnal, they create a lie. More about the L'Infamie will be discussed when we cover the French Revolution [All of this history is intertwined].
"There is a Jewish conspiracy against all nations; it occupies almost everywhere the avenues of power ‑ a double assault of Jewish revolution and Jewish finance, revolution and finance. If I were God, I'd clean this mess up and I would start with cleaning the Money Changers out of the Federal Reserve. He does say in His Word that the gold and silver will be thrown in the streets. Since they aren't using money in Heaven now, we won't need any when He gets here. It will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Oh, I do thank God for that! Hallelujah! I'll bet you haven't heard this much praises, ever." 1
The Duke of Monmouth was persuaded, or bribed, into leading an insurrection to overthrow King James II. On June 30th, the Battle of Sedgemoor was fought. Monmouth was defeated and captured. He was executed July 15, 1685. In August Judge Jeffreys opened, what historians have named, "The Bloody Assizes."
Over three hundred persons concerned in the Monmouth Rebellion were sentenced to death under circumstances of atrocious cruelty. Nearly one thousand others were condemned to be sold as slaves. This is another example of the Machiavellian concepts used by the Internationalists. Working behind the scenes, they create conditions for which other people are blamed. Still others are aroused to actively oppose those they blame.
They, in turn, are liquidated [This seems complicated but it is not. We see the very same thing happening today regarding the current U.S. position of negotiating with the PLO. All sorts of attempts are being made to make the PLO look bad whether any real evidence exists or not]. King James still had to be disposed of before William of Orange could be placed on the throne to carry out their mandate. Every person in England was bewildered, as they were not allowed to know the truth. Then the conspirators made their next move.
1688: They ordered William, Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. This he did on November 5th. King James abdicated and fled to France. He had become unpopular by reason of the campaign of L'Infamie, intrigue and his own foolishness and culpability. They found the carnal mind of the king and they exploited it by making it known to the public. Public opinion can be controlled so very easily, particularly when you control all of the public news media as is the case now. Instead of "The news fit to print," it is "The news printed to fit."
1689: William of Orange and Mary, were proclaimed King and Queen of England. King James did not intend to give up the throne without a fight. He was a Catholic, so the Internationalists set up William of Orange as the champion of the Protestant faith. On February 15th, 1689, King James landed in Ireland. The Bible of The Boyne was fought by men of definite, and opposing, religious convictions.
The battle has been celebrated by "Orangemen" on the 12th of July ever since. There is probably not one Orangeman in ten thousand who knows that all the wars and rebellions fought from 1640 to 1689 were fomented by the international money-lenders for the purpose of putting themselves in position to control British politics and the economy.
Their first objective was to obtain permission to institute a Bank of England and consolidate and secure debts Britain owed them for loans made to her to fight the wars they instigated. William of Orange immediately directed the British Treasury to borrow 1,250,000 pounds from the international money lenders, the very same people who put him on the throne.
History books will show that Sir John Houblen and Mr. William Patterson, on behalf of the British Government, made the negotiations, thus their family names go down in the history as the culprits while the real evil men are made out as heros. It is ironic that the negotiations setting up the Bank of England were conducted in a church.
The terms that the International money lenders demanded when they set up the Bank of England were:
1). That the names of those who made the loan remain secret; and that they be granted a charter to establish a Bank of England.
2). That the directors of the Bank of England be grated the legal right to establish the Gold Standard for currency, by which.
3). They could make loans to the value of 10 pounds for ever 1 pound value of gold they had on deposit in their vaults.
4). That they be permitted to consolidate the national debt; and secure payment of amounts due as principal and interest by direct taxation of the people [sound familiar?].2
The international money lenders never intended that England pay off the national debt. From here the world Revolutionary Movement (WRM) was to go forward and create revolutions encompassing first the Christian West, and then, the entire world. It all started in England and as we go through the pages of time we will see how they fine-tuned the techniques for revolution to an art form.
If we are more fully to understand the technique that they created, we must spend considerable time in England. Once the technique used in England is explained in sufficient detail, then the rest of the revolutions, right up to the current time, will be easily understood.
There is much more to be written about merry England and how the international money lenders used that country and the people to build the Plutocratic, Elite-Capitalist, Bolshevik, Zionist [now Christian and Jewish] system, designed to rule the world. All of us, to one extent or another, have been forced into this ungodly Babylonian system. But for us to be a part of an evil system and at the same time think that we are doing right, is wrong. "Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it [hell is referring to the grave]...Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" 1
The Internationalists now have the world in the palm of their hands. We are taught that if we are good and do as they say, we will be rewarded commensurate with our abilities to perform. An analogy to this is that of a large dairy. We are in the milking string in the milking barn. Those cows that produce more, get more feed and better treatment. Those that produce less, get less.
But we do not have liberty. We are finger-printed, photographed and licensed. We must have licenses to drive on our streets, to own an automobile, to get married, to build a house. The government owns our children. They must be educated as the government says. We are not even allowed to determine how we will treat our own illnesses when we get sick. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." 2
Back to "merry" England! When England was forced to allow the international money-lenders back into England under Oliver Cromwell, we find a country whose nobility was practically worthless. They were, for the most part, corrupt and by position of birth alone they controlled the destiny of the people. Some were inbred, in violation of God's Law, to the extent that many were functional idiots. God's judgment was coming on England for her many sins. The just and the unjust alike were to suffer. And that suffering is not yet finished.
As the World Revolutionary Movement gathered power and moved into other countries, the takeover could only be accomplished when the leaders of those countries likewise became corrupt. We will realize this as we continue this history and we will see that the United States of America was no exception. "The founding prophet of the leftist faith, Karl Marx, was born in 1818, the son of a Jewish father who changed his name from Herschel to Heinrich and converted to Christianity to advance his career. The young Marx grew into a man consumed by hatred for Christianity.
Internationalizing the worst antichrist stereotypes, he incorporated them into his early revolutionary vision, identifying Jews as symbols of the system of private property and bourgeois democracy he wanted to further. 'The god of the Jews had been secularized and has become the god of this world,' Marx wrote. 'Money is the jealous god of the Jews, beside which no other god may stand.' Once the Revolution succeeds in 'Destroying the Empirical Essence of Christianity, he promised, 'the Jews will become the rulers of the world. This early Marxist formulation is the transparent seed of the mature vision, causing Paul Johnson to characterize Marxism as 'the antichristian of the intellectuals.'
The international Communist creed that Marx invented is a creed of hate. The solution that Marx proposed to the Christian 'problem' was to eliminate the system that 'creates' the Christian. The Jews, he said, 'are only symptoms of a more extensive evil that must eradicate capitalism. The Jews are only symbols of a more pervasive enemy that must be destroyed...'
In the politics of the left, Racist Hatred is directed not only against Christian capitalists but against all capitalists; not only against capitalists, but anyone who is not poor, and who is White; and ultimately against Western Civilization itself. The Marxist revolution is antichrist elevated to a global principle." 3
The nobility of England allowed for the intermarriage between the ruling aristocratic families and the non-Christian Sephardic Jews shortly after the formation of the Bank of England. Because of their money, and because England was so corrupt, these men very quickly obtained positions of leadership in the government. Within fifty years, the English people were no longer in control of their own finances.
The well known English historian and author Hilaire Belloc wrote: "Marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes.
After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the strain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the traditions those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not suffered or enjoyed this admixture." 1
The die was cast. Starting at the time of Cromwell, and certainly during the reign of Charles II and the infamous Cabal, an arrangement was made where the drive, ambition, native sense of intrigue and above all the par excellence of money matters of the international money-lenders and the greed, corruption and culpability of English nobility, agreed to rebuild England and develop what is now known as the Plutocratic, Bolshevik, Elite-Capitalist, Zionist world order.
Think not that the Plutocrats of England have lost out with the dissolution of that empire following World War II. That was too easily accomplished, with hardly a whimper, to be anything but planned. The "government" above and behind the scenes, so-to-speak, the official governments, not only in the United States, but in all of the Western Christian nations was developed as a direct result of the incidents in history that will be presented. When we study out of the average history book it is difficult to relate a single incident discussed in that particular book to incidents found in other writings.
Does a pattern evolve out of all of these incidents? Are the people involved in the incidents related to each other in any way? We will find, as we continue in our studies, that there is a pattern and there are relationships among the peoples involved.
The incidents that occurred in England in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries if we are to understand the World Revolutionary Movement (WRM) must be studies carefully and fully. Over this comparatively short period of time, the forces of evil were developed that have culminated in this maddening drive toward One World Government/New World Order.
Behind those forces, in our modern Mystery Babylon, was the development of the Bank of England. The creation of money out of nothing, fractional reserve banking and the direct taxation of the people for the payment of national debts to the Central Bankers, all of which are privately owned, is the great hammer held over our heads. For all of this to happen, it was necessary that our Christian doctrines be modified or eliminated. We have already shown that John Calvin was the first to falsely teach that usury [loaning money at interest] was acceptable in Christian doctrine.
Why was England chosen as the place where Christian doctrine was to be modified? Because it was from England and Germany, not Rome, that Christianity became the compelling force to lead the world. Germany will be covered in detail later. Here are some quotes from early church fathers and historians that will show the importance of Christianity that once existed in England:
Tertullian (A.D. 155-222) wrote, "The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul (Galatia), the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms have received the religion of Christ." 2
Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) wrote, "The Apostle (Paul) passed beyond the ocean to the Isles called the Britannic Isles."3
Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre (A.D. 303) wrote, "Aristobulus, whom Paul saluted, writing to the Romans 4 was Bishop of Britain." 5
Gildas (Albanicus) the Wise (A.D. 425-512), the early British historian wrote, "Christ, the true Sun afford His light, the knowledge of His precepts, to our Island in the last year, as we know, of Tiberius Caesar." This was in A.E. 37, four years after the crucifixion. 6
Augustine (A.D. 600) said, "In the Western confines of Britain, there is a certain royal island of large extent, surrounded by water, abounding in all the beauties of nature and necessities of life. In it the first neophytes of catholic (universal) law, God beforehand acquainting them, found a church constructed by no human art, but by the hand of Christ himself, for the salvation of His people." 7
William of Malmesbury (A.D. 1080-1143) was asked by the monks of Glastonbury to write their history. He said, "After the Crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea arrived with 11 missionaries and that the king gave them 12 Hides of land."8
Maelgwyn of Llandaff (A.D. 450) wrote, "Joseph of Arimathea, the noble decurion, entered his perpetual sleep with his 11 companions in the Isle of Avalon." 1
Polydore Vergil, the Italian historian (A.D. 1470-1555) wrote, "Britain, partly through Joseph of Arimathea...was of all kingdoms the first that received the Gospel." 2
Now that we have shown it was for a purpose that Thomas Cromwell destroyed the church at Glastonbury as well as many others that were a part of that early Christian movement called "THE WAY."
The great battles that took place between the Roman Empire (which was totally controlled by the great "Synagogue of Satan") and Christianity in Britain as well as the great empire of the Franks will be presented later. But first, back to the England of the 17th century.
The Cabal under King Charles II: The word "cabal," as used by the English people at the time of Charles II, came from the French word "caballe" which meant any group of political or private intriguers. The French acquired the word from the Jewish Talmudic community and they, in turn, acquired it from the word Kabbalah which is the representation of theology in terms of esoteric occultism.
John Knox was born about 1505 in Gifford, Scotland. He went to Grammar School at Haddington and then from there to Glasgow to attend the University in 1521. At that time Scotland was completely Roman Catholic, however since Luther nailed his thesis to the door in Wittemberg in October 1517, criticism of the church was more fervent, even in Scotland and Knox grew up hearing different from his professor at the University.
He believed that the General Council of the Church was more powerful than the Pope, and even was so bold as to state that the Pope was not temporarily supreme and divine as some believed. However, the main teaching consisted of the current philosophical and intellectual religion tinctured with superstition. Knox was ordained a priest in 1528 after having obtained his M.A. and teaching philosophy in the University.
Between 1530 and 1535 things began to change, Knox, like Luther and some of the other Reformers who had been devout Catholics before, became dissatisfied with this seemingly pagan religion. Knox was then led to read the writings of the fathers of the Christian Church, Jerome and Augustine. These led him to understand that the Scriptures were the truth and that he needed to understand it in it's original languages.
Then sometime between 1528 and 1540 the reformational ideas began to spread in Scotland; where the first protestant martyr, Patrick Hamilton, was burned at the stake in 1528 at the age of 24. From then on the flames of persecution began to be sparked everywhere. The truth was mainly being spread by the New Tyndale translation of the Bible, and by 1540 many persons of rank in Scotland were supporters of the Reformed faith. This was all taking place under the reign of King James V of Scotland, who died in December of 1542.
1542 also saw John Knox clearly become a Protestant in his views and beliefs. He was pronounced a heretic by the Church and stripped of his priesthood. He then fled to Southern Scotland for safety. It was at this time that a great thing happened, the Regent (ruling in place of the king) passed an act that declared it legal to read the Bible in the common language; this helped the Reformers greatly.
Knox was asked to take up preaching many times, but felt he was unworthy. But finally he agreed, saying like the apostle, "not to count his life dear, that he might finish with joy the ministry which he received of the Lord, to testify the gospel of the grace of God." At once he struck out against the Papacy pronouncing the Pope as anti-Christ, and the whole system to be faulty and unscriptural. In 1547 the Reformers had seized the castle of St. Andrews, Knox, along with many others, dwelt there for safety. In June of 1547 a French fleet appeared to help the Scottish Government reduce the castle to submission and met with success; it fell back into the hands of the Roman Catholic forces in July of that year.
Knox, with others, was confined on board the galleys of the French ship, in chains, treated as a heretic. By the summer of 1548 the ship returned to Scotland and Knox was in very bad health, near death when he saw the steeple of St. Andrews again. He said, "Yes, I know it well; for I see the steeple of that place where God first opened my mouth in public to His glory; and I am fully persuaded, how weak soever I now appear, that I shall not depart this life till that my tongue shall glorify His goodly name in the same place."
Finally in 1549 Knox was freed from his imprisonment - just how this occurred is not known for a certainty. When he was at last freed, he went to England: There he found Edward VI (the son of Henry VIII) King under a Regency. Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury.
In England, Knox was first a preacher and then was made Chaplain in Ordinary to King Edward VI. During this year he was consulted about the English "Book of Common Prayer," which was about to be republished, and because of his influence the idea of the bodily presence of Christ at the Lord's supper and the act of kneeling to receive the bread and wine were both removed.
On July 6th, 1553, Edward VI died. Knox remained until Queen Mary, a Catholic, was proclaimed sovereign; this event put the Reformed movement in great danger. Liberty was promised to Protestants until the 20th of December at which time they would lose their protection of the law. Knox refused to leave England, and continued preaching.
In January of 1554 after some of his letters had been seized, he headed to Southern England, but some of his friends persuaded him to go to the coast and escape to the Continent which he did, landing at Dieppe on January 28, leaving behind his bride of one year, Marjory Bowes. From Dieppe he went to Switzerland and became acquainted with Calvin and studied under him.
In 1554, Knox took the job of being a Pastor at a church at Frankfort-on-Main. The church was mostly made up of English Protestant refugees; the group broke up the next year due to a conflict over the use of Edward's VI's Prayer Book. The group which opposed Knox accused him of treason for making remarks against the marriage of Queen Mary and Philip of Spain. This caused him to leave Frankfort and return to Geneva. Then he decided to go to Scotland. Protestants were having an easier time there, and also he planned on going back through Dieppe to see his wife for the first time in two years. Through all these travels, he really regretted not being able to stay in Scotland and felt that he was letting his own people down by not being able to stay with them during this time of persecution and trouble.
In July of 1556 Knox was chosen Pastor of the English Congregation at Geneva and this time with his wife, left Scotland and returned to Switzerland; there he had two sons. For a brief time he returned to France and preached to a persecuted French Protestant Church at Dieppe.
In 1558 he returned to Geneva and helped with the translation of the Geneva Bible, published in 1560; he also wrote a treatise that he became famous for, "The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women." This publicly stated his disapproval of Mary's government in England and the governing of women over nations in general. In July of 1558 upon hearing of the death of Queen Mary and the succession of Queen Elizabeth, he decided to return to Scotland and did so in January of 1559.
It was the beginning of the real Reformation in Scotland. His first step there was to strip the images and other idolatrous items from the town near St. Andrews castle; this set an example for many other parts of Scotland. The Reformers had a very tough time, even to the point of French troops sent to control them, but they persevered and Knox felt sure that they would eventually prevail; this they did and Knox was appointed, along with five other ministers, to produce a system of administration for the new Protestant Church. The result was "The First Book of Discipline." This was never officially accepted by their council, but it did form the basis for the organization of the Scottish Reformed Church Government and Policies.
The next woman Knox had to deal with was the young Mary Queen of Scots, a confirmed Roman Catholic; they met together a few times and battled over their completely opposite beliefs. He watched closely her activities of winning over Protestant nobles and cooling the zeal of the Reformed cause and spoke out harshly against her and her Catholic decisions. Knox's first wife died in 1561 and after three years he married again to Margaret Steward, the daughter of a nobleman who consistently supported the Reformed cause.
The history of Mary Queen of Scots is very important to the history of John Knox's life, because of the suspected sordid activities in her life. Knox was not able to minister in Edinburgh until she was removed form office. He returned to his calling and preached at the Coronation of James VI on July 29th of 1567.
James, the young King swore in his coronation oath to preserve the Protestant religion in Scotland. His Regent, the Earl of Murray, also was anxious to settle grievances for the Protestant Church. These days were for Knox some of the happiest as he saw the Reformation established more firmly in Scotland and could rest for a while and look back over the years of suffering and endurance. However, that was not to last. Murray was killed and political confusion in Scotland ran rampant. Knox was very moved by all of this and this led to him having a stroke in October of 1570. His speech was affected considerably.
The next regent, James VI grandfather, the Earl of Lennox, was very weak and his enemies raised a revolt against him. Knox's life was in danger because of his opposing views and there were many who feared him being in Edinburgh would start a civil war, so he was persuaded to go back to St. Andrews castle. There his health continued to deteriorate, however, he was not to die there. The members of the Church of St. Giles sent a deputation requesting Knox to return to them at Edinburgh, and he did so in August of 1572. Unfortunately, his last days were filled with grief as he heard of the assassination of a French Protestant leader, Admiral Coligny, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew and the general massacre of Protestants in Paris and other cities.
This deeply grieved him and possibly even hastened his death which came on November 24, 1572. No name ranks higher than his were in the Reformed cause in Scotland. Few suffered as much and none had more courage than he, nor such a firm conviction of the rightness of the cause.
The founding fathers of the United States were, themselves, from wealthy and aristocratic families. They were all very well educated and were accustomed to communicating with men of like stature. Consequently, it was easy for the men from the European oligarchies to become acquainted and accepted within the circle of the founding fathers. As we shall see, many of them were even able to acquire very important positions within the government of the United States.
Just such a man has a name that is familiar to all of us from our high school history books. Aaron Burr has been romanticized and some historians even hint that he may have been given a bum rap. But Aaron Burr represented, from the very outset, the very powerful families of England and Switzerland. Aaron Burr's ancestral lineage itself presents some very interesting information. His grandparents on his mother's side were the famous theologian and preacher Jonathan Edwards, who became well known because he taught against the teachings of the Pilgrims regarding the concept of free will as compared to grace only.
The Pilgrims taught that works are required as well as grace and that you are rewarded or judged accordingly. This debate is legion and has divided Christianity into those who believe in building the Kingdom and those who believe in waiting for the Kingdom. Sara Pierrepoint's family became a part of the J.P. Morgan dynasty and owners of the New York Times. Those in support of the British position very quickly latched on to Jonathan Edwards theology and supported him.1
Burr attended Princeton University as a classmate of James Madison. Burr's father had been the second president of the college and his grandfather, the third president. While Madison joined the patriotic Whig Society, Burr joined with the pro-British groups. It was here that he was discovered by James Mark Prevost. The Prevost family was powerful and famous as a part of the ruling 200 oligarchy of Switzerland. The Prevost and the intermarried Mallet family became a most influential link down through the years in the story of the oligarchies attempting to destroy our country. Aaron Burr married into the Prevost family.
Another individual from a powerful European oligarchy who wormed his way into the official government of the fledgling United States was Albert Galatin. The Galatin family was from the oligarchy in Switzerland with members of the family directing (from behind the scenes) the governments of Russia, Italy, Savoy, Holland and Southern Germany.2
Galatin was born in Genevia, Switzerland in 1761 and educated at the University of Geneva. He was tutored by the famous pro-British, anti-American Voltaire. Galatin arrived in Boston in 1780 during the darkest days of the American Revolution. Somehow Galatin knew about the approaching act of treason by Benedict Arnold where the American Colonies would be split in two by the planned surrender of West Point to the British. Galatin waited for the outcome in Boston. When the plot failed he rushed to the Canadian border and hid in a cabin for over a year until the surrender at Yorktown. He came back and from then on he did everything he could to counter any national program that would have made the United States stronger and more secure. Like the traitors, in government, today!
He was an instigator in the Whiskey Rebellion. He worked incessantly to reduce the size and capability of the armed forces of the country, preparing for the War of 1812. Which is exactly what President Clinton is doing today in America, preparing us for an invasion, not from England, but from Russia and China. As outlined in Ezekiel 38 and 39.
In 1801 Jefferson was sworn in as President. Aaron Burr was Vice-President and Albert Galatin was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Galatin and Burr worked diligently to thwart the government's attempt to stop the British backed North African sea pirates from attacking American shipping. Taking advantage of Jefferson's inclination for working towards paying off all national debts, Galatin reduced the navy to a state of impotence. Only through extraordinary seamanship and bravery, and with Yahweh's help, the pirates were destroyed anyway.
Concurrently with the anti-American behavior of the families of Burr, Galatin and Prevost-Mallet, the "old wealth" of America formed its own oligarchy. Known as the Boston Brahmins, their wealth came from slave trading and, later, the opium trade. They aligned themselves with the British East Indies Company and were given world trade concessions not available to the average citizen. Their allegiance remained with England throughout the years and, today, they are called the Eastern Establishment. Some of the family names include: Cabot, Higginson and Lowell.
Many other families have been added including the Harrimans and Morgans. The "Johnny-come-latelys" include the Roosevelts, Carnegies, Kennedys, Bushs, etc. Nevertheless, they all belong to the oligarchy that is in total command, along with the Jewish banking dynasties of course, of the people, the land, the laws, the schools, the churches, the business and even various religions of the United States. It is obvious that the Burr, Galatin and Prevost-Mallet combine would want to align themselves with the Boston Brahmins and this they did. All of them were determined to destroy the Union and to make more wealth and power for their own oligarchies by forcing the Bank of England system of finance upon the United States. At first, they wanted only to cause the secession of the New England states from the union. Then, they realized, with the help of the Rothschilds, that it would be more productive for them, as well as England, to cause the secession of the entire South.
In 1808, John Quincy Adams, who was later to become President, held a very urgent meeting with President Jefferson. He told the President that a group of powerful merchants and bankers of his own Federalist Party in New England, known as the Essex Junto, were working closely with the British Secret Intelligence Service to create a civil war which would destroy the union. Their plans expanded and improved over the years to that of the empire just described.1
The leaders of the Essex Junto included these families: Senator George Cabot, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering; Judge John Lowell {ancestor of the modern McGeorge Bundy}; Stephen Higginson; and the brother-in-law of Aaron Burr, Judge Tapping Reeve. It was Tapping Reeve who taught Burr the art of dueling with pistols which allowed him to kill Alexander Hamilton, when his usefulness, in setting up the First National Bank, was finished. Yes, they all flocked together like the buzzards they were.
The Essex Junto manipulated the circumstances that led to the war of 1812. They were confident that because of Galatin's efforts in reducing the U.S. Navy to only a few warships, the English would win. But, again, with the help of Yahweh, that small fleet of extraordinarily capable and courageous sailors swept the British fleet from the seas. They even secured the Malvinas Islands for Argentina.2
The Boston Brahmins and the Essex Junto were stunned that the United States once again won a decisive victory over the British. But they remained undaunted. They were determined that they would be victorious in dissolving the Union to their own best interests in wealth and power. But they now realized that it could not be accomplished by war with a foreign nation. It had to be accomplished from within. The American citizen would be enticed to produce its own cannon fodder for their envisioned end in total destruction of the United States of America. It was, as we have shown above, their intention that neither the South nor the North would win.
Thus, they planned the future conquest through Hegellian Dialects. Develop the thesis, or one side of the debate, and then counter that argument with the antithesis. Agitate and goad both sides into increasing violence {a demonstration of which we have been shown in the recent L.A. riots}.
Finally, the entire population is so incensed that a conflict results which ends in what the Hegellian Dialectics calls the synthesis. This is exactly what the perpetrators of the United States Civil War did and, as we all know, it worked for them. Brother fought against brother in a war that caused more deaths to Americans than World War I and World War II combined!
One of the most evil men ever to be a part of the American experience was Caleb Cushing. John Lowell, the leader of the Essex Junto and an ancestor of the modern Bundy family, chose Caleb to the central figure whom we could describe as the thesis in the great dialectics that led to the Civil War. Caleb came from the Boston Brahmin Cushing family which was famous for its involvement in the Opium trade in the Far East.
They had very close connections with the British East Indies Company and the Sassoon family which controlled the parent organization to develop that immoral, illegal but profitable business. The same Boston Brahmin class is the cause of today's drug trade. In those days they forced the drugs on the Chinese. today they are forcing it on the United States and Western Europe.
Using the same techniques of modern politicians {publicly claiming one belief while secretly believing and working toward another} Cushing was able to work his way into the House of Representatives. The techniques used by these traitors, then and now, are incredible.
Caleb Cushing acted the part of a true American Patriot, even claiming to be of the American Wig party. He went so far as to write election biographies for the Whig presidential candidate, General William Harrison. He published pro-American and anti-Free Trade booklets and he presented himself to the voters as an American first Congressman. Consequently, he was able to work himself into the position of Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee.
The Boston Brahmins now controlled the U.S. Government. General Harrison had been elected as President but he immediately died very mysteriously. John Tyler took over as President, who was under the control of the Boston Brahamins. 1 Caleb Cushing was now able to utilize his powerful position as chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee to do his part of the dialectics to bring about the disunion of the United States. The world was already looking towards the United States as the guiding light in teaching the world the principles of republicanism {not to be confused with democracy} as compared to monarchies and oligarchies.
Most of the citizens of the world didn't, at that time in history know that the United States was in the throes of a fight to the death for its own system of government and that, it too, would wind up being ruled by an oligarchy, many call ZOG {Zionist Occupied Government}. Only in name would it be called a republic. For the other nations to accept a major internal disunion of the United States, the world's estimation of this country had to be changed. It would be a perfect coup, in the manner of Machiavelli, to establish their own empire and at the same time discredit the American experiment of republicanism. That is the course they decided to take.
For those who think that men of power and position do not think in terms of the world being a chess board and that they can manipulate the nations of the world, and their peoples, do not understand the teachings of men like Machiavelli. 2 The world has always had men of intrigue and Yahweh will hold them responsible. We who love Him are like sheep and it is so easy for these evil men to manipulate sheep.
But Yahweh punishes us all in times like this. Even David brought about punishment when he sinned. David numbered {took a census} the children of Israel against Yahweh's will. Pestilence came upon the land of Israel as a result. David pleaded with Him: "And David said unto God, It is not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued." As you can see, David called us sheep but he repented for what he did and Yahweh released the pestilence. But it is not so with the perpetrators of the destruction of the great republic of the United States of America. They owe allegiance to another god, an occult god that gives us abortion and homosexuality. As we can see by their actions in modern time, they are not about to repent. Yes, they may even go to an establishment Judeo-Christian church but that is just for window dressing.
Returning to Caleb Cushing, he now was in a position to start the creation of their new empire. As the history of this conspiracy is told, we will see events that we have all read about in our high school history books come into mind. But we will now see these events as a part of the grand conspiracy to destroy the union and to create a new empire ruled by the patrician elite. Caleb Cushing, in his capacity as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, observed the British Foreign Minister Lord Palmerston force, by military action, the opium trade on the Chinese people.
In retaliation for the Chinese government trying to stop the illegal import of opium, Palmerston ordered the burning and sacking of Chinese villages, the destruction of Chinese warships and the massacres of civilians. The Chinese were forced into opening five Chinese ports to unrestricted trade, including the open importation of opium, the exemption for all British merchants of all Chinese laws and the giving of the island of Hong Kong as a Crown Colony.
Incidentally it was this same Lord Palmerston who with the help of Lawrence Oliphant, another occultist and member of an oligarchy, created the situation in the mideast that gave us the Balfour Declaration which led to the parasitic, murderous ministate of modern Israel. When, oh when, will we learn?
Cushing sent representatives of the Boston Brahmins to China to check on Palmerston's conquest. Warren Delano, the grandfather of Franklin D. Roosevelt, was sent to China as their consul. After receiving the information from Delano, Cushing then sent the following to President Tyler: "The British Government has succeeded in forcing China to admit British vessels into five ports in the Chinese Empire and to cede to England in perpetual sovereignty a commercial depot and fortified port on the coast of China. It does not appear that England contemplates attempting to exclude other nations from similar access to China. But it does appear that she has made the arrangement for her own benefit only, and if other nations wish for like advantages, they must apply to China to obtain them on their own account. Is not the present, therefore, an urgent occasion for dispatching an authorized agent of the United States to China, with instructions to make commercial arrangements in behalf of the United States?"
Caleb Cushing himself was appointed minister to China to make the arrangements! In typical political fashion, he gave several speeches to the American public before he left in which he repeated, over and over, his pro-American and anti-British beliefs. He then bought for himself a very elaborate Major General's uniform and had prepared for him a letter of introduction written by Daniel Webster and signed by President Tyler. The letter stated: "It is proper, and according to the will of heaven, that our two governments should respect each other, and act wisely. I therefore send to you Count Caleb Cushing, one of the wise and learned men of this country. We doubt not that you will be pleased that our ministry of peace shall come to Peking and that your great officers will, by your order, make a treaty with him to regulate affairs of trade, so that nothing may happen to disturb the peace between China and America."
Note that the letter called Caleb Cushing a "Count" which was in direct violation of United States policy. Notice also that Caleb stated to the people of the United States that he was pro-American and anti-British, thus, he went to China under a total misrepresentation to the American people. He set sail for China with a sizable fleet of warships. He first stopped and exchanged views with British officials in Malta, Bombay and Colombo. He was received and saluted by the British and was given the details of the British communication systems for their entire empire.
When he arrived in China, the Chinese Emperor wasn't looking forward to his arrival. He didn't want another rape of Chinese sovereignty like he had just received from the British. So Cushing sent him a letter: "It is neither the custom in China, nor consistent with the high character of its sovereign, to decline to receive the embassies of friendly states. To do so, indeed, would among western States be considered an act of national insult, and a just cause of war." Nothing happened. The Chinese Emperor remained quiet. So, one week later he wrote another letter which said: "It is my duty, in the outset, not to omit any of the tokens of respect customary among western nations. If these demonstrations are not met in a correspondent manner, it will be the misfortune of China, but it will not be the fault of the United States."
Cushing then ordered an American warship to sail up to Canton Bay and fire a few warning shots into Whampoa. The Chinese still refused to reply. So, Cushing sent another letter: "I can assure your excellency that this is not the way for China to cultivate good will and maintain peace. The late war with England was caused by the conduct of authorities at Canton, in disregarding the rights of public officers who represented the British Government. If, in the face of the experience of the last five years, the Chinese government now reverts to antiquated customs, which have already brought such disaster upon her, it can be regarded in no other light than as evidence that she invites and desires war with the other great Western Powers." 1
The Chinese government was no match for the armada of navy ships that arrived on the Chinese coast prepared for war. China capitulated and signed the treaty which gave to the United States the same freedoms and rights in China that the British had. Thus, Cushing arranged for the open opium trade with China by the Boston Brahmins, those very "dear" fellows who ruled America from behind the scenes then and just like their descendants do today.
Of course, the American public didn't know about this, but nevertheless we were judged as a nation by Yahweh. Then, on his way home from China, he stopped in Mexico to create more havoc for the American reputation. In addition to further destroying the American reputation, he was to set the stage for the development of a part of their new empire, not to be confused with the expansion of the United States. The Tyler administration was concurrently with the Cushing China debacle, planning on Annexing Texas to the Union. Texas had already revolted from Mexico and declared itself to be an independent republic. John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay approved of annexing Texas but not if it would cause war between the U.S. and Mexico.
Mexico flatly stated that if the U.S. annexed Texas, war would be declared. But war was exactly what the Boston Brahmins and the Essex Junto wanted. Such a move would create a large part of their proposed new empire. From the official biography of Cushing the following is extracted: "Caleb Cushing left the ship Perry at San Blas, Mexico, and rode on horseback to Guadelajara, at which he took a diligence (a form of stagecoach) for Mexico City, his route lying directly between two hostile revolutionary armies. What he had learned from his correspondents about American politics convinced him that a knowledge of Mexican affairs would undoubtedly be an asset during the next few years, and he seized every favorable opportunity for gathering information."
During this overland journey Cushing acquired a considerable knowledge of Mexican character, a knowledge which, it may be added, led him to view war with that country with approbation and even elation. What he saw of Mexican sloth, procrastination, shiftlessness, bigotry, and treachery gave him an insuperable prejudice against that nation. Cushing's report on Mexico, dated March 22, 1845, was exhaustive and authoritative, and was used extensively by the War Department two years later.2
President Tyler, Cushing and the Boston Brahmins wanted that war with Mexico. Mexico had already made their proclamation which stated, "Mexico would consider equivalent to a declaration of war against the Mexican Republic the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas with the territory of the United States; the certainty of the fact being sufficient for the immediate proclamation of war." 1
The U.S. Senate tried to honor the Mexican government's declaration. The Senators, including 26 Southern Senators, voted 35 to 16 to reject President Tyler's recommendation to annex Texas. The number of Southern Senators voting against the proposal leaves no doubt as to the thoughts of most of the South.
That didn't stop the Brahmins. President Tyler was replaced at the polls by James Polk who defeated the pro-American and anti-British candidate Henry Clay. Another spoiler named John Slidell helped defeat Henry Clay and as a reward President Tyler sent Slidell to Mexico in the capacity, of all things, of peace commissioner! Again, just like in the case of Caleb Cushing and the Chinese Emperor, the Mexican government refused to receive Slidell. John Slidell sent a message to Polk and the war with Mexico was declared.
The war with Mexico was to serve several purposes. First, it was another excellent way to discredit the good name of the American's intentions of a republican form of government. Second, it was to provide the means to secure land for the empire of the oligarchies rather than that of the United States.
Third, it was to provide training for the generals who were later to fight the yet to be declared, but planned, Civil War between the states. The names of the generals who trained in the Mexican War included Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, and Jefferson Davis. The Civil War, of course, was to provide the land for the Brahmins to be the keystone for the Jews new empire. They then could have their nobility, their middle class serfs and then their slaves, both black and white.
The history of the preparation for the Civil War, as outlined above, represented the thesis of the dialectics. Men such as Caleb Cushing, John Slidell, President Tyler and President Polk, were but just one part of the conspiracy. They did their assigned jobs well but there had to be the agitator, the antithesis of the dialectics. This central figure to act as the antithesis was William Lloyd Garrison, the famous pamphleteer and newspaper publisher who agitated the American public into violence over the Black slavery issue!
The historians tell us that Garrison was an abolitionist, one who believed in abolishing slavery and that he was so pro-American? Of course, but didn't Caleb Cushing represent himself as pro-American and anti-British, all the while doing the opposite? Slavery was only a minor issue. The perpetrators of the Civil War didn't care about the slaves, either the White Slaves of the North and South, nor the Black Slaves. The Black slaves of the South were treated far better than the White Slaves of the North or South! In fact, the Blacks felt sorry for the White Slaves and considered themselves superior to them.
William Lloyd Garrison received his indoctrination in the art of revolution from Caleb Cushing! Garrison started his violent career at the age of 18 as a typesetter for the Newburyport, Mass. Herald. The Essex Junto was in total command of the Herald and the editorials reflected this. Cushing, a graduate of Harvard, wrote most of the editorials at the time. Cushing then became the editor of the newspaper and he turned to Garrison and taught him all of the theories and programs of the Essex Junto. Cushing taught him that Black slavery was evil {while he, himself, didn't care one way or the other}.
He taught him that the Latin American countries should be destroyed {this was for the purpose of creating their own oligarchical empire, which we see developing today, under the auspices of the "Free Trade Agreement" which the Administration will not allow anyone to see}. He taught him that violence, revolutions and civil war, were the only answer to man's problems.
The apologetic historians sanitize the relationship between Cushing and Garrison. But, the information does exist that they did, indeed, work together to further the cause of the Civil War. From a biography of Cushing we read: "It was Cushing who first called young Garrison's attention to slavery. He did not regard slavery as a serious problem until Cushing opened his eyes. Slavery was not the only topic which Lloyd discussed with his new friend. Cushing lent him books and urged him to undertake other challenging subjects. Revolutions in South America, rebellions in Greece, and uprisings in Verona and Naples all seemed to forecast the eventual triumph of the people over the forces of reaction and repression. Lloyd's investigation of the South American revolts led him to denounce American foreign policy in ringing tones. If the new republics could not rid themselves of the 'dross of superstition and tyranny' on their own, they must be taught to endorse justice and pay due respect to the American flag. Coercion held the answer. 'The only expedient to command respect and protect our citizens will be to finish with cannon what cannot be done in a conciliatory manner.'" 2
The die was cast. Garrison was the Boston Brahmin's-Essex Junto's man to be antithesis in the great dialectics to perpetrate the Civil War. His famous newspaper, The Liberator, provided the dialectics. He wrote scathing articles on the subject of slavery {which were not true about the South} and the Southerners would respond by writing articles to the editor. This continued until it became vicious and violent.
Why else would Garrison go to England to wash the dirty linen that was within America if his allegiance wasn't towards the establishment of English and American Anglophile oligarchies' influence over a new empire in the Western Hemisphere? That is exactly what he did. In a speech in England, he said that the U.S. Constitution was: "The most bloody and heaven-daring arrangement ever made by men for the continuance and protection of the most atrocious villainy ever exhibited on earth. It will be held in everlasting infamy by the friends of humanity and justice throughout the world. Who or what were the framers of the American government that they should dare confirm and authorize such high-handed villainy. It was not valid then, it is not valid now."
By his making that statement in a speech to the English people, he showed his true colors. He was a Tory-Royalist. His concern wasn't over the slavery issue. He was advocating the dissolution of the United States. He was telling the people of England that the time was near for a new empire in the Western Hemisphere. That there is a plan afoot to get U.S. troops into another war, is beyond question. To realize this, simply look at the movies being presented on television. There is one war show after another. This same modus opranda has been used for at least 40 years. They preceded Korea to a little extent; then on a wider scale during Vietnam; then the stops were let out before Desert Storm. Now the war clouds are gathering again.
The reason Americans have fallen so thoughtlessly into the toils of war should be plain to anyone. They imagine that all they have to do is send a representative to Congress and let him do the political thinking for them. Never realizing that when they did this, their mind was chiefly occupied with immediate domestic problems, and no doubt the man sent to represent them was ready to deal with them according to his pledges. Maybe he was highly qualified for this purpose, but very likely his knowledge of the intricacies of foreign affairs amounted to no more than the average American.
In 1920, Herbert Morrison was the Secretary of the London England Labor party. He felt that he had been wrong during World War I, and he solemnly vowed, "Never again!" in an article he wrote: "All the governments of all the warring nations deliberately deceived their citizens and their fighting men. They founded propaganda departments for this special purpose, paying men out of public funds to deceive their fellows by the spoken and written word. The government suppressed truth, newspapers, books, and organizations, and imprisoned good men and true." 1
Clement Attlee also felt that he had been wrong. In 1920 he was Mayor of Stepney, and confessed, courageously: "When we entered this war we were too credulous; we believed the Government. We should have been wiser if we had listened to the Union of Democratic Control, and less to the other voices. I am proud today, as a man who has fought in the war, to stand on a Union of Democratic Control platform with those who always protested against the war and told us we were deceived. They were right ad we were wrong." 2
Ask your grandfather about the situation as he found it before the First World War. Ask him how much his representative knew in July, 1914, about the onrushing conflict, the disastrous storm that broke a few short weeks later in Europe, and caused irretrievable havoc.
Why, on Sunday, August 2, when British troops were moving to the stations of the southern railways, members of Parliament in the National Liberal Club, London, were firmly convinced there would be no war. Yet, two members of Parliament, who had gone to a Liberal demonstration at Swindon the day before, spent nearly five hours on that short journey, because of the movement of troops trains going to the ports. At four o'clock on Sunday afternoon, it was learned from an Under-Secretary of State that war was unthinkable.
Lloyd George said, in his War Memoirs, that on Sunday, August 2, the Cabinet was "hopelessly divided on the subject of Britain entering the war." Furthermore, he told us: "Even then I met no responsible minister who was not convinced that, in one way or another, the calamity of a great European War would somehow be averted." But the most startling commentary on the whole thing was his statement: "...The world was exceptionally unfortunate in the quality of its counselors in this terrible emergency. Had there been a Bismarck in Germany, or a Palmerston or a Disraeli in Britain, a Roosevelt in America, or a Clemenceau in authority in Paris, the catastrophe might, and I believe would, have been averted; but there was no one of that quality visible on the bridge, in any great State. Von Bethmann-Hollweg, Poincaré, Viviani, Berchtold, Sazonow and Grey were all able, experienced, conscientious and respectable mariners, but distinctly lacking in the force, vision, imagination and resource which alone could have saved the situation..."
The fact is that there are undercover movements always at work instigating ministries, editors, clergymen, and other influential bodies to further their own selfish interests. None of this work is done directly. Indeed, scarcely anyone in the groups mentioned above has known how he has been influenced. Disraeli was one of the few who was conscious of the extraordinary power of these people (the Jews) who work in the dark. He made that fact plain in his book, Coningsby.
Bismarck knew them well, but there is apparently no direct reference of his to their work in Europe. Still there is on record the conversation he had with Conrad Siem in 1876, which referred particularly to the American Civil War. Urbain Gohier published it in his magazine, La Vieille France, in March 1921. Lincoln knew the real influences at work behind the Civil War, and when it was over, he said: "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." 1
But how is the voter to know what goes on behind the scenes? When he has a job, he works eight or ten hours a day, and when he reaches home, his mind turns - not to study, but to recreation. Even if he knew a little about the essential things, he would feel he could not live in a world of skepticism from morning until night, doubting the men in his government and distrusting his representatives in Congress. He would point out that the great pundits and learned journalists who write newspapers and books on political history and supply the newspapers with editorials know no more about it than he does. It would appear that a journalists, with an IQ above 30 is not eligible for employment with the newspapers, radio, television, magazines and etc.
The average American may ask what chance he has to educate himself upon these subjects. The only reply that can be made is that he had better take time off to study a little, so that when the opportunity occurs, he will be better equipped to make a protest.
This he must do for himself; no college, no university, will help him to improve his mind in that way. No one in a university in the past 100 years has touched upon this question. The professors are either in on the scheme, and have accepted the anti-Christ, anti-Christian and anti-American concepts, or they are swept like he is into the maelstrom.
Yet, it is possible for an intelligent man to get some light upon these matters. After the First World War was over, a libel action was brought against the Paris newspaper, L'Humanité, and at the trial the evidence revealed some startling facts. A Rhodes Scholar, C.K. Streit, was so impressed by the revelations that he wrote a remarkable study of the operations of the Comité des Forges and kindred associations in Germany, which he called The Assassins of the People. It was afterward published under the title, Where Iron is, There is the Fatherland. When the pamphlet was circulated in New York, many working men read it and learned more about the real interests of the munition makers than any historian dared to publish.
Shortly after the pamphlet was issued, another trade depression set in. Men were out of work, cabinets were empty, and time had to be given to that most discouraging pursuit of all; looking for a job. That knocked the bottom out of interest in historical treatises. The facts revealed by Streit were summed up by Senator Gaudin de Villaine, a Conservative member of the French Parliament: "I formally accuse the big cosmopolitan banks, at least the owners of mining rights, to have conceived, prepared, and let loose this horrible tragedy with the monstrous thought of world stock-jobbing. I accuse these same money powers to have, before and since the war, betrayed the interests of France."2
After the panic of 1908, there was only one man of prominence who had the courage to speak his mind upon those who control governments from behind the scenes. Lord Welby, who was once the head of the British Treasury, said: "We are in the hands of an organization of crooks. They are politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments, and journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expenditure, and go on inventing scares to terrify the public and to terrify Ministers of the Crown." 3
The pretext of defending Belgium in the First World War was ridiculed when it was announced. The Spectator said frankly that Britain was pledged to go to war, whether the Germans invaded Belgium or not. And Leo Maxse, the belligerent editor of The National Review, said it was the salve the consciences of the timid Liberals in the Cabinet that the pretext of defending Belgium was found. Many similar statements were made before the war was six months old.
World War One was, in fact, a commercial war, planned chiefly by the Jews Delcassé (the French Foreign Minister), Sazonov (the Russian Foreign Minister), and Izvolsky (Russian Ambassador to France in 1914). As for Great Britain, John Maynard Keynes points out in his book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, that "England had destroyed, as in each preceding century, a trade rival."
Underlying all the frictions and animosities of the powers interested in North Africa were the gangs of concessionaires associated with the Comité du Maroc and the international combinations of the heavy industries; the makers of munitions. The exploitation of the natural resources of backward peoples, the search for new markets, the development of railways and harbors, and other imperialistic schemes were the aims of rival powers, but few American Representative or Senators knew anything about the real causes until it was all over. Delcassé had been on the war path before the conference at Algeciras in 1906. According to Le Gaulois, on July 12, 1905, he said: "Of what importance would be the young navy of Germany be in the event of war in which England, I tell you, would assuredly be with us against Germany? What would become of Germany's ports or her trade, or her mercantile marine? They would be annihilated. That is what would be the significance of the visit, prepared and calculated, of the British squadron to Brest, while the return visit of the French squadron to Portsmouth will complete the demonstration. The entente between the two countries and the coalition of their navies, constitutes such a formidable machine of naval war that neither Germany, nor any other Power, would dare to face such an overwhelming force at sea." 1
The only man in the French Chamber of Deputies who knew what Delcassé and his associates were up to was Jaurès who, so it is alleged, exposed the whole thing to Prime Minister Rouvier. When the war broke out in August, 1914, Jaurès was shot. He had to be murdered, for he knew too much. But he was not the only one who knew that it was a trade war that had been provoked by exploiters behind the scenes. When Woodrow Wilson returned to America for the last time, he was an enlightened man. He had seen all his great ideals scattered like chaff; he had even lost faith in the Covenant. In an address at St. Louis, September, 1919, he said: "Why, my fellow-citizens, is there any man here, or any woman; let me say, is thee any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?...This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war." 2
At St. Paul, in the same month, he further said: "The German bankers and the German merchants and the German manufacturers did not want this war. They were making conquest of the world without it, and they knew it would spoil their plans."
Yet he knew, because he himself was a Jew, that the Jewish Sanhedrin - the Learned Elders of Zion wanted the war so millions of Christians could be removed from off the earth. In more than one respect the war was a huge success for the Jews because: The war saddled America with an enormous debt and mortgaged the labor of their heirs for generations to come. After the crash of 1929, huge amounts of money was given to the Democratic Party, and the International Jewish Bankers made billions out of the schemes launched by the Jewish Roosevelt to give the impoverished work. It was a wonderful war, and "the glory and prestige earned by the men who survived the fighting were not worth a patch on a laborer's blue jeans."
In cutting down a trade rival, Great Britain discovered she had not only wounded herself as an exporter but that she had raised up competitors who would make financial and commercial life a burden for her. So shortsighted were the men who thought the First World War would be short and sharp and that everything would be "hunky-dory" when Germany was licked! So far as trade was concerned, British statesmen snapped at the shadow and dropped the bone. Keynes, in his book tells us: "The statistics of the economic interdependence of Germany and her neighbors are overwhelming. Germany was the best customer of Russia, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, and Austria-Hungary; she was the second best customer of France. She was the largest source of supply to Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Roumania, and Bulgaria; and the second largest source of supply to Great Britain, Belgium and France.
In our own case we sent more exports to Germany than to any other country in the world except India, and we bought more from her than from any other country in the world except the United States."
Wars have a long beginning before the first shot is fired by a soldier. Indeed, the invasion of a country follows several years after political and diplomatic proceedings have prepared the groundwork for it. No one can deny that the work of the Jews behind the scenes have been largely responsible for the conflicts that have taken place in this century. On November 26, 1912, an editorial writer of The Times, in a lucid moment, asked the direct question: "Who, then, makes war?" We should consider his reply gravely: "...The answer is to be found in the Chancelleries of Europe, among the men who have too long played with human lives as pawns in the game of chess, who have become so enmeshed in formulas and the jargon of diplomacy that they have ceased to be conscious of the poignant realities with which they trifle. And thus will war continue to be made, until the great masses who are the sport of professional schemers and dreamers say the word which will bring, not eternal peace, for that is impossible, but a determination that wars shall be fought only in a just and righteous and vital cause."
It is amazing to witness, in war after war, how the statesmen and diplomatists can bring out the old props (propaganda) that have done service and, by touching them up with a little bit of high-failuting eloquence, find the American citizen ready to kneel down and worship them.
In trying to drag a little truth from history, it is interesting to find a close similarity in the slogans of statesmen generation after generation. We need a George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sydney Smith or a Jonathan Swift to point these resemblances out to our people. The following letter that Sidney Smith wrote to Lady Grey, the wife of the Reform Prime Minister of 1832: "For God's sake, do not drag me into another war! I am worn down, and worn out, with crusading and defending Europe, and protecting mankind: I must think a little of myself. I am sorry for the Spaniards; I am sorry for the Greeks; I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed; I do not like the present state of the Delta; Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people? The world is bursting with sin and sorrow. Am I to be champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy? We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid the consequence will be, that we shall cut each other's throats. No war, dear Lady Grey! No eloquence,; but apathy, selfishness, common sense, arithmetic! I beseech you, secure Lord Grey's swords and pistols, as the housekeeper did Don Quixote's amour. If there is another war, life will not be worth having.
May the vengeance of Heaven overtake all the Legitimates of Verona! But, in the present state of rent and taxes, they must be left to the vengeance of Heaven. I allow fighting in such a cause to be a luxury; but the business of a prudent, sensible man, is to guard against luxury. There is no such thing as a 'just war,' or, at least a wise war."
In searching for someone to place the blame for preparing the groundwork for wars, we can ignore the politicians, the media, and etc., for they are merely pawns in the hands of the Jews. For instance the groundwork for World War Two was prepared, in part, by a Jewish New York lawyer, Samuel Untermyer, who then presided over the World Jewish Economic Federation at Amsterdam in the summer of 1933. The declared purpose of the conference was “to rescue 600,000 Jews residing in Germany." When Untermyer returned to the United States, he said in a broadcast, published in full by The New York Times, August 7, 1933: "I deeply appreciate your enthusiastic greeting on my arrival today, which I quite understand is addressed not to me personally but to the holy war in the cause of humanity in which we are embarked. Jews and non-Jews alike, for we are equally concerned that the work, of centuries shall not be undone, and that civilization shall not be allowed to die."
In this address Untermyer stated, "The Jews are the aristocrats of the world," and he called for an "economic boycott against all German good, shipping and services." It will seem strange to an American, not familiar with the antics of those behind the scenes, to learn that a New York Jewish lawyer, although he had acted as president of a very important conference, would have the influence to call the people of America to fight a "holy war" against any State. One reason why he might think it strange is that he does not know America, or those who are actually in control of the government. Another is that he seems to be totally ignorant of the underground forces that work havoc with the various countries of the world.
Just over 100 years ago Disraeli pointed out that strange people had power to direct the actions of governments. Sidonia, one of the characters in his novel, says: "You see, my dear Coningsby, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Untermyer was so much behind the scenes that he stood in the prompt entrance and rang up the curtain on the tragedy which, six years later, was to embroil the nations of the world in utter disaster. His campaign was really started in April, 1933, when it was launched unofficially at a meeting to dedicate a memorial theater as part of the Hebrew University in Palestine. It took a few weeks, however, to work up the propaganda to fever heat, and it was not until he made his radio speech in August that some people in the United States realized that Untermyer seemed bent upon provoking a war. He tried to whip up the general interest by telling of the "fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children," and saying that when their full story was known it would present a picture "so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities will pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people."
Not a few Jews round these and many other statements far too strong for them to swallow. They were so startling that some associations set to work and made direct inquiries. Judge John Payne, chairman of the American Red Cross and of the League of Red Cross Societies, had received an unsolicited report from the German Red Cross, which said: "...The reports of atrocities which have been spread abroad for reasons of political propaganda re in no way in accordance with the fact. Arbitrary and unauthorized acts, a few of which occurred in the first days of the national revolution, have been effectively stopped by energetic measures on the part of the government." 1
The Central Union of German Citizens of Jewish faith had issued a long statement on March 25, 1933. Referring to the stories of atrocities published in the newspapers, it declared: "All such reports are pure inventions. The Central Union states emphatically that German Jewry cannot be held responsible for the inexcusable distortions which deserve the severest condemnation." 1
The Chambers of Commerce and other societies in Germany sent similar denials to America. All these can be found in The New York Times, which printed in 1933 more stories about Untermyer than it did about Hitler. To whose advantage was it that so many newspapers in the world published these reports and very seldom found room for denials? The cautious Jew in America, who was despised by Untermyer, became suspicious. Some of them protested against his stories of atrocities. The situation was then so serious that Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, communicated with the American Embassy in Berlin and asked for a report. In a statement issued March 27, 1933, Hull announced: "A reply has now been received indicating that whereas there was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminate...Hitler in his capacity as a leader of the Nazi Party, issued an order calling upon his followers to maintain law and order, to avoid molesting foreigners, disrupting trade, and to avoid the crisis of possible embarrassing international incidents."
In the autumn of 1933 there were many in Washington who knew that strange forces were at work. No one could or would say exactly what they were or how they exerted their power. It serves no purpose at all to trace back the history of this matter from the year 1933 to 1945. The investigator must try to place himself in the position of a witness who watched the drama unfold from the time that Hitler became the head of the Reich and Roosevelt President of the United States. It is almost impossible for a mind packed with the dreadful stories of the war and the enormous propaganda which issued from the Nuremberg trials to do this. The vision is blurred, and events are not seen in their sequence by him whose word has been reviled by the stories of the history of the war itself. Difficult as such a process may be, it is necessary, if we are to know what to avoid in the future.
It would be absurd for anyone to think that Untermyer was acting upon his own initiative. Those who knew him intimately in his domestic and business life would not choose him for the champion of a crusade. Rich as he was, his business interests were never dimmed, for they were vocation and avocation for him. Hence, the question that was asked by some of his friends: "Who set Sam in motion?"
In the United States it is not unusual for shrewd observers of the political system to ask such questions. No one would doubt his belief in the stories of the ill-treatment of the Jews. But, as we all know, there is a certain type of mind that want to believe in unauthenticated reports. Such persons studiously ignore information that contradicts what they believe. In Untermyer's case, he rejected with contempt all the denials that came from Germany, and went so far as to say that the government forced people to make them. However, there was another source of information that he ignored, and that was the reports of unprejudiced persons, who had recently been in Germany. None one denied the stories of ill-treatment of Jews, but each repudiated the nation that the government was responsible for the disorders.
In several of the large cities of America, similar occurrences had taken place. Some of the outrages perpetrated upon the Jews were shocking in character. Yet, no one thought of calling for a boycott or a "holy war" against the instigators. Worse still, the attacks upon Negroes did not stir the Jews to indignation. The year 1933 in the United States was one of many riots and cruel outrages.
In reviewing the speeches that Hitler made during the first six months he was in power; one cannot find a single reference to the Jews. The investigator must go back to the early ones to find his bitter denunciation of them. But little or no action was taken against him until the spring of 1933. The inference to be drawn from this is that as leader of the German people, he would have the power to carry out his threats. That may be one of the reason why a "holy war" was to be waged against him.
In tracing the ammunition used by Untermyer at the beginning of his campaign, one can find an account of atrocities as early as March, 1933: "According to German newspaper accounts, certain foreign newspapers are disseminating reports alleging that the mutilated bodies of Jews are found regularly at the entrance to the Jewish cemetery at Weissensee, a suburb of Berlin; that Jewish girls have been forcibly herded into public squares, and that hundreds of German Jews are arriving in Geneva, of whom nine-tenths, including many children, have been maltreated."
Who were the people disseminating such horrible reports? Some organization must have had extra-ordinary power and influence to succeed in having stories of this character published, and must have known what would be the effect upon the readers of the journals that gave them space. Some of the leading newspapers published denials, but these were ignored by Untermyer. Event the circular issued by the Patriotic Society of National German Jews was scorned by those who were preparing for the "holy war." One paragraph from that circular is as follows: "Let us take an energetic stand against everybody attempting criminally to influence the shaping of Germany's future through foreign newspapers. If in the United States, Poland, Holland and other countries attempts are made by Jewish and non-Jewish circles to coerce the national government of Germany into any course of action or any omission, we, as Germans must oppose such blackmail attempts with the same decisiveness and intensity as any of our fellow non-Jewish countrymen." 1
How can it be explained that no reference is to be found in these grave matters in any of the speeches Hitler delivered at the time the atrocities were supposed to have taken place? There is no reference to them in the speech that he made on May 10, 1933 to the Congress of the German Work Front, nor is there a word to be found about Jews or atrocities in the address that he gave to the Reichstaag one week later.
The effect of these stories in the United States was to create grave concerns; and according to The New York Times, the German Foreign Office Issued the following statement: "In order to reassure the Jews of New York City who are anxious as to the fate of the Jews of Germany, we wish to state that the German Government is earnest and determined in its desire to guarantee safety and order for all its citizens, and it has no intention of making any unjustified experiments." 2
The date of the declaration was February 3, 1933, only four days after Hitler assumed the leadership in Germany. Notwithstanding denials from German societies, Dr. Weizmann, at a dinner to the Friends of Palestine in the House of Commons, March 2, 1933, told the guests: "[The] economic and political existence of all Jews is imperiled by the policy which has inscribed anti-Semitism in its most primitive form as an essential part of its program."
One is amazed when searching through the articles published in The New York Times to learn how widespread this campaign was. It appeared like a carefully planned conspiracy in Britain and the United States, and the havoc that it wrought in the minds of the people was the cause of outbreaks in New York, London, and Paris. These were censorious demonstrations of an ugly nature, in which were sown the seeds of war that came to maturity in September, 1939.
Many Jews who left Germany, taking all their belongings with them after Hitler came to power, had not been molested, but that they felt there were evil times ahead and, for the sake of their families, they should take precautions. They admitted unofficial outbreaks, such as those which had taken place in the United States and elsewhere, but nothing had occurred, they said, that gave any reason fro the shocking reports appearing in the newspapers.
The record shows clearly how the campaign made pace and how the governments in London and in Washington were affected by it. The demand for a boycott of German goods became insistent, and the American Federation of Labor called for one in October, 19333. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Congress was in sympathy with the campaign urged by Untermyer, but it is significant that Dr. Weizmann was entertained at dinner in March of that year by the Friends of Palestine in the House of Commons in England, when one hundred members were present. Those behind the scenes evidently had their tentacles stretched afar, and politicians of influence were caught in their clutches.
Many people will never be able to understand why a war was necessary to rescue the Jews in Germany. Russia had been at work exterminating Christians since the Revolution in 1917, without any "holy war" outcry against Lenin or Stalin. The concentration camps in Russia were as shocking as such places can be; yet, the British and the American Governments seemed to tolerate what was being done. There were men connected with the government in Washington who looked to Russia for lessons on how to remake the world, and Britain was not averse to wooing her as an ally. France had been successful in reaffirming the old Czarist treaties and, as Britain was committed to France (and, therefore, indirectly to the Little Entente), thee seemed to be no political reason why Russia should be ignored.
There were rumors that Russia had the greatest air force in Europe and that in the case of war, she would keep the Germans busy in the east, thus making it easy for the French onslaught in the west. The speeches of Churchill in 1933, some of which are given in While England Slept, are instructive. One, delivered February 7th of that year, is entitled "Prepare!" He lamented the disarmament conference, which he considered had "become a cancer." He referred to "the sudden uprush of Nazism in Germany, with the tremendous covert armaments which are proceed there today." It may be asked if such speeches make for peace. In July of the following year, he delivered a speech on "The value of the League." It was a gem of Churchill's method in opposition. In referring to Russia, there is not a point he raises in her favor that could not be extended to Germany. He said: "...I must say that I do not see how anyone who wishes to induce Germany to come back to the League, as she has a perfect right to do at any moment, can possibly find reasons for objecting to Russia also joining that body. The statement which the Foreign Secretary has made about the welcome which would be extended to Soviet Russia in the League of Nations is one about which there will be no dispute in this country, even among those who have the greatest prejudice against the political and social philosophy and system of government which the Russian people have, I will not say chosen for themselves, but found it necessary to adopt." 3
Mr. Churchill's mind was a puzzle. Yet, the House of Commons seemed to take him seriously. Maybe the members had lost their sense of humor in the fogs of foreign affairs. In extending a welcome to Soviet Russia to join the League of Nations, he must have forgotten that he had said: "Bolshevism is not a policy, it is a disease. It is not a creed, it is a pestilence. It presents the characteristics of a pestilence. It breaks out with great suddenness, it is violently contagious; it throws people into a frenzy of excitement; it spreads with extraordinary rapidity; the mortality is terrible..."
There were some informed critics who firmly believed that Churchill knew the people behind the scenes who were looking for war. His friendship with Bernard Baruch was the cause of much suspicion. When the park-bench politician sailed for Europe, July 21, 1933, he told the press, "I am not going to London because if I did someone would twist it around and call me a delegate or something. On my way back I may call at London to see my old friend, Winston Churchill, but remember he is out of government now."
The New York Times of September 10, 1933 informed us that Baruch kept his promise and that, at a dinner given by Churchill, there were "twenty-five guests, including such old friends as Mr. Baruch, the Duke of Marlborough, Lord Pembroke, Admiral Sir Rober Keyes; finance and industry were represented by Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, who will soon go to Washington on the debt question, and Lord Melchett." (Note: All these mentioned were Jews). Now that might have been an innocent social gathering, having no ulterior purpose, but it would be hard to convince some of the critics of war policy that Baruch and Melchett were not affected by Samuel Untermyer's campaign for a "holy war." Lord Melchett was one of the prime movers in the plan to develop the resources of the Dead Sea. Churchill was Colonial Minister when the grant to exploit them was given to Moise Novomeysky.
Mr. Churchill wrote a letter to himself on May 1, 1936, which will be found in his book, Step by Step. This is entitled, "How Germany is Arming," and in it he says: "I give my warnings, as I have given some before. I do not deal in vague statements. I offer facts and figures which I believe to be true."
He then asks the question: "How much is the Hitler regime spending upon armaments?" His reply to his own question was: "I declared several months ago that Germany spent upwards of £800,000,000 sterling on warlike preparation in the calendar year 1935 alone."
It must be remembered that this letter was not made public in the United States until the war began. The preface to the book is dated by the author May 21, 1939. When it was read by intelligent persons, it caused some consternation because the ordinary expenditure of the United Kingdom for the year 1934-1935 amounted to £688,879,000. After reading this letter, a few days after it was published, many searched in vain for the declaration he said he had made "several months ago." And could not find it in any of his speeches. How, within two short years, a bankrupt country like Germany could find such a sum of money to spend on "warlike preparation" was a miracle unknown in the world of finance. Until one remembers that it was the Jewish International Bankers, who wanted a war, were the ones who financed the Hitler Government.
By the time that he published these letters to himself, he had had ample leisure to check his figures. Had he been careful enough to do this, he would have discovered from many sources that the money was not spent on "warlike preparation." In the report he took from the bulletin of the Reichskredit Gesellschaft, issued at the end of 1935, it is stated that the expenditure was for buildings, equipment and stores, less amounts spent on residential buildings. There is nothing to justify the assumption that the whole, or even half, of this sum was spent upon armaments. Near the end of this letter, he gives the German imports, since 1932, of raw materials used for the making of munitions, and he said: "All this has gone into making the most destructive war weapons and war arrangements that have ever been known; and there are four or five millions of active, intelligent, valiant Germans engaged in these processes, working, as General Goering has told us, night and day."
It must be remembered that this was written to himself, and doubtless the information he gave to himself convinced him that Germany, laboriously emerging from bankruptcy, was dead set on another war. Perhaps that was the reason why he badgered Prime Minister Baldwin and other men in his Cabinet about the state of the British military, naval and air forces, without any reference at all to the armaments of France and the Little Entente. Curiously enough, seventeen months later, when Germany had more cause to arm than she had in 1935, Churchill wrote to himself again: "I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe there is a good chance of no major war taking place again in our time."
A taxpayer wishing to understand the vagaries of the mind of a statesman should not miss reading the letters in Step by Step. It is a difficult job trying to follow Mr. Churchill's in-and-out reasoning and to reconcile his assumptions with the knowledge we now possess. He runs the gamut of contradiction, and as a political historian of events since World War I, his presentation of facts and his errors of judgment have already been severely criticized. Of course, now, long after these events, we can quote facts and figures from unprejudiced investigators which flatly contradict many of the statements in Churchill's books and speeches.
Take a volume published in 1937, about two years before the war began, written by a man who made it his special business to live in Germany from November, 1935 to March, 1937. This work is The House that Hitler Built, written by Professor Stephen H. Roberts of the University of Sydney, Australia. He tells us in the preface: "Owing to a fortunate conjunction of circumstances, I was afforded unusual facilities in Germany. The Nazi authorities did everything possible to aid my investigations, although they knew form the outset that my attitude was one of objective criticism. Indeed, they had even filed copies of my articles and summaries of my wireless and other talks on Germany over a period of years. Despite this, no request of mine was too much for them, and the only refusal I encountered in the whole of Germany was in being denied access to their collection of banned literature."
Roberts declared himself to be a democratic individualist, and there is no doubt that his skepticism of the apparent success of the Nazi movement was unshaken during the period when he visited Germany. And yet, he is eminently fair in showing gratitude to the people who gave him the opportunity to further his quests. He said: "I must also pay tribute to the ordinary people of Germany who made my investigations such a great pleasure. Although we motored many thousands of miles through every German province but one, and although we showed what must often have been a disconcerting persistence in trying to find out what tinker and worker, professor and farmer thought, we met not the slightest discourtesy and found everywhere a striking eagerness for friendship with Great Britain."
It is interesting to read the information presented by Professor Roberts on the position of Hitler's army at the time when Mr. Churchill said Germany had spent £800,000,000 sterling on "making the most destructive war weapons and war arrangements that have ever been known." Roberts tells us that von Seekt did not want a national levy of men, that he preferred a relatively small professional army. The idea of expanding the army to 600,000 men in 1935 caused dissatisfaction among the General Staff. Perhaps this marks the beginning of the troubles that arose between Hitler and some of his generals. The situation described by Roberts at that time is so unlike anything Churchill had in mind that we quote two paragraphs: "Their (the General Staff's) problem was a difficult one, to change a specialized army of 100,000 men enlisted for twelve years into a national force of 600,000 conscripts forced to serve for a year or two. The necessary cadres could not be built up in a moment, and, even when the organization was provided, there was a shortage of everything; arms, equipment, officers, barracks. The greatest difficulty was the shortage of instructors, especially in the new aerial and mechanized units. At one stage, airplanes were lying idle for lack of trained pilots, because, despite Göring's efforts, Germany had been so poverty-stricken for years that there were few civilian pilots on whom to draw. It became obvious, then, that it would take years to give practical effect to the law of March 16th. The thirty-six divisions did not exist even on paper when Hitler issued his decree on May 21st, and it was not until the misty morning of November 7th, 1935, almost eight months after Hitler's first announcement, that the first conscripts were called up and the new Nazi war-flag hoisted for the first time..."
This statement from an unprejudiced observe can scarcely be reconciled with Churchill's notions of what was taking place. But suppose there were some truth in what he said. It might be asked: "Why was she arming?" You can examine Churchill's speeches and writings under a microscope, and you will not find a sentence devoted to the reasons why Germany was preparing to defend herself. Think of the war preparations of her neighbors!
I ask you to take particular notice that the gateways to the East and West are being occupied by armed forces under the benign control and/or direction of the U.N. No such effort is being made to occupy similar strategic positions in the "Far East." It should appear to anyone who has taken high school ROTC‑101, that since the gateways to the West are being occupied while the gateways to the East are being abandoned - thus we are left with the obvious fact that the future scene of military action is planned to be in the West - not in the East {Middle‑East}.
The only enemy that the U.N. could possibly have in the West are Christian Westerners. Since the governments of Western nations are friendly with both the U.N. and Far Eastern powers there is no possible enemy other than Christian Western people themselves.
What would happen if somehow the seemingly defenseless hordes of the Far East should turn out to be not so defenseless at all, but merely a part of the world which does things differently? What would happen if her tens of millions of soldiers suddenly, or by sections, piece‑meal, picked up her massive stockpiles of weapons and followed the route taken earlier by the Mongols, the Huns, the Turks, the Ottomans, the Seljuks and the Khazars ‑ across the deserts and steppes to Europe? What would happen if the thousands of ships under foreign registration should appear off California?
There is another question that no one dares to ask: Why have countries like China, Brazil, and the Israeli nation been developed into 3rd world arsenals able to produce sophisticated atomic, hydrogen, and neutron bombs with delivery missile systems, poison gases, bacteriological agents, and all the other weapons of war? Why is nothing being done to disarm them? While the gates to the West's petroleum routes are being occupied, bases in the Far East abandoned, and the latest war technology is being force on the Orient, there is still one more thing that causes a vague anxiety. It is this: "Dog owners know that when the dog's master appears a dog will get up, come over, wag his tail, roll over to be rubbed, and then go back and lie down. The dog goes to his master. The master does not go to the dog."
Non-dog owners who watch TV and appreciate football may note the performance of the pro‑quarterback leaves his fellows and runs to the sidelines, the coach speaks. The quarterback bobs his head up and down showing his understanding, and then runs back to his teammates to tell them the next play. He calls the play as if it is his own idea. If it makes a touchdown the quarterback gets the glory ‑ but it was the coaches' play. The unknown and unseen team owners to whom no one gives a thought are the ones who really profit.
Notice: How the presidents from Nixon to Bush all run to China. Even the Russia Yeltson has just come from there. They see some shadowy personage, roll‑over, bob their heads up and down, and come home and call a play. A few months later the West does something else strange. Is there something to the rumor of a comprehensive plan called "Operation Armageddon," a U.N. plan that would use the West's own armies against their own peoples in an alliance with the forces of the Far East and Russia? Is this the reason the West is being destabilized by immigrants, and the media incites to violence? Witness the U.S. government attack on the people at Waco, which is still going on, even as this is written.
How could such a massive plan be kept secret from the people? The answer may be more simple than we first imagine. Look at the POWs ‑ MIAs! America's establishment leaders protest that they are as pure as the driven snow and know nothing about such a plan. However, these same ones said that they didn't know anything about the POW ‑ MIAs. it was Bush, Kissinger, and the others who said that they knew nothing about any missing POWs.
However, the media slipped and revealed that even Eisenhower and his administration knew of trainloads of American POWs being sent to Siberia, and that they had made the deliberate decision to do nothing about it. This means that all the presidents and all their advisors and ministers and those who worked for them, and all the governments from Eisenhower till now also knew. The intelligence services that first told Eisenhower are the same intelligence services that briefed each administration that followed.
They all knew. "Smiling Jimmy" Carter, the great Judeo‑Christian knew. "Glad‑hand" Reagan knew. There were thousands who had access to the intelligence briefings, they knew. Kissinger confessed that he knew but there was nothing he could do about it. Yet he had sworn earlier that he did not know. They all knew. They all lied - they lied about not knowing when they knew. They lied and the people believed them.
Now the people know about the POW ‑ MIAs. The politicians and the establishment know they know. And still ‑ nothing is being done about them. Therefore: Why shouldn't the same crowd act in the same way about their involvement in "Operation Armageddon?" They expect the wolf to win and they think that the wolf's is the winning side. But God told us in the Books of Ezekiel 38 and 39, and other books of the Bible. Take warning Now - for the War Clouds are rising in the Far East and in Russia. Make no mistake about it!!!!
Could This Happen?: Lindsey Williams wrote that while chaplain to the oil workers of the North Slope in Alaska he learned that vast oil fields had been discovered in addition to the ones being exploited. These others fields were simply recapped and left. The oil that could have released America's dependency on Mideast oil was simply hidden from the American people, while the State Department works day and night to give these vast old fields away to Russia; in the Wrangel Island give‑away.
He theorized at the time that this was done to create future oil shortages and to keep prices high. Perhaps. there may have been a deeper reason. Non‑development of vast north slope fields keeps the U.S. dependent on Mideast oil, and if the State Department is successful it will further enrich the Russians. This makes possible a Somalian scenario where the long exposed Mid‑East oil routes can be cut at any time jolting the West to standstill!
North of China lies the great Gobi Desert. The ancient desert trade route from China to Europe starts in the Gobi and passes on to the Iranian Desert and then on to the Iraqi Desert where it arrives in Europe. It is the route followed by the Huns, Sejuks Turks, Ottoman Turks, Khazar Turks, and Mongols. If cut oil lines bring the West to its knees there is nothing to stop the hordes of China and Russia from setting their feet in that well‑traveled path. It has been done many times before.
Just a few years ago, a mapping expedition, consisting of Russian and Chinese explorers found the best routes from China to Alaska, and from Russia to Northern Canada and the United States. Each of the earlier invaders infiltrated hostile populations into the areas chosen for occupation and conquest {can there be any doubt with the thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens entering into America and the Western world, this same scenario is being carried out today?}. Each first subverted the rulers of the targeted countries. Much of Eastern Europe fell to the Ottomans without war. The Ottoman Turks just walked in ‑ a family at a time ‑ and then when they were strong enough ‑ they took over.
Who would have thought that Roosevelt would make the Dutch stop shipping oil to the Japanese from the Dutch East Indies, forcing them to attack the U.S. and starting WWII? Who would have thought that Ian Smith of Rhodesia, a war hero, would deliver his country to the enemy to be destroyed after winning the war waged against it? Who would have thought deKlerk, a man of impeccable credentials, would betray his own South African nation? Who can believe that there are today traitors in the West who would betray the West? If there are such people: How would they go about their treason?
To bring the West to its knees and make it easy prey for a conqueror, one could start by cutting Western oil routes. Economic and social chaos would immediately result {With Clinton's so‑called tax increases this will add fuel to the economic fire}.
No heat, gas, chemicals, medicine, light, fertilizer, or transportation. Unemployment and economic chaos would be instant. Western nations would likely be embroiled in L.A. {remember the L.A. riots ‑ and the threats of the same thing happening if the black become disenchanted with the next trial of whites} style civil wars with hostile immigrants brought in earlier. Civil war between the military loyal to the rulers and those loyal to the people of the West would be likely. The deciding factor would be an army from the East ‑ an army that numbers like grasshoppers.
The River Euphrates is dried up. The strategic outposts and fortresses that stand astride the routes from the East are occupied by mercenaries who will shoot a mother holding a baby. They can be counted on to hold the gates open to the enemy if ordered to do so.
The armies of the East can march whenever the signal is given from the unseen hand. Surprised? One shouldn't be "Operation Armageddon" is in the operation manual. There is no quick fix to this one. There's no place to run. Switzerland no longer offers protection, neither does America, Europe, South Africa, Australia, or New Zealand ‑ none offers protection. They all are targeted. All have the identical problems. The King of the Wolves is hidden ‑ he cannot be found. He cannot be made to stop what he is doing. "Operation Armageddon" was designed long ago so that there would be no place to hide. Everyone will be forced to choose; either the shepherd and his sheepfold, or the wolf and his den. That's the way it is going to be.
"I created man...and I told him 'this is good, and that is bad' that...it be clear which in his race love me." 1
The following is taken from a transcript of the UNCED: Earth Summit ‑ United Nations Conference on Environment ‑ June 3‑14, 1992 in Brazil.
Initiative for ECO-92 earth Charter:
(1) The Pressing Need:
(a) The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction.
(b) Given global instabilities, including those in the Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and natural resources, is now absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid‑1970s recommendations of the Draper Fund, must be immediately effected.
(c) The present media propaganda of vast overpopulation, is now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization, abortion, but Must be met in the present by the reduction in the numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.
(d) The issue is falsely debated between a political and cultural approach to population and resources, when in fact, stubborn obstruction and day‑to‑day political expediency which make most of the leaders of the most populous poor countries unreliable, the issue is compulsory cooperation. {hence the invasion of Samolia}
(e) Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist "cultures," and lacking appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose.
(f) The U.N. action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward.
Americans will be surprised to learn that U.N. Foreign troops are stationed on American soil. The October 1992 issue of "Criminal Politics," Cincinnati, Ohio was one of the first publications to headline the story "World Gov't Army to stand on U.S. Soil!"
Let me quote their account: “Integration of U.S. & U.N. Troops President Bush told the General Assembly he was directing the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency to provide joint field training and intelligence training aid and logistics...Bush stated that the U.N. Forces must be made available on short notice at the request of the Security Council and with the approval of Governments providing the troops...media make no issue of U.N. Speech! Washington Times 9/22/92 was one of the few papers to cover the Bush speech...One of the most shocking announcements to come our way in a long time is the plans announced by George Bush to place U.N. troops on U.S. soil...It's true!...On Sept. 21st George Bush told the United Nation's General Assembly that he would allow U.S. soil to be used to train a United Nation's Standing Army."
I realize that many will accuse me of crying Wolf! Wolf! But then there were a few, such as Linburgh, and Billy Mitchil {who was court marshalled for his efforts} who tried to warn America about the attack on Pearl Harbor. But because they were laughed at and ridiculed did not stop it from happening did it?
And the fact of the matter is, Foreign troops on American soil is growing by the hundreds even as this is being written. Will there be even more, you can bet your bottom dollar there will be, as this is the New World Order's plan. We must know about it so that we can prepare for it both physically, mentally and spiritually.
Before President Bush, left office he, with the consent of the U.N. Security Council, sent thousands of our U.S. troops to Somalia. What far? We have been told, to feed the starving Somalians? But, is that the truth? Hardly. Let's examine what we have observed on television; read in the newspapers and magazines, and heard on radio news accounts. Have you not noticed that the troops are not handing out the food! What are they actually doing?
They are practicing House to House search tactics, how to control and contain mobs and mob violence, etc. The nations are gearing up for World Government under the United Nations, which is becoming more dominate and is expanding it's authority drastically.
President Bill {bubadent} Clinton in his Town Meeting Speech the other night, said he was considering sending American troops to Bosnia‑Hersogovina as a lead team to stop the blood shed. Looks like we're headed for another Viet Nam, does it not? But, wait. What would be their real purpose? To further their training in House to House search and seizure of arms. Because the truth of the matter in Bosnia is that the Moslem and Christian Bosnians are in a cross‑fire.
The Serbs headed up by the Serbian butcher Slobodan Milosevic, is backed and supplied by the Israeli's with arms, ammo and supplies {paid for by American taxpayers}, while the Moslems and Christians are slapped down by a United Nations Arms Embargo and can't get any weapons or ammo to fight with. All the U.N. troops will do for the Bosnians is supply them with food, nothing else, and very little of that. No wonder 100,000 Moslem and Christian Bosnians have been killed and thousands of women mass raped by Serbian Soldiers in the last 3 months.
January 1, 1996: Why Are We In Bosnia? President Clinton, as he was ordering the U.S. Armed Forces to Bosnia, stated that we needed to make the Bosnian country "a shining symbol of multi-ethnic tolerance." Was that simply a brash statement made by the President for political purposes or was there a broader, more sinister reason for sending 25,000 troops and another 50,000 in support personnel into the infamous "Tuzla Pocket?"
Rudyard Kipling wrote: "The East is East and the West is West and never the twain shall meet."
This study will reveal some of the history of the peoples of the East as they came into contact with the peoples of the West. As we shall see, the most important area of contact of these two peoples is the area now known as the Balkan States. Because of the limitation of space we will report on only some of the more important incidents throughout history and particularly as they pertain to the current affairs in this area. Rudyard Kipling was an astute observer of these people and his famous statement has more than once proven to be true.
There are other very important matters to consider besides the race issue in that part of the world. The entire world's geopolitical affairs for well over a millennium have been associated with this territory and its people. The major conflict within all of Christianity (The Eastern Orthodox Church versus the Roman Catholic Church) is centered in this area. We must also realize that the Protestant denominations came out of the Roman Catholic Church so that part of Christianity, too, is involved.
Intermingled with this enormous conflict within Christianity is the likewise major conflict with the Mohammedans. The Balkan States were an integral part of the Ottoman Empire for a large share of the past 2000 years. Thus, today, there are many Muslims still living within the area even though the Ottoman Empire has disappeared. This fact is one of the major reasons why our troops in the Tuzla Pocket are sitting on a powder keg.
We must also consider that the major conflict within the world's Imperialist Empires centers in that region of the world and that conflict still rages to this day. There is a need to review that history also. The modern definition of the word imperialism is, "The policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire, characterized by a struggle for the control of raw materials and world markets, the subjugation and control of territories, the establishment of colonies, etc."
It become obvious that a royal family is not necessarily a part of the definition. There are many ways that one country and its government can act in an imperialistic fashion over other countries. The opposite of imperialism is nationalism and that means, "the doctrine that national interests, security, etc., are more important than international considerations." These two diametrically opposed concepts are paramount in the Balkan crisis.
Intertwined within all of this have been the ever-present international bankers and, in particular, the Rothschild Dynasty. It take money, huge sums of it, to further imperialist aggression and the military wars that are always associated with it.
Finally, but most importantly, what does all of this mean for the United States, as a nation and not as a country? What does the Word of God say about all of this and are we, as a nation, obeying Him? "By thy great wisdom and by thy traffic hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas." 1
Some years ago a short essay titled "The Balkanization of the United States." Even at that time the United States were rapidly becoming a multi-ethnic society. The extent of that massive influx of aliens has increased ten-fold. We also prepared a message titled "The Immigration Scam" which reflects the manner in which mongrelization was legalized. Note that the word mongrelization was used in the general sense. In the case of the Balkans the word is used in the literal sense. Thus we start this short review of Balkan history with the people who now inhabit this part of the world.
In the sixth century B.C., in the days of King Cyrus, Persia was determined to annex all of the Eastern Mediterranean under Persian control (imperialism by a king with the sword). Cyrus's successors, Darius and Xerexes, decided to attempt the annexation of the city-state country of the Greeks.
The loosely knit Greek states defeated the invading Persians at such places as Marathon, Salamis, and Plataca. These brilliant victories reflected the superiority of a free political organization over the might of a despotic king (or a president).
Then, it was Alexander of Macedonia (a part of the Balkans as now defined) and his federation of loosely knit city-states who in turn invaded Persia. He marched across Asia Minor into the Euphrates valley (the birthplace of Western Civilization) and destroyed the Persian Empire. Alexander intended to create a one-world government, a one-world people, and a one-world religion. One of Alexander's goals in his newly conquered empire was therefore identical to President Clinton's statement as he sent troops to Bosnia, "a shining symbol of multi-ethnic tolerance!" Another Alexander the Great, Clinton isn't! If Alexander couldn't do it, what makes President Clinton think he can?
Alas, the Roman Empire then conquered the Greeks in the second century before Christ. The Romans for the first time brought organization with the essential matters of roads, police and justice. Their civil administration was without equal throughout the world. It was the Romans who conquered the peoples of the Balkans and brought these rugged "barbarous people" to political dependence.
It was then, in the fourth century A.D., that Constantine transferred the headquarters of the empire from Rome to Constantinople. This set the stage for the drama of many centuries that followed. The Roman government under Constantine built roads, developed commerce with the East and brought the entire area under western civilization; at least as far as the administration of it was concerned. The great caravan routes from Asia originated at Constantinople.
From the fourth century A.D., to the present, nearly two thousand years, Constantinople played an eminent role in the affairs of the eastern Mediterranean because it is, from the geopolitical point of view, a control position, thus, some of the "wars and rumors of wars" of which Jesus spoke centered in this area.
Shortly after Constantinople was founded, the great Byzantine Empire took shape. The western Roman Empire center at Rome lost its eminence after the repeated attacks by the Europeans from the north, mainly Germanic. The eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople was so different in its structure and civilization that historians conferred on it the new name of Byzantine.
Justinian became Emperor of the Byzantine empire following his famous uncle Emperor Justin. It was under Justinian that the western part of the Roman Empire was conquered. Thus, the Byzantine headquarters at Constantinople was the undisputed head of the whole old Roman Empire. It was Justinian who declared that the ruler was also to be the head of the church, administratively and with regard to faith and doctrine.
Historians have termed this relationship as Caesaropapism as compared to the absolute head of the church and state in the West being the Pope. The use of icons in the church, were the major reasons for the split between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church which persists to this day. Caesaropapism was inaugurated at the time of Justinian and anti-iconoclasm was decreed by a succeeding emperor named Leo.
As a part of the current unrest, Croatia for example, is in the extreme Northwestern part of what is called the Balkans. The Croatians are a part of the Slavic people and thus are ethnically a part of the Balkans. However, Croatia is closely aligned with Western Europe, in customs, mores, and most importantly they are of the Western Roman Catholic persuasion. This last point is prominent in the ongoing current struggle even though all of these people came recently out of Tito's Yugoslavia.
The empire under Justinian was under constant attack from peoples from the North and East, the Slavs and the Mongolians. The Slavs were White Men of the Caucasian race with their homeland in the plains and swamps of eastern Europe. The Mongolians, on the other hand, were of the yellow race and consisted of many tribes and groups of the East. Justinian, for some reason, did not aggressively repel these invaders who took up residence.
The Slavs were a strong people physically and keen mentally but they were backward in the arts and other refinements. They were natural Communists in that they owned all of their property in common and contributed the proceeds from their labor in the same manner. Karl Marx could very well have obtained his concept of government from the Slavic people of that period. His phrase, "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs," was the natural method of life among the Slavs at the time of their encroachment into the Byzantine Empire under Justinian. But the Slavs excelled in Agriculture. They were magnificent farmers and they freely gave their taxes in the form of grain and produce to the government. They proved to be an attribute in that regard.
Another very basic trait of the Slavs was, and is, that they are jealous of each other. They engaged freely in inter-tribal warfare and they would rarely combine against a common foe. They also resented being ruled by anyone and they refused to form any meaningful governmental system. In modern terms they would have been anarchists. But through all of this the Slav was, and is, an outstanding guerrilla type fighter. Their favorite device used in guerrilla warfare was to totally disappear under water using a reed to breath through, all the while being deep in the water. They would use this technique to escape after a daring raid on another village. They were extremely clever at devising unique ways to entrap their current enemy, whoever that may have been at the time. Keep that in mind with regard to the current situation in Bosnia.
The Slavs are comprised of four distinct groups, the Slovenes, the Croats, the Serbs, and the Bulgars. But because of their refusal to cooperate with each other, there has been internecine wars from the sixth century to this very day.
The Mongolian invaders came from many tribes of the East. They were of a different physical stature entirely. They were short and stocky, with flat faces, slanted eyes and wore their jet black hair long in the back. They were bow-legged from riding their small shaggy horses and could fight only on horseback. Their military organization and discipline, along with their horsemanship, allowed them to conquer the Slavs, take their spoil, and return to their homeland. Thus, this was a perfect example of how organization, devotion and discipline would always win over any form of libertine anarchy.
However, throughout the years of the Byzantine Empire, the Slavs and the Mongolians periodically attacked Constantinople. Because of the strategic location of the city, they were always repelled. Sometimes the Slavs would attack other Slavs with the obvious long term distrust, fear and hate associated with those misadventures.
Other times the Mongolians would attack the Slavs to again take a spoil. Throughout this long period of time (from the sixth tot the fifteenth centuries) the Byzantine Empire absorbed these people, both the Slavs and the Mongolians. The results are obvious, particularly so in the case of the Bulgars. The statement that Clinton made, the need for the American troops to make the Balkans "a shining symbol of multi-ethnic tolerance" is obviously impossible. We will see why that is the truth of the matter.
The Bulgars were originally a Slavic people. According to Ferdinand Schevill, author of the book A History of the Balkans (Dorset Press, New York, ISBN 0-88029-697-6), the Bulagars developed from a mixture of Slavs with a Mongolian race of conquerors who came to the peninsula in the seventh century.
Further, according to Arthur Koestler, author of The Thirteenth Tribe (Random House, New York, ISBN 0-394-40284-7) the Khazars, a Turkish-Mongol cross which later totally converted to Judaism in the ninth century, invaded the Bulgars in 641 A.D. The Bulgars were conquered and became a part of the Khazarian Empire. So, according to Koestler, it was the Khazars who were described b y Schevill as the conquerors. The modern Eastern Ashkenazi Jew (which comprises 95% of world Jewry, according to Arthur Koestler) comes from the Khazars.
The Khazars went on to conquer not only the Slavs in the area now known as Bulgaria but the Burtas, Ghuzz, Magars (Hungarians), the Gothic and Greek colonies of the Crimea, and the Slavonic tribes in the Northwestern woodlands. Again, according to Koestler, the Khazars also raided Georgia and Armenia.
The Byzantine Empire (or the Eastern Roman Empire) was extremely occupied with defending itself from the rise to power of the Arabs in the eighth century. They did not have the opportunity to defend that portion of the Byzantine Empire (known as Moesia in Roman days) from the onslaught of the Khazars into the newly formed empire of the Bulgars. But as soon as a lull in the fighting with the Arabs occurred, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine V felt free to attack the Bulgar power. Constantine V found the Bulbars to be so well conslidated that he was unable to deal them a decisive blow. Incidentlally, Constantine V took as his wife a Khazar princess who bore him a son, the future Emsperor Constintine VI ("The East is East and the West is West...").
We read of the atrocities that have occurred in the recent Bosnian conflict. We have seen the type of warfare that is common in that part of the world. This is nothing new but rather the normal method of combat which has come down through the ages. As an example of these atrocities, the Bulgar Khan, named Krum, mounted an attack against the Byzantine Empire itself, perhaps in retaliation for the earlier engagement by Constantine. Krum, boldly executed an entrapment of the Byzantine army, under the command of the then Emperor Nicephorus. The entire Byzantine army was wiped out with only a very few men left alive. Nicephorus, himself, was killed and Krum ordered his head severed from his body and the skull made into a drinking cup to be used by his captains during later meals that Krum would have with them. This, then, was the normal methods used for warfare among these people. The relationship, between the Bulgars and the Byzantines was at times cordial with intervening periods of animosity, again, much as it is today in the area.
But, according to Schevill in his book A History of the Balkans, after two hundred years of living side by side with the Slavs, the Bulgars gave up their language and customs inherited from the Mongols. They freely intermarried with the Slavs and through the years became indistinguishable from them. The Bulgars became essentially a Slavic state. Obviously, not all of the Slavs were among those who intermarried but apparently there were enough to cause the situation that Schevill reports.
This new Bulgaria converted to Christianity. Their dream was to bring all of the Slavs throughout the region under their control. It was their leader, Simeon, who conquered large sections of Macedonia and Thrace, both parts of the Byzantine Empire.
He attempted four times to capture Constantinople but failed because of a lack of sea power. These conflicts reduced the Byzantine empire in size and power to the point where they became demoralized. Simeon and his now Slavic Bulgaria ventured further North and West into the land of the Croats. Historians state that it was Simeon, in his now Slavic Bulgaria, who united all of the heretofore independen Slavs into one nation. He appointed himself the title of Tzar of the Slavs. The word Tzar is a Slavic word meaning the same as Caesar in Roman days.
But the power of Bulgaria was short-lived. The nation did not have a solid racial fabric with which to remain strong. It was a govdrnment of a strong mixture of unwilling and conquered peoples. There is a lesson for us to consider in this fact of history. Simeon was a strong leader. When he died in 927, Bulgaria started to crumble just as any nation does with a weak fabric of people and a strong leader followed by a weak leader. Simeon was followed by Peter, a weak man, both politically and militarily.
The tug-of-war between diverse peoples continued. The Byzantine Empire again became strong under the leadership of Basil, a Macedonian and Slav by blood. He again stablized the emspire. Basil chose as his military commander a general named Nicephorus Phocas who had been raised among guerrilla type fighters and his entire life had been in combat against the Arab assaults form the West.
Nicephorus made an allegiance with another group of Slavs, theretofore unheard of, the Russians. The Russians were Slavs by blood and under the rulership at the time by Scandanavian Norsemen called the Rus. The Russians attacked the Bulgars from the North and conquered the Eastern part of Bulgaria. The Byzantines lost a valuable part of their empire and now the Russians, Slavs themselves, owned part of the Balkans.
The animosities between the different races of peoples run deep. In all of these conflicts there have been atrocities. The atrocities among these Eastern peoples are usually on a personal scale where bodily contact is made in the act. Today, particularily in the West, the acts are called "surgical strikes" or "mass bombing" of cities containing civilians.
The Russians were there for only a short time, certainly not long enough to establish themselves as a country. The successor to Nicephorus (who had been assassinated by his own people), John Zimisces drove out the Russians from Bulgaria. But he, too, was short-lived. John was succeeded at Constintanople by Basil. But, alas, the Bulgars were not to be beaten. A very strong leader, Tzar Samuel, again attacked the old Romean Empire, the Byzantines. He attacked deep into Greece as far as Corinth. Basil could not stop him because of serious rebelllion at home. Tzar Samuel reveled in his victory by building a number of castles in Macedonia.
Again, Constantinople was not to be outdone. Basil reinvigorated his country with sound financial affairs and rebuilt the military into an outstanding fighting machine. When he was ready, he attacked the Tzar Samuel and totally destroyed the last great army of the Tzars of Bulgaria. Samuel himself barely escaped with his life. What follows is but another example of the atrocities of the East. Only fifteen thousand soldiers were left of the Bulgarian army. Basil ordered that the fiteeen thousand be separated into groups of one hundred. Then he ordered that all men, except one man, in each group be blinded. That one man was to have only one eye put out because he was to act as the guide to return his troup to Bulgaria. The entire fifteen thousand returned to Bulgaria in that fashion! There is an old saying that undoubtedly originated because of this atrocity, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!"
One can readily see the animosities, the hatred that exists between the people of different tribes and races in this region of the world. Here we have people of different tribes and races gathered together, with leaders rising and falling with their desire for rulership over the enitre area. Intermingled with all of those different races were those who freely intermarried and thus became a mixed people. They were converted to Christianity but even that was not without tribulations.
What was it that allowed the Byzantine Empire to succeed, even after disastrous defeats? It was because of the solid foundaiton of Roman Administration and its system of personal and property rights. The individual felt secure in his person and he owned his property with security. This is one of the primary characteristics of a society that considerrs itself civilized. It was Christianity that secured that system. There are lessons for us to learn from this in this country today.
Just what has been reported os far is enough to show the circumstances which are now occurring in the Balkans. But there is more heartache and bloodshed. This was from the coming of the Muslims, the Ottoman Empire. This, too, we already know to be a great stumbling block in the current unrest.
The Byzantine Empire fell because of the loss of the middle-class citizens! The Empire was taken over by the ascent of large landholders who lived in Constantinople and their lands were worked by tenants. The nobility and other leaders of society, including the church and clergy, were among the large landholders. Thus, property and personal rights and security were destroyed.
The middle-class in the Byzantine Empire, just as in the United States today, was not to be outdone. They became the artisans, shopkeepers and merchants. The Byzantine Empire was forced to exist on the handling and manipulation of goods made by other peoples. Isn't this combination of conditions what is being accomplished in our beloved country today? Isn't that what Zbigniew Brzezinski in hiis book, Between Two Ages, said? He stated that the United States would become a service and information oriented society. Our producetion base, including agriculture, would be taken over by the world's landlords. Texe Mars,1 reports that as many as 85 percent of North American farmers have gone bankrupt in the past 15 years! If we refuse to learn simple Biblical principles from history, we deserve to repeat it.
Again, Civilization is judged by the citizens' personal and property rights. When a society is forced to operate by the ways of the Universal Commercial Code, it may highly succeed for a period of time. However, without those property rights assured by God, such a society is bound to fail. "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon." 2
The middle-class of the Byzantine Empire turned that empire into the commercial capital of the world at the time. The trade routes between East and West were secured by these resilient people. No despotic ruler can destroy the middle-class if they will communicate and work together!
However, now the entire Balkan area was desired for another reason, that being the commercial worth to be exploited for the taking. The next great conquerers of the Balkans were the Normans of Southern Italy. They were of the same Normans from Northern France who conquered Engoland under William the Conqueror in 1066. They moved in with their superior fighting ability, along with wily diplomacy, and literally took over the seats of government of the Byzantine Empire.
But they, too, were removed by the conquering hordes of the Turks. So, again, we will see an infusion of people into the civilization of the Balkans that has created intense problems to this very day. The Turks were Mongolian nomads, crossed with Japhetic blood (one of Noah's sons) from Central Asia. They were related to the Mongolian tribes of the Huns, Avars, Bulgars and Khazars. They lived by raids which were on the scale of large military operations.
Over a period of some years, the "Terrible Turks" finally wore down the here-to-fore impregnable Byzantine Empire. But the Empire died from within. One of the problems was that the leadership of the empire was taken over by a series of women.
The two daughtes of the effeminate Constantine VIII, Zoe and Theodora, shared the control of the empire with a succession of husbands and lovers. They systematically promoted disorganization. The resulting confusion was no match for the Turks, even though there was even a short period of time that some very able and effective rulers made a last ditch stand. There is a lesson here, too. "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and evey one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, Thou has clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under they hand...As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." 1 But then, we are told that God is a chauvinist!
It was at the battle of Manzikert in Albania (1071 A.D.) that the Turks totally annihilated the Byzantine forces which were led by the last able leader, Romanus IV. Up until that time, Byzantine, and the Balkans, was European in organization, Greek inc ulture, and totally Christian. An entirely new dimension now came into existence. The Turks systematically oppressed and exterminated the Christian population. The Mongolian Turks steadily poured into the region. This race movement replaced the White people with yellow people, Christians with the Muslims. There is a lesson to be learned here, too. The Turks did it with the sword. We are doing it with the pen by our own leaders. Up until the turn of this century, th United States' immigration policy was primarily "to provide for the uniform immigration of white people from the European nations." That was the content of the first immigration law enacted by the government shortly after the Constitution was ratified. Either by the sword of conquerors or the pen of traitors, the loss is the same to the yeomen of the land.
The Ottoman Empire began in a rather plebian, or ignoble, fashion. As the decadent Byzantine Empire was disintegrating, a young chieftan of one of the Turkish tribes surrounding Constantinople by the name of Osman, began integrating his tribe with disgruntled Chritians who no longer could respect the decadent Christian Church. Osman used the typically tolerant Turkish method of influencing the Christians into the Muslim faith, as compared to the fanatic approach of the Arabs who were also Muslims, of course.
The Turks were Mongols and fierce in combat but they were tolerant in their civility. The Chrisitans thus converted were the people of the area, Greeks and Slavs. Within several generations the Turks took on the Caucasian physical characteristics of color, hair, stature and facial features. Historians openly state that the Turks were totally cosmopolitan. They had the physical features of Europeans but the mentality of the Turks. The name Osman, or Osmani, has been changed down through the years to Ottoman. The Ottomans simply accepted the culture and civilization of the European Byzantines as their own.
They slowly, piece by piece, absorbed the Christian lands around them. The Christian Church was priest-ridden and was not capable of developing that deep devotion to a good cause that makes men suffer martyrdom, if necessary, rather than betray their principles. Christians in droves gave up Christ for Mohammed. Within the Western Christian nations today, including the United States, we see the same phenomena occurring. Many Christians have become disillusioned and are deserting to the Muslim faith. it has been reported that the Muslim faith is the fastest growing religion in the West.
The Ottomans were shrewd. They made the most of the "iron fist in the velvet glove." They reasoned that gentleness and persuasion was needed to reach the Christians. Yet, they knew that their fledgling empire was to rest on the strength of their army. Their system of government was simple. The army was the government! Their system was that Muslims would be the landlords. The landlords would provide the cavalry. The captives of war, along with purchased Christian slaves, would provide the "cannon fodder," so to speak, for their conquering armies. Whenever they conquered a new territory of Christians, they took more captives of war and bought more Christian slaves for their next conflict.
They moved North and West. They captured the Dardanelles, then on to Thrace. It was here that the Christians were more adamant in their faith. So they tried another tactic. They offered the Christians the retention of their faith in exchange for the surrender of their weapon and a head-tax! No, there truly is nothing new under the sun! The alternative was to be captured and forced into the army. But the Turks needed the Christians to run the government because of the superior intelligence as compared to their own people. So they showed their shrewdness again by inducting a substancial number of young boys into a training camp. It was called the devchurne. Being away from their families and their church, these young men slowly were converted to the Muslim faith.
By the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, these youth groups became so numerous that they became very influential. They became like the Pretorian guards of Rome and eventually held the destiny of the Ottoman Empire in their hands. So, strangely, enough, the Turks developed their Muslim empire using Christian brains and muscle.
They now turned to Bulgaria and Macedonia, then on to Serbia. We must take note that all of this was accomplished because of irreconcilable differences between the various Christian enclaves and states. But finally, history gives the honor to the Serbs for standing up to the onslaught of the Ottomans. A true leader named Lazar ued all of the charisma he could muster and rallied the Christian forces against an onslaught of overwhelming proportions. At a place called Kosovo, an amphitheater in the Macedonian mountains, the Christians and the Moslems met to determine the fate of the entire Balkans. But it was too late. Balkan Christianity succumbed to the Moslems. But to this day, Kosovo is considered the grave of Serbian liberty. We repeatedly read about the Kosovo history as it applies to the situation today. So this, too, must be considered in our assessment of our current presence in Bosnia, protecting the Moslems.
The Moslems went on to conquer the entire Balkan area. From the fifteenth to the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire ruled over a Christian people. Passionate Christians were held in bondage by equally passionate but arrogant Moslems. The Biblical story of the Children of Israel (and that does not mean the Jews, for they are not Israelites) in bondage to the Egyptians is the only place in history where such a terrible experience has been suffered by a people in bondage for such a long period of time.
It was accomplished with shrewdness but after the conquest ended, it was ruthless. There is such a thing as DNA race memory. The memories brought down through families of all these years are such that true, genuine hatred will not dissappear, Clinton and his trip to Tuzla notwighstanding.
With that equally short history overview, we can now turn to the imperialist phase of the Balkans. This, too, plays a dominant role in the current politics. In reality, the imperialist phase is still being played out. Again, imperialism by the modern definition means, "The policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire; it is charterized by a struggle for the control of raw materials and world markets, the subjugation and control of territories, the establishemnt of colonies, etc."
The imperialist conflict that so immensely has affected the Balkans (and still does) is which country will maintain the greatest market for its produced goods as well as the control of the necessary raw materials needed for that production. This conflict has generally included the subjugation and/or control of the target countries.
The control and subjugation of the Balkans in modern times had originally been the pressing desire of three imperialist nations, England, France and Russia. It is not the Balkan countries themselves which are the immediate target, not that there isn't a market there nor desirable raw materials, but it was because it is the overland gateway to the East. From the start of the nineteenth century, the problem has centered around Germany. As we leanred in high school history, Germany had been devastated by the wars in and around it during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Germany was reduced to a pitiful state even though she possessed some of the best technical, social and spiritual brains in the world.
England, on the other hand, had risen to be the most powerful nation on earth. The development of the world trade center in the "City" of London started at the time of William the Conqueror and the special agreement made between Oliver Cromwell and Manasseh Ben Israel where, together, England would rule the world. England had the world's foremost navy with which to ship produced goods to any part of the world as well as the fighting ships to secure more colonies by conquest.
During this same period of time the Industrial Revolution began. We have always read that this marvel of modern man started in England. Actually, inventions were originating from most of the European nations and the most prolific nation for inventions was our own United States. But England was the most aggressive in its imperialism and it had the money barons to finance it. England possessed the navy to bring raw materials to the production plants in England. The infamous "sweat shops" were developed as well as the equally infamous child labor practices with which to produce goods at a very low cost.
Markets had to be found; consequently, the practice of conquering backward, native countries and forcing them into the empire was developed. Consumers for these goods had to be found and so they developed them. Simultaneiously, most of these backward, native countries had raw materials. All that was needed was to train the natives to produce the raw materials (mining, timber, etc.) which, in turn, needed administrative oversight. Thus, an empire was created! But, most importantly, England had the vast oceans at her disposal. All that was needed was to block any other country from access to the oceans and England had a monopoly!
Germany, on the other hand was basically an inland nation with the only access to the oceans being through the North Sea. England controlled the English cannel and thus, by extension, the North Sea. Germany's engineers, scientists and production people were likewise manufacturing goods that could be sold to the world market for the sake of raising the standard of living for their people.
Germany was rebuilding its population from the devastation caused by the wars on the continent but her land mass had been drastically reduced because of those wars. There were two options for their leaders. One was to conquer new lands to colonize them just as the English and the French had done. Germany's other opponent for survival was Russia to the East but that country didn't have a shortage of land so new colonies were not a foremost problem. But Russia desired international recognition and status, along with markets.
The other option for Germany was to find markets for their goods without conquering it first by war. That method is called "peaceful penetration." That solution would provide the work for their increasing labor pool. But the English Channel was the only way out for shipping. The dangers of travel in the North Sea during the winter months were immense. Overriding that was the constant threat of attacks by the English navy.
The one thing left for Germany to do was to build a consortium, the symbiotic relationship, with Austria, Hungary, the Balkan States, and Turkey. Such an arrangement would control a land route stretching from the North Sea to the Persian Gulf. The railroad had been invented and railroads were already in existence. Consequently, Germany envisioned an overland rail route stretching from the Rhine, through the Danube valleys, to Constantinople, through Turkey and on to Bagdad.
Such a move would provide immense markets for Germany's goods. Germany would again become a nation with international influence commensurate with her leadership abilities in the arts and sciences. Such a move would remove the threat of England's navy to her commerce. It would be the developing of an empire, imperialism by definition, by acquiring those inland nations within their sphere of interest. When the news of these German intentions reached England, an immediate howl of protest was heard throughout the English Empire. "Pan-Germanism" was the cry. Such a term in those days was equal to the word "Nazi" today.
Meanwhile, England had already possessed the largest imperial empire the world had ever known. Her possessions rested on every continent on the globe. Perhaps the word that would define those actions used to acquire that empire would be "Pan-Angloism."
According to Roland G. Usher, in his book Pan-Germanis (Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1913), "Pan-Germanism," coined because of these intentions of Germany, "was a defensive movement for self-preservation, for escaping the pressure of France and Russia, both bent on her destruction." At the same time, Usher stated that it was "an offensive movement directed against England, its object, the conquest of the English possession in the Mediterranean and in Asia. She expects thus to obtian an outlet for her surplus population and manufactures and to create an empire as little vulnerable politically, economically, or strategically as any the world has yet seen." According to Usher, Germany reasoned that England and France had their imperialist empires already secured. Now they wanted to establish new moral, ethical and legal precepts against Germany.
Germany was assured of the money needed for the Bagdad Railroad. But that assurance came from the same Rothschild dynasty as England used as their source of money! So the wheels began to turn to stop Germany and with the intent to ultimately obliterate the German people forever! Serbia and the Balkans were to be used as the bait. First, the money for the Bagdad Railroad was denied Germany.
Then, in 1908, the same year as the first Jewish-led Bolshevik revolution was attempted, Russia suggested that Austria annex Bosnia and Herzegovina. Russia, all the while, was and is, the Serbian protector because they are basically of the same ethnic background (Slavs). Of course, Russia didn't tell Serbia of this suggestion to Austria. Austria took the opportunity and completed the annexation of these two countries. Thus, we have a doublecross by the same people that gave the world communism.
Serbia, as can readily be realized from the preceeding short history lesson, is extensively mixed as a people. Yet, they are immensely nationalistic, which normally is race related. Two Serbian nationalists assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Austria, in turn, began plans to make a punitive expedition into the Balkans to chastise the Serbs, just like the United States did with Pancho Villa in Mexico in 1914. Germany stated she would approve of the Austrian venture only if Austria made it a local affair to circumvent a wide European war.
France, a major imperialist nation, made secret negotiations with Russia assuring them that France would not object if Russia came to the support of the Serbs. Russia had already stated that she wanted Constantinople. France and England apparently thought that was a fair swap in order to rid the world of Germany.
France and Russia did not want to go to war with Germany without England and her navy. So England had to be persuaded with planted disinformation. According to Harry Elmer Barnes, the father of historical revisionism, the American Minister to Constantinople during World War I was Henry Morgenthau. He published throughout the Allied World that there had been a conference held at Potsdam on July 5, 1914 at which the German Kaiser met with Austrian officials along with financial leaders of the Central Powers.
Morgenthau reported that the Kaiser revealed to them his intentions to precipitate a general European war and that they had only three weeks to prepare for it. That Meeting Did Not Occur, So It Was Planted Disinformation! Of course, England, France and Russia would have been told privately on July 16, 1914. By the end of July, England was convinced.
So World War I was over the imperialistic concepts of empire and Serbian Jews initiated it with the assassination of Archduke Franz Fedinand. We know that the Versailles Treaty which followed was, as Schevill writes, "probably as harsh a product of the ruthless spirit of victory as is recorded in history." Of course, Schevill had not yet written the history of World War II.
That treaty was intended to destroy Germany. It also hevily dictated to the Balkan states. These actions guaranteed World War II. Interestingly, it was the son of Henry Morgenthau who developed the plan after World War II to reduce Germany to a totally agrairan society. The book Germany Must Perish, by Theodore Kaufman, written in 1941, reflected that mentality.
What have we learned from this sordid history? It is obvious that the Balkan States truly are what political scientists call a control position. Throughout history all of the countries of Europe have wanted to possess that territory or, at least, pass through it. Obviously there is an enormous amount of nationalism in the Serbian element. Apparently this exists among those Serbs who have not mongrelized throughout the years (and there are many of them). To this day they stubbornly resist any encroachment by other peoples but they historically hav fought even among themselves.
Nationalism is a desired trait in God's view. But for any nationalist movement to succeed, it must be cohesive. The love for one another is paramount. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 1 Also, for nationalism to succeed, it must be totally separate from any aspects of imperialism or empire. The very concept of emspire or imperialism is the antipathy of nationalism. G. Lowes Dickinson in his book International Anarchy made this profound statement: "One can conceive a world in which Austria would not have wished to hold down a nationality against its will. But that would not be the world of history, past or present. Never has an empire resigned before the disruptive forces of nationality."
Remember the definition of imperialism and empire.
The United States is no longer the republic that was intended by our forefathers. Imperialism and emspire was not in the minds of our founders at that time but we have become an imperialist empire. Theoretically we have done it through "peaceful penetration" but by whatever means, we have done it.
Thus, President Clinton sent troops to Bosnia for the real reason of protecting imperialism and empire. President Washington warned us of meddling in foreign affairs. Our forefathersx understood that because we were nationalists. Are we brave enough to return to it?
According to the January 93 issue of "Criminal Politics," we find out why George Bush ordered the strike against the so‑ called Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein on January 14, 1993. It was a clever deception, not to kill Saddam Hussein because he wouldn't take orders from the United Nations, but the raid was staged to strike fear into the Saudi Arabians as they were about to topple their pro‑Zionist monarch King Fahd. It was also, to send a message to Iran about any Military ideas they might be having.
All America watched President Clinton in his first Video Town Meeting Program where he encouraged the general public to ask him questions about the economy and their general well being. There is no doubt that he scored a lot of points with the people of the U.S. He seemed very sincere and sympathetic to all their questions and assured them that he would do his very best to fix every situation. But you know and I know that it "Ain't going to happen."
The Soviet's Current Strategy
Gorbachev and his brilliant K.G.B. script writers and military planners have decided to trade "nominal" control over the Eastern bloc satellites for the neutralization of Western Europe and the destruction of the NATO military alliance ‑ a quantum rearrangement of the European chess board. Gorbachev and his Kremlin, New York and Tel Aviv planners have Not lost control. Gorbachev {even though the media would have us believe that he has relinquished power} has more power than any Russian leader since Lenin or Stalin. The well drafted script calls for the appearance that he has lost control.
In fact, the Soviet military and secret police are still intact in all of the Eastern European satellite states, with perhaps the exception of East Germany which has recently been reunited with West Germany. But the Soviet K.G.B. and military, are still firmly in control of the Soviet Union today, and are stronger than they have ever been in the Soviets' 73 year history. However, the script appears to be following the prophecy of Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 exactly, and this plan calls for the Israel nations of America and Western Europe to be allowed to take over the financial burdens of Eastern Europe. Which will cause events to transpire and God will say: "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?" 1
Over and over again since 1917, our American government has come to the rescue of the Soviet Union. We have sold them wheat, corn and other grains, when their harvests were short and when their collective farms could not produce what was needed. The Plutocrats made it appear to the world that the two 'superpowers' were pitted against each other in a deadly conflict. However, the truth of the matter is that the two governments [USA and the USSR] have worked together all along. In fact, the finances and industry imported into the USSR to create it, and then constantly keep shoring it up, have come out of the USA and Western [so‑called democratic] banks. The 'Capitalist' versus 'Communist' stage play has been playing on the word stage for 75 years for the purpose of diverting and occupying the public mind so that no one notices what is really happening behind the scenes.
Proof of the above statement lies in the fact that, on at least 13 major occasions since 1917, when the Soviet Union has been on the verge of economic collapse, it has been this "terrible imperialist" country, the United States of America, using your tax dollars, that has put them on their feet. It has proven that they cannot even feed their own people without our help, yet obviously this man believes the Communist brainwashing he has received.
Rudyard Kipling once wrote shortly after a clever deception campaign by Russia's Czar Nicholas II in 1898, an allegory entitled The Bear That Walks Like A Man. Kipling wrote about a man who was maimed and blinded when a bear he was hunting stood up, as if in supplication, and the hunter, "touched with pity and wonder" withheld his fire, only to have his face ripped away by the "steel shod pay."
Kipling wrote:
When he stands up as pleading in wavering, manbrute guise,
When he veils the hate and cunning of his little swinish eyes,
When he shows as seeking quarter, with paws like hands in prayer,
That is the time of peril ‑ the time of the Truce of the Bear.
We live in the time of the Truce of the Bear. We are told that Communism is dead, the Cold War is over, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been terminated along with the dreaded KGB. We are told that the Soviet Empire has collapsed, and that in its place freedom, democracy, unity and free markets are blooming like a thousands flowers. We are told that peace has arrived and the common interests of East and West can be integrated and merged ‑ first in Europe and then around the world via the New World Order.
Almighty God warns us in the Book of Psalms: "Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech [Moscow], that I dwell in the tents of Kedar! My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace...when I speak, they are for war." 2
But it is obvious that something is very wrong with the presented scenario. Evil such as Soviet Communism simply does not go away as rapidly as the Evil Empire would seem to be evaporating, especially not when that evil empire controls the largest military machine in the History of the World.
The Soviets are masters at deception, champion chess players who can make us believe that which is, is not; and that which is not, is. A good rule in understanding the Soviets is to always assume that reality is the opposite of what you see.
The present period of glasnost/perestroika is a well‑orchestrated script [the grandest and perhaps the last of them all] written in 1981 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ‑ including Mikhail Gorbachev [Yuri Andropov's protégé].
The goals of this glasnost/perestroika were to reorganize and restructure the Soviet Empire while declaring Communism dead; to seduce America and Europe into dismantling NATO and massively disarm as the "threat of communism fades;" to pump hundreds of billions in Western aid into the "newly democratic" USSR, and ultimately to merge Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the New Soviet Union into one "common European home."
Listen to what Gorbachev himself is on record as saying:
1). The aim of Perestroika is to restore both theoretically and practically the Leninist conception of Socialism.
2). The Party's interests come before everything ‑ this is our unshakable law.
3). We are moving towards a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.
4). We maintain a general perspective and it is the victory of Communism.
5). We are for a Lenin who is alive...We see no grounds to give up the spiritual richness contained in Marxism... Through Perestroika we want to give Socialism a second wind...To achieve this the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Revolution, to the Leninist ideas of constructing a new society. Our party was and remains the party of Lenin. Is it little wonder that Gromyko once said of Gorbachev: "Behind the smile are teeth of iron."
In the newest perestroika, the overall strategy of the Soviet Union has moved from confrontation and division of the world into separate camps, to cooperation, unification, amalgamation, and absorption. The "new thinking" says: we must forget our ideological differences, the conflicts which divide us, and join our efforts to fight together against the dangers of war, nuclear disaster, hunger, terrorism, environmental degradation, etc.
|
There is a Grand Design behind current developments in the USSR? Are we seeing a spontaneous disintegration, or is it a well-planned, orchestrated, staged charade - Russian theater at its best? |
"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 say that at the head of this Octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard oil interests and generally referred to as the Jewish International Bankers. This little coterie of powerful Jewish 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 well 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 the 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." 1
This presentation will examine the Marxist‑Leninist proclivities of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Shevardnadze. All "reformer/liberals" and all Communists to the core. It will analyze the coup/counter‑coup and why it was a phoney, just another twist in the long‑term strategic deception script which began running in 1981. It will examine how the Soviets use disinformation to confuse and manipulate the West.
It will explore why the Soviet Empire is not collapsing but being restructured and reorganized within the Communist system; why the Communist Party and KGB are not being abolished, but simply renamed and reorganized to improve their efficiency; and how the New Soviet Federation will actually be a giant increase in the size, scope and influence of the USSR, is an expansion, not a contraction.
It will also analyze the ominous ongoing Soviet military buildup, in spite of all the apparent changes which are taking place. Elna Bonner (Widow of Andrei Sakharov) in an article entitled The Myth of Gorbachev wrote: "It took seventy years to destroy the myth of socialism as the most beneficial and just social system. The millions of Soviet citizens who were killed during the civil war and collectivization, who starved to death and were executed or perished in the camps, did not destroy that myth. The blood spilled on the streets of Budapest and at the Berlin Wall, the Soviet tanks in Prague, the millions who voted with their legs, fleeing Eastern Europe in search of a better life, did not destroy that myth. The myth finally shattered because of empty store shelves and empty words.
It turned out that surrealism is not simply a movement in art; it is a style of life...one without freedom, without normal food and shelter, one foisted on society as a whole by a small minority...' The myth of socialism has collapsed, but its harmful consequences still persist, and eliminating them will be complicated by the birth of a new myth...that Gorbachev is striving for democracy in the face of opposition, and that the only way to help him is by silence in the Soviet Union and in the West. The new myth's influence extends beyond the wobbly liberals of the USSR to many people in the West, including leaders who had earlier been called 'diehards' and 'hawks' in our press.
Gorbachev proclaimed the need of Perestroika, for reconstruction, but no one asked what he was going to build. Gorbachev's words...'a democratic and humane socialism'...were taken from the past. There is no more substantive content in them than there was in the slogans 'socialism...the first phase of Communism' and 'developed socialism.'
It is scarcely worth the effort searching for meaning in these phrases, since escaping from one myth, we are returning to our old ways, to a life of surrealism where everything is just fine in words, but where 60‑million people are living below the poverty line. This is the statistic for the country as a whole...in the Muslim regions, every second or third person lives in need.
Sixty‑six years after the first constitution of the USSR was adopted, regulations governing the manner of a Republic's secession from the Union have finally been adopted. In the opinion of the west, once such a law exists, it should be obeyed. But for people in the USSR, its intent is clear, and it has been dubbed 'the non‑secession law' because of the obstacles it places in the way of secession...One of the earliest slogans of Perestroika was 'All power to the Soviets.' But when the Nagoma Karabakh regional Soviet voted to join Armenia, Perestroika was conveniently forgotten in favor of the constitution, which proclaims the self‑ determination of peoples but makes the boundaries of the Union's Republics sacrosanct. The State wins in any contest with the people. The people of Karabakh are hungry, many are forcibly deported to Armenia, and Armenia itself, devastated by an earthquake, is now being strangled by a blockade.
People everywhere are concerned about starvation in Ethiopia and apartheid in South Africa, but the fate of the Armenian people, who have been brought to the brink of destruction, is considered by the West as the Soviet Union's internal affair...The government doesn't trust the people and has passed laws on strikes [coyly named the Law on labor Conflicts], on emergency situations, on presidential rule, and many other anti‑democratic, anti‑popular laws. In the course of two years, the constitution has been reshaped with the single aim of concentrating absolute power in the head of state...It's no wonder that the people don't trust the government, and this distrust is personified in distrust of Gorbachev...
Gorbachev's power is seen as the main obstacle to the reforms desired by the majority of the population...For Americans, Gorbachev is the author of Perestroika, a democrat, the liberator of Eastern Europe, the Man of the Decade. They associate his name with peace, prosperity, reduced military budgets and lower taxes. He's the good wizard from a fairy tale. Another myth! They're not interested in what will happen to the peoples of the USSR under Gorbachev. A strange replay of history...a new cult of personality, but this time in the West, not in the USSR.
On a Moscow street, the American tourist was arguing with a young Russian, who ended the conversation with an offer, 'If you like Gorbachev so much, why don't you take him!'"
Three top Communist defectors have all said virtually the same thing. General Jan Sejna, former Soviet Bloc military officer, Ion Pacepa, a KGB man, and Anatoliy Golitsyn another KGB man. In fact, Golitsyn in his book Red Horizons says that the overall aim of Soviet policy is to: "Bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favor of the Soviet Bloc as a preliminary to...a world‑wide federation of Communist States...Western acceptance of the new liberalization as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of Communist strategy for USA and Western Europe."
Restructuring and Renaming The Communist Party of the Soviet Union: The CPSU has 20 million members and another 45 million members in its Lenin youth organization Komosomol [Komsomol is a youth organization with members from the Red Army, the KGB, the Red Navy, the Air Force, and a majority of the young factory workers]. The CPSU has grown top heavy and inefficient with bureaucratic deadweight. It is about to be reorganized, restructured, trimmed in size [or purged] to increase its efficiency, and renamed. It is not going to be abolished as Gorbachev, Bush, and the Soviet and Western Press keep telling us. It should be remembered that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has undergone a number of metamorphoses in name: At its inception, it was called the Bund. Then it was renamed the Russian Social Democratic Worker's Party.
In 1912, following an internal feud, it split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks [the "big ones" and the "little ones"]. The big ones ate the little ones. The name then became the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party of Bolsheviks. In 1918, it became the Russian Communist Party [Bolshevik]. In 1925, the name was changed again to the All‑Soviet Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which it has remained until the present. It is now about to be renamed again [probably to the Social Democratic Party].
Each of these name changes was accompanied by major fanfare, "absolute proof that the communists had completely changed," and the declaration that all the political, economic, and repressive evils had been perpetrated by the previous party, but that the New party would be benign, democratic, freedom loving, etc. In reality, all of the old evils continued under the new, revamped party, nothing changed! The present name change will not alter any of the principles or the goals of the CPSU.
Each of the major Communist party name changes under Lenin and Stalin were accompanied by Massive purges [called "party rejuvenation"] to streamline the organization and bring it under formidable discipline. Millions of Russian Communists went to the wall or the gulag in those purges.
Today's CPSU has become fat, dumb, lazy, careless, apathetic, and passive, and is ten times larger than during WW II. It has lost sight of its goal, it has become diluted, and will probably be trimmed by several million members. This is not abolition or the Party, it is reorganization, restructuring, and Strengthening of the Party. The Communists believe that Americans and most Westerners are shallow, superficial, gullible, and easily seduced by media‑generated illusions. Hence, if they change the name of one of their fronts or parties, and declare the old organization to be dead, most Westerners will believe it. For decades they have routinely changed the names of their Communist front organizations in this manner. They just renamed the Communist Party of Italy, now calling it the Democratic Party. In Poland, the renamed the Communist Party [which was called the Polish United Workers Party] to the Social Democratic Party. In Romania, they renamed the old Rumanian Communist Party, calling the new party the New Salvation Front. In none of those cases, [or many others] did they really abolish those Communist parties. They simply renamed, reorganized and restructured the parties, while gullible naive Westerners believed the charade. It has been said, "a rose by any other name, is still a rose." Calling the CPSU the Social Democratic Party [to some such name] will not alter the fact that it is the same old CPSU with a new label and some new faces. Today, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union operates through elected representatives, the Politburo, and the Central Committee.
The Central Committee of the CPSU [made up of 300‑450 members] wields the real power in the USSR, and an inner circle of about 100 members really call the shots. These Central Committee members dominate the military and the KGB, as well as the "visible" politicians such as Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Shevardnaze and the various cabinet ministers. Gorbachev is simply an actor, an employee who is implementing the policy laid down by the Central Committee since the early '80s when they [and the KGB] drafted the script for the actions taking place today. The new refurbished, renamed Communist party was discussed at length at the CPSU's XXVIIth AND XXVth Congress in '86 and '90. Gorbachev described the "new party" as: "A Party of Socialist choice and Communist perspective...A party adhering to humanistic ideals common to all mankind...intolerant of chauvinism, nationalism, racism, and any manifestation of reactionary ideology and obscurantism...A Party confirming the independence of Communist parties of the Union republics...A Party open for contacts, co-actions with the Communists, Social Democrats and Socialists of various countries."
Reading the "new Party" profile as conceived by the CPSU leadership, it is clear that the only difference between the "old Party" and the "new Party" is in the new one's wide acceptance of all revolutionary movements throughout the world.
Socialism to be Substituted For Communism
"The concept, the main idea, lies in the fact that we want to give a new lease on life to Socialism through Perestroika and to reveal the potential of the socialist system." 1 Then in December of 1989 Gorbachev stated: "Today we have perestroika, the salvation of Socialism, giving it a second breath, revealing everything good which is in the system."
The word "socialism" will be substituted for "Communism" and latter will be almost completely stricken from the Communist's vocabulary. From Lenin to Gorbachev, the Communists have used the two words interchangeably. Socialism, as defined by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto, is what has been imposed on the peoples of the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. Socialism, as the stepping stone to the final utopian goal of Communism, involves abolition of private property, draconian political and financial regulations and controls on the people, huge heritage, a monopolistic central bank, central control of education, and state control of the family, children, religion, etc.
That sounds a little bit like America today, does it not? If you are like most Americans, you probably wonder why the so‑called Right Wing is constantly saying that the United States has become a Communist Nation. Well the following from Northpoint Tactical Teams, P.O. Box 129, Topton, North Carolina 28781 tells it best, in our opinion.
Americans, have been watching the degeneration of their society, the increase in violence, drugs, pornography, and the fanatical rise in the national debt, and asks what will we do when America falls into Socialism, Communism, insolvency and surrender. Well, make no mistake about it, the Thought‑theology of what we understand is Communism has taken over in America. It is not called by that name however, it is called Socialism.
The Hammer and Sickle does not adorn our flag, but we are under the control of Communism just as surely as there is a God in Heaven and that Jesus Christ sits at His right hand. Does that sound preposterous? Think about it. How would we know "when Communism, is sold as democracy," is the ultimate law of the land? Those who are not employing "more powerful levers and more subtle webs" have succeeded in their plans, so far, and most of those living in this country may not notice much of a difference from what they think of as the American Way these days! To demonstrate that this is true, we will list what has been called the ten basic planks of the Communist Manifesto, for your study and review.
1). Abolition of Property in Land and Application of All Rents to Public Use.
Did you know that the Federal Government of Washington, D.C., now owns over 40% of the land mass of the United States? That is more land than the entire country east of the Mississippi River. It does so in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The Federal Government now owns more than 10% of all industrial properties, railroads, barge lines, etc. As the government takes over more and more land, that property is taken off the tax rolls, and thus increases the taxes all of us must pay on the land we suppose that we own.
Most Americans think they own their land. They think that a certain parcel upon which they live actually belongs to them. Have your lawyer explain to you why your deeds have been drawn as they have or why you and your wife are called "tenants in common" and other strange language and phrases in the world of law. Here is the rule of law: If you must pay the state or country a "property tax," and the state or country can sell your property to someone else if you fail to pay the tax, you are not the actual and lawful owner of that land or property! Marx called the use tax on land, rent. Today it is called "property tax" and while universally accepted by most Americans, the property tax is 100% Marxist (Communist) in nature.
The land that is still informally held in private hands, is now subject to state and municipal controls called "land use" and you can only do certain things on land that you suppose you own. If you actually owned it, instead of being merely a "tenant with a vested interest in it," no City, State or Federal controls could be imposed upon it. You sit tight when the Federal Government tells you, via an unconstitutional statute, that you must rent "your property" to anyone who comes to your door, regardless of race, color, national origin and sexual preference.
From whence did they get the lawful jurisdiction to tell you what you can do on "your property?" If indeed it is your property, there is no such authority except that which you voluntarily submit to. However, since you are merely a tenant paying property use tax rent on the land, they have every right to tell you how you will use that property and how far from the property line you must build any House, etc. Can you imagine Patrick Henry putting up with such nonsense? Of course not! But then, Patrick Henry was a Freeman, not a Communist. He did not hold Communist ideas about the use of land, as most Americans do today. How about you? Are you a Communist when it comes to land use?
As to the use of land, every Senator and every Congressman is a Communist today. Nothing much will change "when Communism takes over," except that you will know that you are a mere tenant and not a land owner as you had supposed for years. Some of you tenants will be pushed off the state's land so that another tenant can use your nice home and farm, and if you resist, you may be legally shot. When the Communist agent, Woodie Guthrie, wrote the now famous song, "This Land is My Land; this Land is Your Land..." he was writing with the Communist understanding about land and land ownership. Yet patriotic groups, ignorant of Communist objectives, often sing that song with the same attitude and reverence as they do with "America, the Beautiful."
2). A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
This is probably the best known of the Communist political concepts in use today in America. If there is any Communist statute or regulation that has been imposed unlawfully on most Americans, and one which affects their very lives and fortunes the most, the Communist income tax has to be it. If there was any statute that employed more "powerful levers" or "subtle webs," you would be hard pressed to find it. As with the progressive tax on property, it is a Communist idea of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" that finds exact expression in the federal and state graduated income tax laws.
Yet 90% of all Americans accept this system of federal revenue taxation as if it were both Scriptural and American. It is neither. It comes from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud, and is the main cornerstone of Communist Thought‑theology. Marxism‑Leninism is not only a political thought, but is also the religion of the Communists and Socialists.
It is a well‑known hallmark of Communism when you see people turning in their neighbors to the authorities. It is now beginning on a large scale in America with such carefully prepared TV shows as "Unsolved Mysteries," where the TV uses brutal murders, drug and child abuse crimes to get the public accustomed to thinking about turning people in so as to solve these crimes.
You can become a "state hero" and even get paid $1,000 for your help. Next, you will be paid for turning in people who own firearms or for not telling our people about unlawful government activities. Even now this can be seen, when someone tells another they are un‑American, un‑patriotic, un‑Christian or the now famous remark "Love It Or Leave It" who complain about government officials who are ruining our country. Never coming to the realization that it is un‑American and un‑Christian NOT to speak out against government injustice.
It was government officials who put Peter and the Apostles in prison for speaking out: "Then the high priest [a high government official at that time and place] rose up, and all they [the other rulers of Jerusalem] that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation [because Paul and the Apostles were speaking out against government injustice], And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison...Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching [once again speaking out against government injustice ‑ and about the Lord Jesus Christ] the people. Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them...before the council [their equivalent of our Congress or Supreme Court]: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name [The name of the Lord Jesus Christ]? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine...Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." 1
Are you beginning to see that Jewish/Communism/Zionism has already taken over America?
3). Abolition of All Right to Inheritance.
In spite of the federal Estate Tax of 1916, your Communist government has yet to accomplish this objective. They have imposed a heavy inheritance tax, illegally confiscating a large part of that property a man leaves to his children. So much so that after a couple of generations, the property is usually gone. How many people do you know who still live on their grandfather's farm or ranch? Naturally, the lower classes, who have chosen not to save enough to purchase property, have no inheritances to leave.
The super‑rich have been provided the use of tax‑exempt foundations so that their wealth is passed on to their posterity. It is the great middle‑class that the Communist objectives are directed toward, and which are succeeding very well in America. Where does the federal government get the authority and jurisdiction to tax the property of the deceased?
4). Confiscation of The Property of Emigrants and Rebels.
Emigrants are people who leave a country, and that does not apply to Americans. However, look at what is done to Americans our government calls "rebels." All the government has to do is allege that a person is a "tax resister" or a drug pusher and his property, money and real estate can be confiscated without due process. Some of you saw the story on "Inside Edition" where a citizen's property was taken by the Federal authorities without due process merely because she had rented the House to people, later determined to have been using the House for drug traffic.
All the government needs to do is allege that property, money, real estate, cars, boats, etc., are owned by those involved in drugs, and that property, can be taken and sold under Public Law 99‑570 set in place in 1986. There are some real horror stories. Some minimum wage seaman can sneak drugs aboard a million dollar ship, unknown to the owners or the captain, and the ship can be and probably will be confiscated by the government without due process of law!
5). Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
It was through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that the private banking cartel known as The Federal Reserve Bank came into being. It is through this scheme, with the government controlling the banks and credit for the benefit of the secret shareholders, that the effect of this objective of the Communists came into being in the United States. The super rich bankers, while they liked the controls envisioned by Karl Marx, decided that all the usury and profits should go into their pockets instead of the federal coffers. It is this small outlaw band of International Jewish Bankers who decide how much interest you are going to pay on your home mortgage and they have the monopoly power to force other banks to charge the same rates. Individual credit can be given or withheld at the whim of these bankers.
The "private" Federal Reserve Banking System is neither "federal" nor does it have any "reserves" as commonly believed. The local Federal Reserve Bank is not listed under agencies of the Federal Government, but it is listed as a private business. The Federal Reserve "Notes," which you carry in your pocket, though printed by the federal government for these private bankers's use, and identified as "legal tender," are in fact privately circulated bank notes. As "notes" they do not certify that the U.S. Treasury has gold of silver to "back them" but state on their face that the U.S. Government is in debt to that amount. You are not paying your bills with certificates of wealth, but with evidences of federal debt. You are passing the U.S. debt to the bankers, around, among yourselves as if it was lawful money. The "private" Federal Reserve makes huge profits for its member banks, and yet it pays no federal or state income taxes, and they have "never" been audited by any government agency.
A few years ago, Senator Metcalf of Washington State launched a campaign against the Federal Reserve and had it put on the ballot to restore the right to create money to the Congress as specified in the Constitution. The people in Washington State were so thoroughly indoctrinated by our prostitute news media, that they actually voted it down!
In 1933, when so many banks lost their shirts and had to repay their depositors or close their doors, the Federal Reserve Act was changed to incorporate the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Here is how this works, and we can see it with the current Savings and Loan scandals. In good times, the bankers make huge profits. However, in bad times, the American taxpayers are called upon to bail out the bankers, letting them retain their personal assets.
But, most people are so accustomed to the yoke of Communism, thrust upon them in the name of "democracy" and "social security," that they believe that these things must be the form of government our Forefathers gave us. They think it is normal to have total taxes amount to over 50% of their income. Where is their Great Republic based upon the Common Law and the Constitution? For all practical purposes, it no longer exists.
6). Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transportation in the Hands of the State.
All radio and television networks are licensed and permitted to operate "only" at the pleasure of the federal government through the Federal Communications Commission. Because their programming is under strict federal guidelines, anti‑Communist programs are rarely aired.
Can you recall one TV program, in the past 20‑25 years which set forth the Communist objectives for the conquest of America and the World? Instead, all programming is designed to promote Socialist/Communist thinking, and our country is never referred to as a republic but always as a democracy. All news is designed to promote the Communists and their leading individuals as reasonable people, and anti‑Communist nations, such as South Africa, are always cast in an unfavorable light. Communist objectives for America, such as degeneration of moral values, interracial marriage, promiscuous sex, and homosexual life styles, are treated in both the news and the "situation comedies" as normal and healthy, and are given to us and our children on a daily basis.
All transportation by air is under either the Federal Aviation Agency or the Civil Aeronautics, and the government controls how these private businesses operate and the fares and rates that they can charge. The federal government controls every form of interstate commerce, and sets the rates that these private businesses can charge and even how long a truck driver can drive his own truck in a given day.
7). Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State.
The federal government now owns and operates more than 25,000 corporate units in direct competition with private enterprise. Most of these corporations are operated at staggering losses, even though they pay no property taxes and no interest on invested capital.
All of these, along with their losses, are being operated without the slightest shred of Constitutional authority. Furthermore, according to figures taken from the Federal Budget, the aggregate losses of these federally owned businesses and property, including the lost state and local taxes thereon, exceed the total amount collected each year in personal income taxes!
According to the Liberty Amendment Committee, from whom these statistics were taken, the sale of these unlawfully owned businesses would retire about one third of the national debt, and make the personal individual income taxes a thing of the past.
We are 100% in favor of bringing wastelands into cultivation and improving the soil. However, this must be done on a private enterprise basis, and not as the result of federal bureaucratic intervention. However, in accordance to the Communist orientation of our government, swarms of New Officers (to use the language of the Declaration of Independence) have been descending upon our farmers.
There is the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, Environmental Protection Agency, and many others. We do not need to comment on the crisis now being faced by America's independent farmers. It is not the result of incompetent farmers but because of federal meddling in both their agricultural and financial affairs.
8). Equal Liability of all to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially in Agriculture.
In the first sentence, the emphasis should be on the word, liability. This is to be a "worker's paradise" and therefore all have an equal liability, a pecuniary obligation, to labor. Every citizen, according to Marx, is required to labor, and ever person is to be assigned a job. There is to be no non‑laboring middle class working as salesmen and shop‑keepers. Once the farmers finally fail in large numbers [and it appears that is exactly what is happening today 1990], not because of agriculture flaws so much as corporate debt, the Communist agriculture armies, gathered from those "huddled masses yearning to be free," that now clog up the welfare rolls, will be sent forth to plant, till and harvest in the vain hope that they can feed the people.
9). Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction between Town and Country by a more Equitable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
The destruction of the cities has been going on since the Roosevelt Depression. Socialist/Communist confiscatory property and business taxes on producer, and welfare handouts to non‑producers, have driven commerce and industry out of the cities and provides the excuse for federal control of land use, environmental impact studies, and regional planning. Federal regional planning is done between states and over state lines, is the way this Marxist plank is being carried out today.
10). Free Education of all Children in Public Schools, Abolition of Children's Factory Labor in its present form, Combination of Education with Industrial Production.
When Karl Marx wrote "free" he meant compulsory education of the children under the control of the State. Because of the contract with the State known as the "Marriage License," your children are legally Wards of the State. They must have "shots" and a Social Security number "required to protect the State's wards." State run and tax financed government schools began soon after the publishing of the Communist Manifesto, with the key leader at that time being Horace Mann.
Next came Socialized/Communist or often called "progressive" education under the guidance of John Dewey. Do you remember having to read about the wonders of Socialism/Communism in books by Lincoln Stephens in high school? The most Socialist/Communist class in any high school is not history or social science but English, where the leftist teacher can direct the children to read certain books and make reports on them.
English is the only required class for all students, and it is there that the Communists have directed their most attention. Under Biblical law, early American instruction, where students were studying Greek and Latin by 9 years of age, has always been the responsibility of the parents and their church assembly. Children were taught the moral values of the parents and of their church.
Today, it is the State that determines what the standards will be for the children's education. Federal Aid to Education determines how the States will set up the basic teachings and philosophy and this exactly what Marx had in mind. This form of education teaches the child to look to the State for help, and the State becomes the child's "god." Christian instruction, in contrast, teaches the child to look to God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and that if he needs a hand he finds one at the end of his arm. As you look at our youth educated in government schools, observe their appearance and their attitudes, and remember that crime and drug use is increasing 7X as fast as the population, you will see the evil genius of Karl Marx in full bloom.
There is a clear distinction between "instruction" and "education." And that is humanistic, New Age, and Eastern philosophy that man is intrinsically good. Hence the use of the word "education" by the modern Socialist/Communist, which means from the Latin, "draw the good out."
In contrast, the Bible teaches that all men are sinners, and that they are basically of a sinful, wicked nature. Thus, there is no way to "draw good out" of them. Christian philosophy, based upon the Truth of the Bible, teaches that children are to be instructed, that is have the good of God's Laws put into them so that they can be pleasing in God's sight. Today, those church groups that teach that God's Laws are still in full force and effect, always refer to their schools as Christian Instruction. Those churches who have gone the way of humanism, teaching that God's Laws, Statutes and Judgments were abandoned at the Cross, rightly call their schools "Christian Education." The term "Christian Education" is an oxymoron, an absurd contradiction in meaning to those of us with even a smattering of classical study.
As to the second part of Marx's 10th Plank, children under 16 are not permitted to work for wages. All private apprentice ships have been abolished for children seeking to learn a trade before the age of 16. Roosevelt's Socialist/Communist friends had the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1937 where apprenticeships are now under the control of the State. In June '91, Yeltsin [promising "swift moves to establish greater democracy and market economics"] was elected [in the first‑ever such election] President of the Russian Republic, which has 150‑million of the Soviet Union's 285‑million people. [He has since assumed near dictatorial powers].
Following that election the Western press enthusiastically described Yeltsin as "Bigger Than Life, The Russian People Love Him." His image, readability, and standing in the West went into orbit as he APPEARED to "stand in the gap" against the hard‑line "gang of eight" coup perpetrators during the recent August coup/counter‑coup drama. As he "appeared" to stand off the entire Soviet Army and KGB almost single‑handedly, the Western media and public opinion went ballistic. Americans were barraged with articles with typical headlines such as: "The Right Stuff: Yeltsin Joins the Ranks of Robin Hood, Moses, and Churchill." For almost a week in August, Yeltsin would have been accepted as president of the world, had such a position existed.
Abolishing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the KGB
The Soviets are Not abolishing the CPSU or the KGB, they are renaming them, reorganizing them, purging them of inefficient deadwood, and Expanding their mission.
1). THE KGB: Has had six name changes since 1917:
a). CHEKA; d). NKVD;
b). OGPU; e). MVD;
c). GPU; f). KGB.
All of these name changes were accompanied by purges [where thousands of heads at the top rolled], by restructuring or reorganization, by an expansion of the role of the secret police and by public pronouncements that the secret police had been abolished.
In the 1950s Beria, the brutal and infamous head of the NKVD, was purged and executed. Vladimir Kryuchkov [head of the KGB until the recent phoney coup and counter‑coup] has similarly been removed and will probably be shot to make the coup‑ counter‑coup seem more genuine. The KGB has about 1.5 million members worldwide, with about 50,000 sequestered in the U.S. KGB military units will now be moved under the Soviet army command [the new KGB will fall under the Soviet military command], and tens of thousands of inefficient KGB bureaucrats will be sacked [or worse]. This is not being done to destroy the KGB but to make it stronger, more efficient, lean and mean so-to-speak. It was seen to be becoming fat, dumb, lazy, and bloated. Just as the Rumanian secret police, the Securitate [which was 50,000 strong under Ceausescu] continues to operate in a Romania which is allegedly non‑Communist, but still is dominated by the Communists, so the KGB will continue to function in the USSR, which will be allegedly non‑Communist, but still dominated by the Communists.
International gangsters close entire factories [11 automobile plants were closed by General Motors in November 1987, putting thousands out of work ‑ then General Motors opened New plants in Mexico and is now importing cars into the United States, where is the union? For it was strangely quiet; while all this is going on the closed automobile factories are being made unfit for making defensive war equipment and their previous workers are left to subsist on food stamps and other welfare programs].
God is being trampled. Men are perishing from and by decrees from company board-rooms where the destruction of Christian America is being planed and carried out; morality is ridiculed and mocked, while honest citizens have become a laughingstock. The J.D.L. [Jewish Defense League], A.D.L [Anti‑Defamation League of B'nai B'rith] have put America, Germany and the Western World on a mind‑depressing guilt trip with their constant barrage of deception and lies.
Have you ever wondered why the so-called great evangelists have never had a "Crusade" in Israel, since they defend them so greatly, and constantly tell us they are God's people? Well I will tell you the secret to the atheistic damnable Zionists hide from American Christians, a law which forbids Christians from witnessing to Jews: It is used most frequently in the Zionist country known as Israel, which became common with the passage on December 25, 1977, of Israel's infamous "Anti-Missionary Law," which the Knesset passed on Christmas Day so it would be perfectly clear against whom it was directed. It is a statute which decrees a prison term of up to five years for anyone attempting to proselytize a Jew away from his faith.
Anti-Missionary Law 5738-1977: Strictly speaking, "proselytizing" under this law involves a gift, no matter how small (such as a tract) given to a Jew by a Christian. Under Israeli law it is a crime to "give or promise to give money, the equivalent of money or any other material benefit in order to entice a person to change his religion." Yet realistically, the word "proselytize" is much more loosely interpreted. As a case in point, evangelical Christians showed a film about the second coming of Christ in Jerusalem's largest hotel, the Shalom. This outraged Israel's chief rabbi, Yitzhak Kolitz, who forbade them to further "proselytize."
However, the manager reassured the Christians that "they are welcome if they do not violate the law." 1 Such ambiguity keeps Christians in Israel on edge, vulnerable to accusations that they violate the law. Speaking in defense of evangelicals, Charles Kopp, Chairman of the United Christian Council in Israel, said such Christians "do not engage in proselytizing...we do not give out leaflets in the streets or witness at our job." 2
According to "Ma'ariv" a leading Israeli daily publication which is published totally in Hebrew, so that most Americans will never know what is being discussed; discusses the Jewish control of the Clinton Administration.
The following is a translation by Dr. Israel Shahak of an article written by Arinoam Bar‑Yosef which appeared in the Israeli Newspaper Ma'ariv on September 2. Dr. Shahak, a retired professor, is chairman of the Israeli League of Human and Civil Rights. “Several weeks ago the rabbi of 'Adath Yisrael' synagogue in Cleveland Park, Washington, dedicated his Sabbath sermon to the Jewish cultural and political center which is being formed in America. 'For the first time in American history,' the rabbi said, 'we no longer feel that we live in Diaspora. The U.S. has no longer a government of goyim [non‑Jews]...but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels.
America has a president which puts Israel before America! Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term 'government of goyim' should be reexamined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S.' Indeed as far as the Jews are concerned, President Bill Clinton contributed toward a real change in the administration's outlook, having concluded a series of changes in enhancing Jewish power beginning under President Reagan and his secretary of state, George Shultz...True, the Jewish political influence was also evident in America of the previous decades. We have already seen a Jewish secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, enjoying the confidence of President Richard Nixon, and there were Jewish Cabinet embers under Jimmy Carter. However, they were usually the exceptions testifying to the rule. Especially, pious Jews were hardly ever appointed to participate in political work concerning the Middle East.
The picture has not totally changed and not only about the Middle East. For example, every morning at about 6:00, several staff cars travel from CIA headquarters to the White House with senior officers of the American intelligence community, who are about to present to the president and to the four top staffers a PDB ‑ President's Daily Briefing ‑ the term for the most exclusive report in Washington. The document, consisting of five to seven pages, is often accompanied by top secret satellite photographs transferred by the Pentagon. It is composed in the course of the night by the best American intelligence experts who analyze the telegrams and reports arriving from the CIA's worldwide network of agents...It contains the most sensitive information regarding developments around the world. Its uniqueness, compared to other American intelligence documents, lies in the fact that it is a document stolen by a spy, or an agent or 'mole' infiltrating a foreign government, or whether the source is tapping by means of satellite.
'Warm Jews' (Jews who are completely loyal to Israel and swear no loyalty to the United States at all)...If Clinton is in Washington, he holds a short discussion on the contents of the document with the five other addressees; Vice President Al Gore, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, Deputy National Security Adviser Samuel ('Sandy') Berger, and National Security Adviser to the Vice President Leon Perth. Two of the addressees, Berger and Perth, are 'warm Jews.' They have reached posts that are extremely sensitive for U.S. policies. They are by no means exceptions...
In the National Security Council, seven out of 11 top staffers are Jews. Clinton had especially placed them in the most sensitive junctions in the U.S. security and foreign administrations: Sandy Berger is the deputy chairman of the council; Martin Indyk, the intended ambassador to Israel, is a senior director in charge of the Middle East and South Asia; Dan Schifter, the senior director and adviser to the president, is in charge of Western Europe; Don Steinberg, the senior director and adviser to the president, is in charge of Africa; Richard Fienberg, the senior director and adviser to the president, is in charge of Latin America; Stanley Roth, the senior director and adviser to the president, in charge of Asia...
The situation is not much different in the president's office, which is full of 'warm Jews' (Remember these are Jews who care nothing for America their only interests are for Israel); The new presidential legal adviser, Abner Mikva; the president's schedule and programs manager, Ricky Seidman; deputy chief of staff, Phil Leida; economic adviser, Robert Rubin; media director, David Heiser; staff director, Alice Rubin; Ely Segall, in charge of volunteers; Ia Magaziner, in charge of the health program. Two cabinet members, Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Mickey Kantor in charge of international trade, are Jewish. They are joined by a long list of senior Jewish officials in the State Department, led by the head of the Middle East Peace Team, Dennis Ross, and followed by many deputy secretaries and even more senior secretaries' chiefs of staff.
Rhem Emmanuel does not appear in staff directories!...One of the most interesting Jews from the Israeli point of view, who has rarely been exposed to view till now, is Rehm Emmanuel, Clinton's senior adviser in charge of coordinating special projects in the White House. His office is located NEXT to the famous Oval Office (This way nothing slips by without notice). Rehm won extra points from his boss last week, when he succeeded in passing the law for combating crime. He has become an expert at communicating with Congress and has already had many successes, the most prominent of which was the ratification of NAFTA...Last Thursday his office was in shambles and he strode around it like a typical sabra (a native‑born Israeli), simultaneously conducting a live conversation with me, studying the protocols of the debate held at the time by the Senate and watching the report of Wolf Blitzer (also a Jew) on CNN and being updated by his secretary and three aides on the positions of the senators regarding the vote. 'Do you prefer to meet over the weekend or early next week, after this whole nightmare is over?' I asked him. 'That would be a real relief,' he replied...
The following day, after the law passed by one vote, I called to congratulate him...'If you want to come, you have to do it now. The president decided to take a vacation and told us that whoever wanted to enjoy the summer should also take a vacation. So I'm packing and leaving on Sunday morning.'...
Even then he was not calm but nervously fidgeting in his chair. he was a face that is more suitable for an Israeli tourist than for a senior official in the U.S. administration...
'You know, Rehm Emmanuel is a name that would not be out of place in the Tel Aviv phone directory,' I told him. A large warm smile spread across his face, 'Our original name was Auerback. We opened the first pharmacies in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem. My father changed his name after my uncle, Emmanuel, was killed in Israel's War of Independence [1948‑49]. My father was then a member of Etzel [Irgun] commanded by Bergin, and it was customary to change names in the underground.
Yes, he is still a warm Likud supporter, but he also admires Yitzhak Rabin, since he admires whoever becomes prime minister as a result of the last Israeli elections. After that war he came to America, studied medicine and met my mother who was then a social work student. I was born in Chicago...
Rehm and his two brothers received a warm Jewish education. 'You know, we studied at a Jewish school and had private Hebrew teachers. My first visit to Israel was three days after the Six‑Day War. My father said then that we had to go to Israel. I was eight years old, but I remember it as if it were this morning. The Arabs were completely defeated. There was such a joy and it was very exciting. There were high hopes that as a result the Jews will enjoy freedom and peace.
Since then I continued to visit Israel every summer until 1972. Then I began my studies. When I matured I went into politics, the pastimes of an American (Jewish) youngster.' 1 '...What meaning does the connection to Israel and to Judaism have to you today?' 'Since 1972 I did not visit Israel, until 1991. Then the Gulf War broke out and missiles landed in Tel Aviv. I immediately volunteered for one month service in the Israeli army, through the 'Overseas Volunteer Unit. 2 What I did then to help the Jews was not much. Naturally, it was not combat service. But we helped as much as possible and the main thing was that we were there. Does that answer your question?'...
Perhaps the most intriguing thing that happened to me personally in the course of the past year, since I have been posted in Washington, was the meeting with organized American Jewry. The best place to see them as they are, the place where I always came each year to admire them, is the annual convention of the pro‑Israeli lobby AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]. This is the place not only to feel the pulse of American involvement in the Middle East, but also where I felt that somehow it helps me to ignore the deep distress inherent in the feeling of loneliness of living in a sate located in the heart of so many hostile Arabs...I always asked myself what was the value of the Jewish experience in America as far as Israel is concerned. Did the identification with Israel derive from a deep sense of a common Jewish fate or was it one of the tools of the local community to garner power for achieving equal rights in a mixed society comprised also of many emigrants and members of various faiths? Was Jewish power in the U.S. a phenomenon which will decrease or increase? Were the intermarriages of Jews with gentiles threatening to weaken the Jewish power in the U.S.? Or, so I was sometimes afraid, were American Jews building a new Jewish cultural center that would compete with Israel?
'...Adat Yisrael' synagogue in Washington is not only a place of worship. It is Jewish community center, with a prestigious Jewish kindergarten, a Jewish school with Judaism, literature, culture and, of course, Hebrew classes. On Saturdays there are always two separate prayer sessions. The first is the large one, encompassing hundreds of worshipers, which ends in a food blessing tastefully laid with Jewish delicacies. Its members belong to the creme de la creme of Washington society; senior administration officials, successful lawyers, rich businessmen...All are wealthy people. Next week, on the Jewish New Year, the prayers will be joined by many other Jews who usually spend their weekends at the most exclusive clubs, or on the most expensive golf courses, or riding the near the West Virginia lakes, or sailing in their private yachts...
Next week, like during all Jewish holiday seasons, the most expensive limousines that can be imagined will stop at the entrance of the synagogue, to let out the elegant women, the men mummified in their expensive suits at their side, followed by the well‑ dressed children. The entrance fee to the synagogue is $1,000 for a single holiday. In addition to that prayer session another, with younger members and cheaper entrance fees, regularly gathers in one of the other halls, where prayers are held according to the customary Israeli style, except for the fact that men and women sit together...This session has at last several other characteristics. Most of the members visit Israel at least once every year. Most of them speak fluent Hebrew (Yiddish). All of them are familiar with the prayer procedures. Only a few of them come out of deep faith. Others do so out of the wish to meet a Jewish girl whom they would marry...
But the most important reason for their praying is that they feel a close connection with Israel. Those of them whose love for Israel is most ardent watch the Israeli TV news every night. It might sound strange but the Washington cable station broadcasts the Israeli TV news program every night at half past midnight...The other synagogue competing for the young generation of wealthy Jews is located in Georgetown. It is a fully Orthodox synagogue, but its prayers are conducted in the Israeli style flavored by 'Gush Emunim.' The Israeli flag is proudly displayed above the Sacred Ark alongside the American flag. On each Sabbath the prayers include the benediction for the Israeli Jewish soldiers and the prayer for the welfare of the Israeli government and its officials. Many Jewish administration officials pray there. They not only don't try to conceal their religious affiliation but go to great length to demonstrate their Judaism since it may help their careers immensely.
The enormous Jewish influence in Washington is not limited to the government. In the Washingtonian media a very significant part of the most important persons and of the givers of the most popular programs on TV are warm Jews[Remember a 'warm Jew' is one who owes no allegiance to the U.S. at all, all their allegiances is to the State of Israel]. A significant part of senior media correspondents, newspaper editors and analysts are Jewish and many of them are 'warm Jews,' too. Many of them are influenced in Israel's favor by attending suitable synagogues. The Associated Press's political reporter, Barry Schweid, and the Washington Post's education reporter, Amy Schwartz, regularly participate in a prayer session which is considered to be close to Israel at the Cleveland Park synagogue. Let us not forget in this context the Jewish predominance in the Washington academic institutions.
At the National Center of Medicine the percentage of Jewish researchers is very much higher than their relative percentage in the population. In the fields of security and science, in the film industry, in art and in literature, the Jewish influence can only be described as immense, with a corresponding enhancement of Jewish power...
Where did they all spring from? In Israel we are already accustomed to the names of the Jews called Dennis Ross, Dan Kurtzer and Aharon Miller, since they have taken part in each of the secretary of state's visits to the Middle East in the last six years. But that is a relatively new phenomenon. When Dan Kurtzer, a pious Jew who observes the Sabbath and all commandments of Judaism arrived at the American State Department 18 years ago with a doctorate in Middle East studies, he was told: 'You have all the qualifications to serve in the Middle East division, but don't even think of suggesting it because of your Jewish origin.'
Today he is the boss of those who gave him that piece of advice, so much had Jewish power increased in the meantime. When he arrived it was the time when the Arabists ruled the State Department and the few Jews who had infiltrated it preferred to conceal their Judaism. There were precedents, such as the late Arnold Rapel, who was a senior deputy of the secretary of state's assistant for the Middle East, but his co‑workers learned of his faith only when he was buried in a Jewish ceremony.
Kurtzer was the first to announce that he could not work on Jewish holidays since he observed all the commandments and went to synagogue. Today, when the TV star Roseanne Arnold announced that she intended to produce a series on Hanukkah since the Christmas programs are already too numerous, and when public schools in the U.S. are closed on the first day of the Jewish New Year, the story about Kurtzer seems very distant.
Today, when there is talk about 51 percent of interfaith marriages, the danger of assimilation appears to be even greater, yet when examining the phenomenon from close up one finds that the trend is the opposite. More and more Jewish youngsters seek out the synagogue and Jewish education which are very good for advancing one's career. It is important that Israel do its bit in this area. Rehm Emmanuel is a living proof of that. Three months ago he was married in a Jewish religious ceremony to Amy, a young woman from a Christian family. She converted to Judaism and her Jewish name is not Yael. If Rehm had wanted to assimilate, he would not have married in a religious ceremony.
Dennis Ross, so familiar and so friendly to us, has an even more amazing story. His parents were divorced when he was two years old. His contact with his father was almost totally severed. Two years later his mother married a Catholic and moved to California. However, she posed a condition for her new husband that her children were to have a Jewish education.
Dennis grew up in a Reform Jewish environment and could have easily assimilated without remaining true to his roots. Although he attended a Reform Jewish school on Sundays, it was more of a social than a Jewish experience. But he did not forget and it was Israel which made a warm Jew of him. In 1970 he visited Israel for the first time with a group of American students in that glorious period of victory after the Six Day War. His connection with Judaism grew stronger ever since...
Can Israel really sense that at a distance of thousands of miles away there is a flourishing Jewish center that not only deeply admires and supports it, but also feels a shared destiny with it? There is no doubt about it, especially in the matters concerning its existence. All the Clinton administration's officials dealing with Israel: Ross, Kurtzer, Indyk and Miller being just a sample, may have different views concerning the desired solution for the Israeli‑Arab conflict but they are warm Jews in whatever they do.
They also firmly believe that the shared interests between the two states are fundamental and permanently enduring. It is because of this deeply held belief that they made a huge contribution to the fact that the Clinton administration has fully adopted their approach on the issue of relations between the U.S. and Israel.
Perhaps because of that belief they claim that they are upset about the Israeli violations of human rights in the territories, and are even more upset when one or another Israeli minister takes an initiative concerning Iraq which does not accord with the American line. 'If Israel wants American support for all its interests, it also must coordinate its steps with us when this concerns the basic interests of the U.S.,' one of the senior officials told me this week, following the news of the initiative of ministers Moshe Shachal and Binyamin Ben‑Eliezer to add Iraq to the peace process.
The many Jews in Clinton's administration have been created by a design, their larger number is not due to chance. The American way of life supports the achievers. Despite the previous Jewish generation wish, perhaps, to assimilate, it gave its children the best education and not necessarily only in Jewish religion.
It was especially their achievements and ability which, while also preserving their Jewish roots, brought the present generation of Jews to their present positions of enormous influence and power. Dennis Ross, the founder of the theory of 'the confidence‑ building measures' between Israel and the Arab states, is a typical product of that Jewish generation in America. Their power might certainly boost the confidence of Israeli Jews in the eternity of the Jewish people and dull their sensation of loneliness among the Arabs...Incidentally, although the Jewish power in the current Democratic administration is so huge, there are also many warm Jews heading for the top positions in the Republican Party. I met Paul Wolfowitz, for example, who was the senior deputy of the American defense secretary in the Bush administration in the course of a visit to a Patriot missile base during the Gulf War. When he was received by the commander of the base, whose name was emblazoned over his chest, Lt. Col. Crimkowitz, his face glowed: 'You're Crimkowitz, I'm Wolfowitz. We both have relatives here.'
That does not mean that they are all like that. Even in America there are and will be people with Jewish roots who do not support Israel, to say the least. Such was the former American defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, and such is Richard Haass, Martin Indyk's predecessor on the National Security Council. But now they are certainly exceptions."
|
How about that Folks; now you know why America is hated around the World, and why nothing Washington does is in favor of the United States and its people! |
In September, 1995, President Clinton awarded the "Congressional Medal of Honor" to a dead Jew, who was born in a foreign country and never served one single day in the armed forces of the United States; he never did one single thing which benefitted any American who was not a Jew; he never did a single thing which one could define as bravery under fire; nor did he ever do anything worthy of such a high honor.
He received it, simply because President Clinton is a coward, a draft dodger, and a traitor to the United States of America. Yet as long as the origin and evolution of American institutions are studied by free men, so long as the Mayflower, the Pilgrim Fathers and Colonial Puritanism abide as key influences, which no cynic or iconoclast can brush aside, Lord Bryce, Professor Ernest Barker and other renowned scholars, have repeatedly emphasized the close connection between the "little democracies" of the New England Congregational ("Independent") Churches, the winning of American Independence, and the overthrow of the old, corrupt Monarchy of France, Religious self-government among these Colonists, prepared the way for political self-government; and the success of the American War of Independence probably achieved more than all the writings of Rousseau, Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, in nerving the French people to break the yoke of their Bourbon oppressors.
The Contribution of the Pilgrim Fathers, moreover, to popular education was far-reaching. Puritanism was a book religion, demanding a first-hand knowledge of the Bible; while autonomous government in Church and community, demanded a trained intelligence: hence the necessity for schools. From the first, therefore, the Pilgrim Fathers established a system of "common schools."
And it is but emblematic of their thirst for knowledge, that within sixteen years of the sailing of the Mayflower, they had founded a College destined to be world famous. Within two years of its founding, came its first important legacy. Rev. John Harvard, dying childless (1638), bequeathed all his books and half his estate to this new college, which thenceforth bore his name. Nor did these builders of New England forget their debt to certain venerable institutions of Old England. The community cradling the infant Harvard University was called Cambridge, in memory of the alma mater of several of its founders; for not a few of the Pilgrims were University men, who cherished memories of youthful days at Cambridge and Oxford.
But not only did these fathers of a mighty nation lay the foundations of liberty, self-government and universal education. Though their existence was threatened, both by the Indians and the French, and though for many years they forced a rugged soil for scanty amount of food, they finally conquered a wilderness, as God had said they would in the Scriptures, and it bloomed as the Garden of Eden. They were courageous, adventurous men, these men of Israel, these pioneers; men of vision and moral rectitude, conscious of a destiny, and living for tomorrow rather than today.
Their task, however, was so titanic and they were so staunchly in earnest, that they had little appreciation of the subtler shades of life. Colors to them were white and black; moral problems, Yes! and No! As soldiers scaling a mountain citadel, they had little time for speculation or debate. Their theology, too, though singularly direct and sustaining, was over stern and legalistic; at some points indeed it was forbidding and threatening. The blacker shadows of Calvinistic logic had, for a long time, dominated their doctrinal outlook. Their conception of the Sovereignty of God tended to be rigid, predestinarian, over-powering, almost merciless; for too often it was little influenced by the compassion and love of Christ.
Hence the "witchcraft" obsession inflamed by Cotton Mather, and the persecution of Quakers. These New World Puritans had the faults of their qualities. Occasionally they were as obdurate and Old Testament minded as the later South African Boers. But this, despite the modern avalanche of cynicism, must in fairness be added. For all the iron in their blood, sufficient Gospel grace underlay their Legalism, to cause them, when once they perceived the horrors of persecution, to recant their cruel, mistaken attitude both towards "witches" and Quakers.
Only against the backgrounds of Colonial Puritanism, can the amazing impact of George Whitefield on America, be fairly gauged. True, the thirteen weeks of his first American sojourn, in 1738, though confined to Georgia, were successful. But it was not until his second Colonial tour (October, 1739, until January, 1741), when he came into contact with Pennsylvania and New England, that he began really to stir the New World. And how congenial he found the Promised Land of the Pilgrim Fathers, his own words make clear: "On many counts it certainly exceeds all other provinces in America; and for the establishment of religion all other parts of the world. Every five miles or perhaps less, you have a meeting House...I like New England exceedingly well."
Admittedly, too, it was in Georgia, despite the protestations of Benjamin Franklin, that Whitefield founded his famous Bethesda Orphanage, which for so many years was to offer a home for from 80 to 140 destitute or abandoned children. That Orphanage, however, was located in Georgia, because Georgia was the center of such need. Whatever the shortcomings of the Puritan settlements, they not only educated their children, but they left none of their orphans to suffer the pangs of starvation and nakedness.
The neighborliness of the Puritan parishes obviated such inhumanity. Nevertheless, all was not well with the Puritan commonwealths when Whitefield began his momentous mission. The influence of that great but austere theologian, Jonathan Edwards, radiating from Northampton, Massachusetts, was still considerable; but already reaction was at work.
The relentless predestinarianism of the man who could write, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, was certain to alienate many sensitive souls; while those who concluded they were damned, concluded, with equal consistency, that they might as well earn their damnation, by indulging the pleasures of sin while yet opportunity remained. The gigantic physical exertions, moreover, of the initial Pilgrim Fathers, now no longer were equally imperative; leisure was less scant; and not a few of the characteristic vices of Old England had become all too apparent in New England.
Drunkenness was on the increase; cock-fighting was becoming popular; gambling in some quarters approached an obsession; material standards of success were undermining the earlier fraternalism; and the tares (Jews) of monetary cupidity were choking the wheat (Israelites) of spiritual attainment.
The protracted impact of Whitefield on America was the very thing needful to save Colonial Puritanism from its legalism, its rigidity, its mounting individualism, and its increasing danger of self-righteousness. His gracious adaptability, his marvelous imagery and his spontaneous, overflowing eloquence went straight to the heart of the New World. The man whose pulpit appeal could extract from the then-hostile Franklin, all the copper, silver and gold in his pockets, was no ordinary preacher, no common mortal.
Whitefield was not a little influenced by what was best in New England, and some aspects of Edward's teaching left a permanent stamp on him; but he brought to the dominant religious outlook in America a complimentary message which was invaluable.
His enthusiasm and compassion, his universal charity and selflessness were as gentle, showers on parched soil. His central emphasis was not the majesty, but the Love of God; he proclaimed not divine wrath, judgment and retribution, but divine mercy and patience, divine pardon and grace. It is poignant that from Northampton, where so many souls were seared and scorched by the threatened fires of judgment, Whitefield reports: "I found my heart drawn out to talk of scarce anything besides the consolations and privileges of the saints and the plentiful effusion of the Spirit upon believers."
Whitefield's theology was cast in the mold of a mild Calvinism, but his ministry always was tender, healing, inspiring. In pressing the logic of theory, he knew where to stop; and if to the end his preaching implied "the decrees," that implication was merely an attempt to vindicate the omniscience of God. It was his friend John Wesley, the unflinching advocate of "free will," whom he desired to preach his funeral sermon in his great Tabernacle, London. To him, the conscious unity of heart and spirit superseded all disagreements on doctrine.
Not yet, has the historical importance of Whitefield's labors been duly appreciated. In Scotland, with its Calvinistic background, his influence was immense; in America, the land of his special devotion, it was strategic. Sir James Stephen, in his Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, says: "If every philanthropy burned in the human heart with a pure and intense flame, embracing the whole family of man in the spirit of universal charity, it was in the heart of George Whitefield. He loved the world that hated him; he had no preferences but in favor of the ignorant, the miserable and the poor."
Again, the free-thinking Benjamin Franklin, who at first was annoyed with Whitefield because he could not persuade him to plant his Orphanage in Philadelphia, finally said of him: "I knew him intimately upwards of thirty years. His Integrity, Disinterestedness and Indefatigable Zeal in prosecuting every good work I have never seen equaled, and shall never see excelled."
Whitefield not only awakened the existing Churches in America to a new enthusiasm, a new vision and a new tolerance. His mission, being instrumental in establishing hundreds of new congregations within half a dozen communions, diffused a new evangelical unity; while thousands of those who, in religious things, could not previously "discern between their right hand and their left," began to hunger and thirst after righteousness and to seek diligently the things of the Kingdom of Heaven. Even provincial Governors "embraced him" in deep emotion, as he departed out of their midst. Franklin, to satisfy his curiosity, made a mathematical calculation of the size of the Philadelphia multitude hanging on Whitefield's words, and, to his amazement, determined that 35,000 souls were at one time listening to the Evangelist's message. The financing of Whitefield's Orphanage was itself, in those days of sparse money, no slight undertaking; yet this was but one of many Good Works for which Whitefield raised such voluntary collections as never before had been heard of on American soil.
Even in education, Whitefield's contribution to American development was phenomenal. With the origins of several now famous Universities, he was directly connected. Princeton University, wherewith the name of President Wilson is so closely connected, issued from the "Log College" built on the Neshaminy by William Tennet and his son, Gilbert. That humble institution, with the support of Governor Belcher, a devoted follower of Whitefield, soon was transferred to Princeton, New Jersey, where, as "Princeton College," it became the center for the training of Presbyterian ministers in six colonies, viz. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and Carolina; and in Princeton it expanded into the now world-known university. In the infant days of this center of learning, Whitefield was to the Tennents and Belcher a tower of strength. Gilbert Tennent often accompanied Whitefield on his preaching missions, and on both sides of the Atlantic the evangelist raised for the struggling College substantial support. Whitefield was one of the first men upon whom "Princeton" conferred its M.A. degree. But Princeton was not an "only child;" no less than sixty-two American Colleges "trace their origin to the Log College."
With the origin of the University of Pennsylvania, Whitefield's connection was even more intimate. In 1740, his "New Building" was erected in Philadelphia by warm supporters, including Franklin. To it the "Awakener" insisted on adding a Charity School, for "the instruction of poor children gratis, in the knowledge of the Christian religion and in useful literature." That Charity School evolved first into an academy, then into Philadelphia College, and ultimately into the University of Pennsylvania.
When, in 1914, on the Bicentenary of Whitefield's birth, a noble statue of the evangelist was raised at the University, this statement was read: "The inspirer and original Trustee of the Charity School of 1740, the forerunner of the University of Pennsylvania, he solicited the first donations to the Library of the University...guided the new school of learning by this godly counsel, heartened it by his masterful preaching, and inspired it with his noble life."
"Zealous advocate and patron of higher education in the American colonies," is one of the inscriptions on the pedestal of this memorial. But the man who, "taking two continents under his wing," spent more than two years of his life upon Atlantic crossings, fostered education on both sides of the water.
For Charity Schools in England, he raised such collections as never previously had been known; to Dr. Doddridge's Nonconformist Academy, he proffered yeoman assistance; Dartmouth College was equally indebted to him; while, after the destruction of Harvard's Library by fire, he secured fresh gifts of books from England. Nor did he forget the American Indians. The Boston Gazette reported an occasion when he collected £120 for Mr. Wheelock's Indian School, in Lebanon, New England. Whitefield was a man of heart and soul too big, to be understood by the swarm of little critics, who buzzed so busily to besmirch his name. Franklin's unvarnished tribute will stand the tests of time.
Dr. Abel Stevens, in his History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, says: "The Congregational Church of the New England, the Presbyterians and Baptists of the Middle States, and the mixed colonies of the South, owe their later religious life and energy mostly to the impulses given by Whitefield's powerful ministrations...the New England Churches received under his labors an inspiration of zeal and energy which has never died out. He extended the revival from the Congregational Churches of the Eastern to the Presbyterian Churches of the Middle States. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey...he was received as a prophet from God; and it was then that the Presbyterian Church took that attitude of evangelical power and aggression which has ever since characterized it...The stock from which the Baptists of Virginia, and those of the South and South West have sprung, was also Whitefieldian. And, although Whitefield did not organize the results of his labors, he prepared the way for Wesley's itinerants. When he descended into his American grave, they were already on his track. They came not only to labor, but to organize their labors; to reproduce, amid the peculiar moral necessities of the New World, both the spirit and the method of the great movement as it had been organized by Westley in the Old."
The post-Whitefieldian development of the Evangelical Movement in America is a subject too expensive in range, too epic in consequence, to permit even of outline here. Francis Asbury, Wesley's master-builder in America, was a characteristic product of the Revival. His "Theological College" as Dr. Curnock puts it, "was his mother's Class Meeting." From infancy he imbibed the Evangelical spirit; when eighteen he undertook the labors of a local preacher; when twenty-one, he was appointed by Wesley as an itinerant, and for five years (1766-1771) he labored zealously and effectively on four different circuits, in England. Then when twenty-six, in the year following Whitefield's death, he volunteered for America, where for forty-five years, till his demise in 1816, he toiled with a constancy and selflessness resemblance of Wesley himself.
Asbury was endowed with none of Whitefield's dramatic, spectacular gifts; but attaining a much riper age, he labored nearly four times as long on American soil, and being par excellence a conciliator, organizer and builder, he was singularly adapted to follow the fiery Awakener.
No sooner had Ashbury landed in America, when friends insisted he confine his labors to the more populous centers. They did not know their man; Ashbury, above all, was a trail-breaker, a frontiersman, a pioneer. From the first, he determined that the most isolated settlers must enjoy the privileges and inspirations of an organized religious life; his passion, like that of Wesley, was to serve the most neglected.
Hence, decade after decade, despite the perils of the Revolutionary War, despite extreme changes of climate and the fury of the elements despite the lurking dangers of untracked forests, quicksand bogs, turbulent torrents, bridge-less rivers and forbidding mountains, he rode regularly some 5,000 miles a year; winning wherever he went devoted followers who became local leaders; and creating wherever he went, Class Meetings, Societies, Sunday Schools, Circuits and finally Conferences.
This Staffordshire peasant became, perhaps, the most creative religious statesman the North American continent has yet known. Owing nothing to the schools of his day, he was entirely the product of religion: love, sympathy, vision, courage, faith and prayer made him great.
For thirteen years before Dr. Coke arrived to ordain him, he had been to the wilds of America their chief shepherd of souls. His ordination therefore but proclaimed him what already he was, a superintendent, a bishop, over the far-separated flocks of Christ, which his own ministrations had so largely led into the fold. Other of Westley's leaders, including Philip Embury, Barbara Heck and Captain Webb, were at work in America for long before Asbury arrived. Coke, his fellow "Superintendent," with his scholarly and executive powers, rendered memorable service. But to the saintly Bishop Asbury must go the honor of being "Father to God" to the largest Protestant Church the New World knows. His life was a marvel, almost a miracle, of consecration and attainment.
Like Wesley, he rose habitually at four a.m.; and like Wesley, too, he strove to account for every moment of every day. Self-taught, without fixed abode, a man of the roads, he made it his rule to read one hundred pages of good literature daily. He taught himself Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Always his saddle-bags were packed with books which he himself had mastered; and many of these he persuaded, not only his preachers and Class-leaders, but thousands of his humblest followers, to buy and read. House-to-House visitation, field-preaching, barn-preaching and camp-meetings in tents, were among his chief means of establishing contact with pioneer communities: and always his converts he organized into Classes and Societies, thus nurturing Local leadership.
Log schools and Churches, accordingly, reared by the co-operative "bees" of settlers who hungered for understanding and righteousness, rose up as beacon-lights wherever this holy man went. The salary of this peerless missionary, "for the greater part of his life was under £20 a year." Money to him, like time and life, was a trust from God: and this spirit he breathed into the whole heroic band of his "co-workers in the Gospel."
In the formative days of this young Republic, these apostolic missionaries outmarched the prospectors and gold hunters; they out-toiled the homesteaders and ranchers. What Lincoln came to mean to the social and political life of the United States, that, Asbury before him, meant to her moral and religious life. Indeed, apart from the Bible and spiritual influences mediated by Asbury and his fellow "Enthusiastis," there is no understanding Lincoln. Bishop Asbury could claim "Apostolic Succession" only through Wesley, the "Baptism of Fire" and the Gospel of Christ. Often his episcopal status had been ridiculed. Yet, if by their fruits they are known, he was a Bishop indeed! In the single decade, 1780-1790, the American Methodist circuits increased from 20 to 114, and their Church membership from 8,504 to 57,631. This amazing achievement represented the first harvest of Asbury's sowing; and it successively became the seed of mightier harvests ahead...
In the United States, as in Britain, popular charitable, benevolent and social-service organizations are very extensive, and have reached a creditable level of attainment: while, being of and for the people, they are loved by the people. Their close historical relationship to Evangelical Christianity, though unmistakable, is a subject beyond the compass of this study. In one sphere of social attainment, however, America easily leads Britain and all the rest of the world. Her great and numerous Colleges for the higher education of women, are without a peer: yet the heralds in that extensive emancipation movement, such as Mount Holyoke, Oberlin and Elmira, Vassar, Wellesley and Smith, together with Bryn Mawr and Goucher, were rooted and grounded in the soil of Protestant Evangelical Faith.
But Dr. Medford Evans concluded that it was not the Communists who ultimately silenced Senator McCarthy, rather: "A note is necessary on the relationship of the (Communist) Party ‑ McCarthy's declared enemy, as he was theirs ‑ to the American 'establishment,' which is presumably anti‑Communist, which McCarthy NEVER attacked, which (Eastern Establishment) attacked him and was indeed, more immediately the instrument of the destruction than was the Communist Party." 1
Was it the Eastern Establishment of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and International Bankers and Corporations that destroyed Senator Joseph McCarthy for exposing their Agent ‑ International Communism? Senator McCarthy said the goal of Communism (The Eastern Establishment) was to destroy our will to win and resist militarily. Was he right? God said, "I will break the pride of their power." America will never win again unless wholesale repentance occurs. This was a direct fulfillment of Bible Prophesy 1, prophesied 2,000 years ago that the Kings of the East would be prepared militarily.
1950/1953: Korea. U.S. responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by being ordered to go to its assistance by the United Nations; Congressional Authorization was not sought. The Korean fiasco aroused American voters who were offered, the Jew, Dwight D. Eisenhower for President, a soldier who they thought would surely win that ridiculous war. Eisenhower did end the war, but not by winning which could easily have been done, but by yielding to Communist terms and insults he provided the festering sore of a divided Korea; The beginning of "no win" engagements all over the world, which demonstrates to those who will stop and look: Those people who depend upon the United States Government in an alliance, is a kiss of death for their freedom. This because our American Government is under the control of the Jewish-communist-Zionists the Antichrist Children of Satan! This was also the first time in the history of the world, of any nation, when its military command was forbidden to defeat the enemy.
The First No Win war in History
In 1944, the Council on Foreign Relations prepared a confidential memorandum for the State Department that began the process of involving the United States in a war in Korea. It read, in part: "The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used to further popular education..."
A review of the memorandum stated: "...a further difficulty was cited, namely that (difficulty) arising from the Constitutional provision that only Congress may declare war. This argument was countered with the contention that a treaty would override this barrier, let alone the fact that our participation in such police action as might be recommended by the international security organization need not necessarily be construed as war." 2
That treaty was the United Nations Treaty, created in 1945, essentially by the CFR. The Korean War had a unique place in history: "...for the first time, a world organization voted to use collective force to stop armed aggression." 3
The Korean War was made possible at the Potsdam and Yalta conferences, as World War II was ending, when the Allied Governments, represented by Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt, divided Korea into a North and South. North Korea quickly created an army of 187,000 men, with Russia supplying the military equipment (the artillery, tanks and planes, etc.) necessary to wage the war.
The South only raised an army of 96,000 men, with sparse military equipment. One of the reasons for this inadequacy of their military equipment was the fact that, even though the United States had voted $10‑billion in military assistance for South Korea, only a small percentage of it reached that country. 4 General Douglas MacArthur, who was later to command these forces, wrote in his book Reminiscences: "The south Koreans had four divisions along the 38th Parallel (the dividing line between North and South Korea). They had been well trained, and the personnel were brave and patriotic, but they were equipped and organized as a constabulary force, not as troops of the line. They had only light weapons, no air or naval forces, and were lacking in tanks, artillery, and many other essentials. The decision to equip and organize them in this way had been made by the State Department. The argument advanced by the State Department for its decision was that it was a necessary measure to prevent the South Koreans from attacking North Korea, a curious myopic reasoning that, of course, opened the way for a North Korean attack." 5
But North Korea's attack should not have come as a surprise as General Albert Wedemeyer had warned President Harry S. Truman that the North Koreans were preparing for an invasion. And on June 25, 1950, they crossed the 38th Parallel and started the war. The Russians could have prevented the United nations from getting involved had they wished to do so by vetoing the U.N. efforts: "The Soviet, using the non‑membership of Red China in the U.N. as an excuse, walked out of the Security Council. The Council, with Russia absent, then voted U.N. intervention in Korea. After the vote, and with Red China still not seated in the United nations, the Soviet returned to the Security Council." 6
Some have seen Russia's absence during this crucial vote as an intentional maneuver on their part: "...the Soviet started the war themselves. This means that they knew when it would start. If they wanted to keep us out, Stalin would have told his U.N. delegate, Jacob Malik, to forget the boycott, to take his seat at the Security Council, and vote nyet (no). The very fact that the Soviet didn't do this is proof, not just that they didn't want to keep us out of the Korean War, but that they wanted to trick us in." 1
Two days after the invasion of South Korea, the Chinese on Taiwan, sensing that the time was ripe for them to move against the Communist Government on mainland China, got severely reprimanded by President Truman: "...I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa (Taiwan) to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland." 2
Not only did Truman declare it was against American policy for the free Chinese to reclaim Communist China, but he also ordered the American 7th Fleet into the Straits of Formosa to insure this.3 General Douglas MacArthur later revealed that he saw this action as an intentional act on the part of the American Government to insure the entry of Red China into the war. He wrote: "The possibility of Red China's entry into the Korean War had existed ever since the order from Washington, issued to the Seventh Fleet in June, to neutralize Formosa, which in effect protected the Red China mainland from attack by Chiang‑Kai‑shek's forces of half a million men. This released the two great Red Chinese armies assigned the coastal defense of Central China and made them available for transfer elsewhere." 4; "This meant that the Communist China leaders need have little worry about a possible Nationalist landing on the mainland opposite Formosa, and that they could move Red troops northward to the Manchurian country above the Yalu River with perfect safety. It gave their Korean war plans a tremendous impetus, because Red China could now enter the Korean War at any time she chose without fear of being attacked on her flank and rear by the nationalist troops on Formosa." 5
But this action by the American government did not deter the Taiwanese Government of Chaing Kai‑Shek, who, less than a week after the North Koreans had crossed the 38th parallel, offered; "...the State Department an advance force of 33,000 troops that could be embarked for Korea within five days after the offer was accepted. The suggestion was refused." 6
Formosa was, at the time, a member of the United Nations and therefore could have been represented in the United Nations Force, but the American Government would not tolerate such a move. It was a few months later that the results of the State Department's tactics began to show up. In October, 1950, General MacArthur began sensing that the Red Chinese were building up their troops in Manchuria, just north of the Yalu River. This intelligence report went unheeded by the State Department which advised MacArthur that there was no possibility of their intervening in the war. But the State Department had lied, as the Red Chinese crossed the Yalu river, the river separating North Korea and Red China, on October 15, 1950. As the war against Red China and the North Koreans continued, General MacArthur continued to feel that there had been a leak in his intelligence and that his strategy was known in advance to the enemy. One of MacArthur's senior field commanders, General Walton Walker: "...continually complained...that his operations were known to the enemy in advance through sources in Washington." 7
The truth is that MacArthur's strategies were indeed falling into the hands of the North Koreans who were being commanded by Russian officers. The chain of command under the United States Constitution for any military officer leads upward through the Executive Branch of the government and ends with the President who is the ultimate authority for military decisions.
MacArthur was, of course, constitutionally required to obey the orders of his ultimate commander, but under the treaty binding the United States to the United Nations, the command chain went past the President into an office in the United Nations known as the under-secretary for political and security council affairs who reported directly to the Secretary General.
At the time of the Korean War, this post was filled by Constantine Zinchenko, of Russia. The North Koreans had Russian military advisors during the war, and it later became known just who was in charge of the North Korean War efforts. According to a Department of Defense press release dated May 15, 1964, high‑ranking Russian military officers were actually on the scene in North Korea directing military operations. The release stated: "A North Korean Major identified two of these Russian 'Advisors' As General Vasilev and Colonel Dolgin. Vasilev, he said, was in charge of all movements across the 38th parallel. Another prisoner...said he actually heard General Vasilev give the order to attack on June 25th." 8
General Vasilev's chain of command went through the U.N. as well. He, "...had been the chairman of the U.N. Military Staff Committee which, along with the office of the Undersecretary General for Political and Security Council Affairs, is responsible for U.N. military action under the Security Council." 1 That meant two Russians shared authority in planning the North Korean war efforts, and one of them planned the efforts of the United Nations. "In effect, The Communists were directing both sides of the war!" 2
The Russians were not only controlling both sides of the war and supplying technical advisors for the North Korean war effort, they were actually supplying Russian pilots for flights against the Americans: "Lt. Gen. Samuel E. Anderson, commander of the Fifth Air Force, revealed that entire Soviet Air force units fought in the Korean War for over two and a half years..." 3
General MacArthur, aware that the Red Chinese were about to enter the war, realized that one way to prevent their massive entry was to bomb the bridges crossing the Yalu River. He: "...ordered General Stratemeyer, (Chief of the air Force) to employ B‑29's on the following morning to destroy the Yalu bridges and cut this easy line of communication between Manchuria and North Korea. An immediate dispatch came from Secretary (of State George) Marshall countermanding my order and directing me to 'postpone all bombing of targets within five miles of the Manchurian border.'" 4
In addition, MacArthur was ordered not to pursue aircraft fleeing North Korea into Manchuria, nor could he bomb the supply base in the town of Racin. MacArthur felt that of these decisions the: "...most incomprehensible of all was the refusal to let me bomb the important supply center at Racin. Which was not in Manchuria or Siberia (Russia) but many miles from the borders, in northeast Korea. Racin was a depot to which the Soviet Union forwarded supplies from ladivostok for the North Korean Army." 5
On November 25, 1950, the Red Chinese Army commander, General Lin Piao, launched his full forces across the Yalu River and into North Korea. MacArthur felt: "...information must have been relayed to them, assuring that the Yalu bridges would continue to enjoy sanctuary and that their bases would be left intact." 6 This was, unfortunately, the truth, as even General Lin Piao later admitted that he: "...would never have made the attack and risked my men...if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication." 7
General MacArthur would later write that the order not to bomb the Yalu bridges: "...was the most indefensible and ill‑conceived decision ever forced on a field commander in our nation's history." 8
One of General MacArthur's general in the Air Force, George Stratemeyer, said: "We had sufficient air, bombardment, fighters, reconnaissance so that I could have taken out all of those supplies, those airdromes on the other side of the Yalu; I could have bombed the devils between there and Mukden, stopped the railroad operating and the people of China that were fighting could not have been supplied...But we weren't permitted to do it. As a result, a lot of American blood was spilled over there in Korea." 9
House Minority Leader Joseph Martin also expressed his dismay at the administration's apparent desire not to win the war in Korea by such tactics as not allowing the bombing of strategic military targets: "If we are not in Korea to win, this administration should be indicted for the murder of thousands of American boys."10
During the same period of time will over one billion people have been enslaved by the Communists. The hypocritical U.N. has not prevented the enslavement of a single person and it hasn't liberated a single individual from Communist tyranny. It hasn't tried to; Liberty is not the goal of the United Nations! The U.N. Charter makes various references to "equal rights" and "self determination of peoples." Most Americans, unaccustomed to examining words for their exact meaning, have accepted these terms as synonymous with protection of rights and liberty. Merely to guarantee equal rights to everyone is no guarantee of rights at all.
If the rights of all the people were reduced to zero, all the people would have "equal rights" ‑‑ just like the slaves behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. When the U.N. Charter speaks about the "self‑determination of peoples" (Article 55) the word "people" means the people of a nation as a collective body: There is no place for individualism and real freedom in the world of the enlightened or illuminated insiders. "Free men are not equal, and equal men are not free."
You will, no doubt, see the direct parallel between the pious propaganda dispensed by the Jew Adam Weishaupt and his original followers and published by both the Communists and the United Nations. Edward Griffin in his book, The Fearful Master, p. 178, details the achievements the Communists were seeking from that Asian War and their success in those objectives.
They Were
1). The war helped Red China solidify control of its people who were becoming ripe for revolt because of famine and harsh living conditions.
2). The United States lost considerable prestige by becoming the Paper Tiger that could not even defeat tiny North Korea.
3). The United States sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars because other nations in the United Nations did not want American to fight back in earnest.
4). The United States further conditioned the people to the idea of having future control of America's military forces under the control of the United Nations.
5). For the first time in American military history, the United States was not victorious.1
1951: Tibet was enslaved by Communist China. Disc jockey Alan Freed invents the phrase "rock & roll," which is a forerunner of rock music. Leading rock musician Paul Cantor of the Jefferson Airplane will later be reported saying: "The new rock music is intended to broaden the generation gap, alienate parents from their children, and prepare young people for revolution." Frank Zappa, leader of the rock group Mothers of Invention, would also later say that "the loud sounds and the bright lights of today are tremendous indoctrination tools."
1951/1955: China. Naval units evacuated U.S. Civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.
1952: In 1952 the Jews had become so powerful at influencing Christian thinking into accepting Jewish teachings that they actually bragged about their power within the pages of the American Jewish Yearbook. Where they stated.
"Arrangements have been completed with the National Council of Churches whereby the American Jewish Congress and the Anti‑Defamation League will jointly...aid in the preparation of lesson materials, study guides and visual aids...sponsored by Protestant organizations. You can call these tactics anything you want to. You can even say smear. We prefer to say 'education.'"; "The Jew is not satisfied with de‑Christianizing, he Judasizes, he destroys Catholic or Protestant faith, he provokes indifference, but he imposes his idea of the world, of morals, and of life upon those whose faith he ruins; he works at his age‑old task, the annihilation of the religion of Christ." 2
Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudun is published, in which he writes: "If exposed long enough to the tomtoms and the singing, everyone of our philosophers would end by capering and howling with savages...Assemble a mob of men and women...treat them to amplified band music, bright lights...and in next to no time you can reduce them to a state of almost mindless subhumanity. Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs, or criminals of so many."
1952: April 12: John Foster Dulles (who will later become secretary of state) in a speech before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, says: "Treaty law can override the Constitution...Treaties can take powers away from Congress and given them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."
A map is adopted by the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government which shows how foreign troops would occupy and police the six regions into which the United States and Canada would be divided as part of a world government plan.
1953: East Berliners rise against Communist rule; and is subsequently quelled by Russian tanks, thanks to our American leaders inaction, compliancy and co‑operation. Foundations of the World Republic is written by G.A. Borgese, who was the chief architect of Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution, which was published in 1948 and authored by Robert M. Hutchins, Mortimer Adler, Rexford Tugwell and other notables. That the "progressive" (socialist and humanist) educational philosophy of John Dewey is spread far and wide is discernable from Lawrence Cremin et al's A History of Teachers College Columbia University (1954). Dewey has been perhaps the leading force within Teachers College; and in Cremin's book, one read that; "the single most powerful education force in the world is at 120th Street and Broadway in New York City. Your children's teachers go there for advanced training...With one hundred thousand alumni, TC has managed to seat about one-third of the presidents and deans now (1953) in office at accredited U.S. teacher training schools. Its graduates make up about twenty percent of all our public school teachers. Over a fourth of the superintendents of schools in the one hundred sixty-eight U.S. cities with at least 50,000 population are TC-trained."
1953/1954: Ben Gurion stated: "When a Jew in America or South Africa speaks of 'our Government' to his fellow Jews, he usually means then Government of Israel, while the Jewish public in various countries view Israeli ambassadors as their own representatives." 1
1954: Agents of Israel's Mossad firebombed the U.S. Consulate and other facilities in Egypt. They planned to blame it on the Egyptians and thus drive a wedge between that country and America. One of the terrorists was Phillip Nathanson, who let an incendiary device go off in his pocket. That drew the attention of Egyptian authorities, and the resulting scandal was called the "Lavon Affair." Its political aftermath caused Israel's first Prime Minister (David Ben‑Gurion) to resign.
In Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court decided segregated schools were unconstitutional. The federal legal brigade aiding Brown and NAACP was heavily Jewish. And the result has been unending racial tension, mind boggling costs for bussing students and remedial programs for Blacks, and trillions of hours lost in the education of White children.
1954: February 23: U.S. Senator William Jenner of Indiana refers to the Supreme Court's Missouri v. Holland (1920) ruling regarding treaties, and to the High Court's Pink decision, as he speaks in support of the Bricker amendment which would prevent any treaty from overriding the U.S. Constitution (but the amendment fails to pass by one vote). Senator Jenner then says: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people...We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state...(It has a) foothold within our government, and its own propaganda apparatus...One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some communism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it 'democratic centralism.'...The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government with out your suspecting the change is under way...This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people...by an elegant form of brainwashing...We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like 'democracy' in place of 'representative government'...It conducts tactical retreats but only the more surely to advance its own secret goal...I know...of the Alger Hisses who planned it that way...Dr. Wirt, of my State, told us in 1934 that the plans were all drawn, the timetable established...The revolutionary cabal and its allies...designed the overall strategy. They broke the whole up into precisely measured parts and carefully timed moves, which appeared to be wholly unrelated ...They will use every ally, to prevent the American people from guessing how far the transformation had gone..."
1954: April 5: Rene Wormser, general counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations, writes to former assistant secretary of state and ambassador Spruille Braden concerning the Carnegie Endowment, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Rhodes Scholarship Trust. And on April 10, Braden replies in writing: "I have the very definite feeling that these various foundations you mention very definitely do exercise both overt and covert influences on our foreign relations and that their influences are counter to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded and which have made it great."
The Bilderbergers are established by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, whose wife (Queen Juliana) will be among the first endorses of "Planetary Citizens" in the 1970s. Numerous leading Americans have attended Bilderberger meetings, including Dean Acheson, Christian Herter, Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, George Ball, Henry Kissinger, Gerald Ford, George Bush, Dan Quayle, Lloyd Bentsen, and Bill Clinton.
1956: Encouraged and promised support by the U.S. Government. Heroic Hungarians and Poles struck for their freedom from the Communist rulers. Then with U.S. State Department assurance that America would not intercede, Russian tanks were dispatched to crush the rebellion. Then in 1978, the United States Government, under the orders of then President Jimmy Carter, added insult to injury, and returned the Crown of St. Stephen; given to the American Government for safe keeping when the Communist came to power in Hungary; The Crown was and is Hungary's symbol of sovereignty, to that hated Communist Government. And was directly against the wishes of the Hungarian People.
1956: Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated U.S. nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis. "The non‑Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality." 1
Only Whites are forbidden to "hang" race traitors, protect racial territory, or harbor racial pride. Pride implies prejudice, which is morally wrong ‑‑ or is it? H.S. Mencken2 stated: Because a parasitic lifestyle depends on vulnerable host populations, any resurgence of racial pride and the healthy society that engenders would be dangerous to ZOG. Its web of conspiracies are designed to weaken Whites just as parasitic worms weaken, and eventually kill, sheep. At the same time our children are being shepherded into a kosher Melting Pot.
"What is commonly described as racial or religious prejudice is sometimes only a reasonable prudence. At the bottom of it is nothing more wicked than a desire to prevent dominance by a strange and more or less hostile minority."3
Did he actually say "Heartening News?" If White Americans really favor integration and mongrelization, as "our" media insists we do and "our" (???) government says we must, then how does one explain White Flight? Easy: It is nothing more or less than people voting with their feet. Generation after generation Whites keep running away from the world ZOG is building, but the race is being lost ‑‑ our Race!
1957: The remarks by Israel Cohen (Jew), spokesman for the Communist Party in England in 1912: "We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension...In America, we will aim for a subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will instill in whites a guilt compiled for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk in life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige the Negro will be able to intermarry with the Whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
On November 18, 1957, Mao tse Tung, of China made a notable address in which he presented two theses. The first was the contention that, as he put it: "The east wind is prevailing over the west wind. That is to say, the forces of socialism are over‑whelmingly superior to the forces of imperialism."
Mao's second thesis has become one of the most celebrated facets of the Sino‑Soviet dispute. Mao asserted: "That if the worst came to the worst and half of mankind died the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world should become socialist."
The Externalization of the Hierarchy by occultist Alice Bailey is published posthumously. In this book, she says, "...the new world order must be built...(And) the three main channels through which the preparation for the new age is going on might be regarded as the Church, the Masonic Fraternity and the educational field...In all of these three movements, disciples of the Great Ones are to be found and they are steadily gathering momentum and will before long enter upon their designed task...
The Masonic Movement...will meet the needs of those who can, and should, wield power. It is the custodian of the law; it is the home of the Mysteries and the seat of initiation. It holds in its symbolism the ritual of Deity, and the way of salvation is pictorially preserved in its work. The methods of Deity are demonstrated in its Temples, and under the All-seeing Eye the work can go forward. It is a far more occult organization than can be realized, and is intended to be the training school for the coming advanced occultists. In its ceremonials lies hid the wielding of the forces connected with the growth and life of the kingdoms of nature and the unfoldment of the divine aspects in man. In the comprehension of its symbolism will come the power to cooperate with the divine plan. It meets the need of those who work on the first Ray of Will or Power."
1958: Lebanon. Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of its government to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside.
"We are one people despite the ostensible rifts, cracks, and differences between the American and Soviet democracies. We are one people and it is not in our interests that the West should liberate the East, for in doing this and in liberating the enslaved nations, the West would inevitably deprive Jewry of the Eastern half of its world power." 4
1958: May 5: Time magazine publishes the following comment by the head of Princeton University's Institute of Advanced Studies, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer: "I believe that only a world council of wise men can assure peace on a scientific basis."
1958/1959: Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer wrote two great books, "The Age of Treason" and "Your Health and Sanity." In these two masterpieces, Dr. Clymer quoted from Fitche and the "Impact of Science on Society" by Bertrand Russell and gave other documentation as follows: "When the conspirators get ready to take over the United States they will use fluoridated water and vaccines to change people's attitudes and loyalties and make them docile, apathetic, unconcerned and groggy. According to their own writings and the means they have already confessedly employed, the conspirators have deliberately planned and developed methods to mentally deteriorate, morally debase, and completely enslave the masses.
Vaccinations will be used to produce the beliefs, attitudes, loyalties and kind of character the dictators want. They will prepare vaccines containing drugs that will completely change people. Secret Communist plans for conquering America were adopted in 1914 and published in 1953. These plans called for compulsory vaccination with vaccines containing change agent drugs. They also plan on using disease germs, fluoridation and vaccinations to weaken the people and reduce the population." 1
1959: Cuba. With the connivance of the U.S. State Department and the American News Media. Fidel Castro overthrew the government of Cuba and installed a Communist dictatorship ninety miles from our Southern Coast.
1959: January: The New York Bar Association publishes a paper, "Peace Through Law," by Secretary of State (and World Brotherhood member) John Foster Dulles, in which he declares: "To accomplish peace through law will take patience and perseverance. It will require us at times to provide an example by accepting for ourselves standards of conduct more advanced than those generally accepted...There is no nobler mission (peace through law and world government) that our nation could perform." Is it coincidental that the leaders of the CFR have been nicknamed "Wise Men?"
[1] See IPR Hearings 1951‑51, p. 526.
[2] The American Peoples Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 7‑398.
[3] N.Y. Times, Feb. 23, 1947, p. 25.
[4] Congressional Record June 7, 1949, p. 7356‑7.
[5] At the time of this writing, the names of these following have not been made available. Probably because too many Americans were becoming aware of what was happening.
[6] Congressional Record, March 20, 1967, p. A1386‑89.
[7] Yitshaq Ben-Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory (New York: Speller, 1982), p. 377.
[8] War Office Document 261/562, Public Record Office, London.
[9] Hansard, House of Commons Debates, volume 425, pp. 1877-1878.
[10] R.F. Keeling, "Gruesome Harvest ‑‑ The costly Attempt to exterminate the People of Germany," Chicago 1947, p. 3, 45.
[11] My Life and Work, by Henry Ford.
[12] Chalm Weizmann.
[13] Nahum Goldman, President World Jewish Congress.
[14] United Nations Security Council Official Records, Supplements 1948, Document S/740.
[15] Colonial Office Document 537;3855, Public Record Office, London.
[16] Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948 (New York: New American Library, 1972), p. 181.
[17] Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948, p. 181.
[18] Davar, June 9, 1979.
[19] Red Cross Document #9925, June, 1946.
[20] Dachau: The Hour of the Avenger, Col. Howard A. Buechner, M.C. AUS (Ret.), Thunderbird Press, Inc., 300 Cuddihy Drive, Metairie, Louisiana 70005.
[21] S.C. Sunday Post, July 11, 1954.
[22] See the Soviet statistics published by the Jewish‑edited newspaper New Russian World of N.Y.C., September 30, 1960.
[23] S.E.D. Brown of South Africa, 1979.
[24] The Spotlight, January 18, 1993, p. 21, by P. Samuel Foner.
[25] This article was written when all American press supported the Jewish myth that there are only 5.2 million Jews residing in the States; finally on Jan. 13, 1964, the Jewish‑owned Newsweek Magazine in its article "Only WASHS?" admitted the actual number of American Jews in the following sentences: 'By contrast, Jews make up about 5 percent of the population [in the States] and more than 8 percent of all college graduates.' Which is EXACTLY the SAME percentage which we calculated above.
[26] Philadelphia Inquirer, February 10, 1949.
[27] Dr. John Lukacs, The Last European War, (1976), p. 165.
[28] Quoted from Dr. A.R. Butz, The Hoax, p. 211‑212.
[29] Hitler's War, David Irving, p. xiv.
[30] Hitler's War, David Irving, p. xiv.
[31] See Ezekiel 38.
[32] Revelation 15 and 16.
[33] The Charlotte (NC) Observer.
[34] General Patrick J. Hurley.
[35] The Brooklyn (NY) Tablet.
[36] Captain John G. Crommelin ‑‑ San Franciscoin, Feb. 22, 1950.
1 Daniel 12:8.
2 Revelation 16:12.
1 Romans 15:4.
2 Leviticus 26:3‑4.
3 Leviticus 26:14‑15.
4 Leviticus 26:17.
5 The Unseen Hand, Epperson p. 304
6 The Assassination of Joe McCarthy, Medford Evans, p. 113.
1 Death of James Forestall, Cornell Simpson, p. 5.
2 Death of James Forestall, p. 84.
3 Death of Forestall p. 147.
4 McCarthy the Answer to Tail Gunner Joe, Roy Cohn, p. 9; America's Retreat From Victory, Senator Joseph McCarthy, p. 8‑9; the Unseen Hand, Epperson p. 309.
5 America's Retreat from Victory, McCarthy, p. 37.
6 American Opinion Magazine, January 1973, p. 63.
7 The Unseen Hand Epperson, p. 311.
8 McCarthy and His Enemies, Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. p. 358.
9 Fear of Conspiracy, p. 4.
1 McCarthy, American Opinion, James J. Drummey, p. 8.
2 America's Retreat From Victory, Joseph McCarthy, p. 138.
3 McCarthy, American Opinion, p. 9, as quoted in the Unseen Hand, Epperson, p. 315.
4 Rene Groos, Le Nouveau Mercure, Paris, May, 1927.
5 Jeremiah 11:9.
1 So said the Jew Marcus Eli Ravage, Century Magazine 2/1928.
2 Ba'al #1167 Strong's Concordance.
3 Ezekiel 11:15.
4 Ezekiel 36:2-3.
5 Genesis 36:8.
6 Jewish Encyclopedia.
7 Ezekiel 36:4-5.
1 Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate.
2 Hosea 8:7.
3 Jeremiah 30:7.
1 Psalm 14:2-3.
2 The Bible As History, Werner Keller.
1 The Plot Against The Church, Maurice Pinay.
2 Pawns In The Game, William Carr.
3 History Of The English People.
4 Oliver Cromwell, Frederic Harrison.
1 Ibid., p. 185.
2 The Secret Societies of Ireland, Pollare, p. 47.
3 Secret Societies of Ages and Countries, Heckethorn, Vol. II, p. 203.
4 Pollard, p. 58.
1 Pollard, p. 60.
2 Pollard, p. 67.
3 Slavery in Colonial America, America's Revolutionary Heritage, George Novack, p. 142.
4 The Curse of Cromwell: A History of the Ironside Conquest of Ireland, D.M.R. Esson, 1649‑53, p. 176.
5 D.M.R. Esson, p. 159.
6 Esson, p. 168.
7 Eric Williams, p. 101.
1 Acts Passed in the Island of Barbados, Richard Hall, p. 484.
2 Warren B. Smith, p. 44.
3 White Servitude, Beckles, pp. xiv; 5.
4 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Vol. 5, p. 1,113.
1 Proverbs 22:7.
1 La Nouveau Mercure, Paris 1917, Rene Groos.
2 William Carr, Pawns In The Game.
1 Isaiah 5:13-20.
2 Galatians 5:1.
3 David Horowitz, in Human Events.
1 The Jews, Hilaire Belloc.
2 Tertullian De. Fidei, p. 179.
3 De Demonstratione Evangelii, Lib. 111.
4 Romans 16:10.
5 Synopsis de Apostol. Synops 23 Aristobulus.
6 De Excidio Britanniae, Sec. 8, p. 25.
7 Spelman, Concelilia, p. 5.
8 De Antiquitate Glastoniae Chapter 1.
1 Cottonian M.S. and Usher, Antiquities, p. 12.
2 Lib. 1I.
1 Alexander Homes, Aaron Burr, The Proud Pretender, Harper & Bros. New York 1937.
2 Count Gallatin, The Diary of James Gallatin, Charles Schribner's Sons, New York 1919.
1 Andrew Young, The American Statesman: A Political History, N.C. Miller, New York 1862; Fifty Years In the Church of Rome.
2 The Malvinas Islands were recently the object of England's war against Argentina to regain them. If you will remember, there wasn't very much complaint from the current oligarchy over that venture. And the U.S. sent no troops to protect Argentina's interests!
1 Calvin Colton, The Life & Times of Henry Clay, A.S. Barnes & Co., New York 1923.
2 The recent working up of the American people into a frenzy against Iraq, who was never a threat to the security of the United States. It was only a threat to the plans of the New World Order.
1 Claude M. Fuess, The Life of Caleb Cushing, Harcourt, Brace & Co. New York 1923.
2 The Life of Caleb Cushing, by Claude M. Fuess.
1 Samuel Flagg Bemis, The Latin American Policy of the U.S.: An Historical Interpretation, Harcourt, Brace & Co. New York 1943.
2 John L Thomas, The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison, A Biography, Little, Brown & Co. Boston 1963.
1 Francis Neilson, The Makers of War, C.C. Nelson Publishing Co., Appleton, Wisconsin, p. 51.
2 Francis Neilson, The Makers of War, p. 52.
1 Francis Neilson, The Makers of War, pp. 53-54.
2 The Makers of War, p. 55.
3 The Makers of War, p. 56.
1 The Makers of War, p. 57.
2 The Makers of War, p. 58.
1 The Makers of War, p. 92.
1 The Makers of War, p. 92.
1 Circular issued by the Patriotic Society of National German Jews; The Makers of War, p. 94.
2 The German Foreign Office Statement, February 3, 1933.
3 The Makers of War, p. 98.
1 Enoch 30:12‑14.
1 Ezekiel 28:5-8.
1 Living Truth Ministries, 1708 Patterson Road, Austin, Texas 78733.
2 1 Kings 4:25.
1 Isaiah 3:4-6, 12.
1 Matthew 22:39.
1 Isaiah 58:6.
2 Psalm 120:5‑7.
1 Former New York City Mayor John Haylan speaking in Chicago and quoted in the March 27, 1927 New York Times.
1 Mikhail Gorbachev, October 1989.
1 Acts 5:17‑29.
1 "Jesus Film Stirs Hotel Row," Jerusalem Post, International ed., Oct. 16-22, 1983, p. 5.
2 "Friendly 'Strangers' in Our Midst," Jerusalem Post, International Ed., May 25, 1991, p. 2.
1 According to the Jewish religion, the obligation to follow the rules and laws of a gentile government is limited to some extent. For example, the customs and currency regulations of such government need not be followed by pious Jews in all cases. On the other hand, the regulations of a government in which pious Jews have a predominant influence, even if it contains also some gentiles, have to be strictly obeyed.
2 By special permission of the U.S. administrations which is not often mentioned in the U.S. for reasons clarified in this article, American Jews can volunteer to serve in the Israeli army and some of them often do so, especially during Israeli wars. The number of U.S. Jews who rushed to volunteer in the Israeli army during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and who helped it to besiege Beirut was quite big, but since the Israeli censorship banned any mention of them, they were 'invisible' to the U.S. media. No other army enjoys a similar privilege. The service of the U.S. Jews in the Israeli army is not supposed to include combat duties, but only such things as helping to repair tanks. Some of it certainly takes place in the territories, including the Golan Heights. And you will never see Jews rush to join the American army when it goes to war.
1 Assassination of McCarthy, Medford Evans, p. 53.
1 Revelation 16:12.
2 American Opinion, December, 1980, p. 35.
3 Tragedy and Hope, by Caroll Quigley, p. 972.
4 The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur, by Frazier Hunt, p. 447.
5 Reminiscences, Douglas MacArthur, pp. 373‑374.
6 What's Wrong With the United Nations, by Reed Benson and Robert Lee, in Review of the News, September 9, 1970, p. 9.
1 American Opinion, December, 1980, p. 36.
2 The Fearful Master, by G. Edward Griffin, p. 174.
3 The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur, by Frazier Hunt, p. 459.
4 Reminiscences, p. 408.
5 The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur, p. 459.
6 The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur, p. 459.
7 The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur, p. 459.
8 The Fearful Master, p. 176.
1 The Fearful Master, p. 176.
2 The Fearful Master, p. 177.
3 The Fearful Master, p. 172.
4 Reminiscences, p. 419.
5 Reminiscences, p. 415.
6 Reminiscences, p. 426.
7 Reminiscences, p. 426.
8 Reminiscences, p. 423.
9 The Forgotten War in Korea, by William P. Hoar, American Opinion, November, 1977, p. 18.
10 The Forgotten War in Korea, p. 18.
1 Quoted as it appeared in The Unseen Hand, Epperson, p. 322.
2 Bernard Lazare, L'Antisemitisme, p. 350.
1 Israel Government Yearbook, 1953‑54, p. 35.
1 Ben Wattenberg, Jewish "philosopher," in "The Good News, the Bad News, etc." page 84.
2 American writer 1880‑1956.
3 Minority Report, H.L. Mencken's notebooks.
4 Chaim Weismann, World Conquerors, p. 227, by Louis Marschalko, Joseph Sueli publishers, London, 1958.
1 Boston Globe January 2, 1976.
