A Recent lookback at America’s Robber Barons

America’s New Robber Barons

By Eustace Mullins

To make money in the stock market, you need to use the same tools which the big operators use; that is, capital, and information. The amount of capital which you can lay your hands on may be limited. It is for most people. But the amount of information you can obtain, may be limited only by your desire to get the facts, and your willingness to reject previous misconceptions or misinformation. Then you may begin to understand what is going on in the market.

You must first recognize that fundamental changes have been taking place in our capital structure, and in money-making properties. For more than a century, the American tradition had it that to achieve great wealth, you must have the good fortune to strike it rich with a gold mine, to strike oil, or to own your own bank. In the past decade, we have witnessed the amazing phenomena of millionaires, and even billionaires, who owned vast wealth in the form of gold mines, oil wells, or banks, and who suddenly were declaring bankruptcy. What was happening to the American dream ? The answer is that capitalization, or debt structure, was now overcoming capital assets. The cash flow, even from a gold mine, an oil well or bank, was no longer sufficient to pay interest charges, much less to handle the payment of the principal of the debt structure.

This dilemma was not inevitable, nor did it arise from optimism, or overoptimism, the courage to take risks which made America the most productive and the wealthiest nation in the world. The debt structure vs. capital assets dilemma was deliberately created by a small group of capital managers, or financiers, who cleverly used their phalanx of money-creating central banks to overcome rival groups and rival nations. This situation directly affects stock transaction which takes place on the world exchanges. Your problem now is how do I translate this debt structure — capital assets conflict into profitable transactions for myself ? The basic problem is similar to that of a poker game — how do you find out what cards the other fellow is holding ? Despite the great secrecy which shrouds major financial transactions, almost every financial move is telegraphed in some way, due to the continuing and growing concentration of financial power in a few hands. Today, a shadowy (but not unknown) financial network achieves its goals through relatively few participants. In some thirty-five years of research, I have narrowed these participants down to the major players. They not only bring tremendous pressure on the exchanges through their power to buy or sell enormous blocks of stock, but they also exercise a daily effect on the prices and daily volume of the exchanges through their control of the faucets, the turning on or off of the moneycreating flow of the central or pseudogovernment banks.

Here again, there are always some indicators of major moves in either direction, although the exact decisions remain the secret of the major players. The tremendous power exercised by these creators dwarfs the power earlier exercised by such stock market plungers as Bet A Million Gates, bank pioneers such as George F. Baker of First National Bank (now Citibank), or oil magnates such as the late H.L. Hunt. The 42-year-old heir of the Hunt empire, Ray Hunt, recently told Fortune (July 8, 1985): “We’ll never go back to the good old days of the oil industry.” It is not only the good old days of the oil industry, but also the empire building days of the Vanderbilts in railroads, Carnegie in steel, or Baker in finance, which have disappeared. They have been transmuted into new types of financial operations, such as mergers, leveraged buyouts, and other forms of takeovers. Here again, the major players either originate these operations, or they move in and take them over at crucial moments.

Yet we rarely are told the exact identities of the major players. The financial papers such as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes write about the “raiders,” the modern financial buccaneers who supposedly loom out of the fog as lone wolf operators and seize control of major corporations. The financial reporters don’t tell us that when the Belzbergs buy control of the Scovill Corp., they are merely acting as agents of the Rothschilds, or that the Bronfmans, in buying a large share of DuPont, are also merely carrying out the instructions of the Rothschilds from London.

Forbes recently identified Seagrams of Canada as the No. 1 foreign investor in the United States. It wholly owns the $2.4 billion Joseph Seagrams and Sons of New York, and 23% of the $14 billion DuPont Corp. And Seagrams of Canada is wholly controlled by the Bronfman family. Right ? Wrong. The Bronfmans own large blocks of stock in Seagrams (US News recently gushed that Edgar Bronfman may be the most powerful man in America), but the Seagram empire is controlled by the law firm of Vineberg and Phillips through Trizec Corp., which in turn is controlled by Eagle Star Holdings PLC of London. And who controls Eagle Star ? Evelyn de Rothschild.

When Seagrams faced a 30% drop in volume, due to the dwindling market for hard liquor in the United States, who guided the firm into Conoco, and then masterminded the purchase of Conoco by DuPont ? If you suppose that Edgar Bronfman anticipated all this, and worked to bring it about, then you don’t know who really makes the big decisions. Seagrams’ stake in DuPont is currently worth $3.2 billion, or 80% of Seagrams net worth. In 1984, DuPont profits were 73% of Seagrams’ earnings.

The second largest foreign investor in the U.S., again according to Forbes 1985 listings, is Anglo-American Corp. In 1985, it owned 21% of Philbro-Salomon, and 29% of Engelhard Corp. Anglo-American is the gold mining arm of the world diamond trust, DeBeers, which is owned by the Oppenheimer and the Rothschild families. The principal director of DeBeers, again, is Evelyn de Rothschild.

Forbes lists the largest foreign owned corporation in the world as Royal Dutch Shell. Formerly controlled by the Samuel family, it is now another Rothschild property, controlled through their subsidiary, Shell Transport & Trading Co.

The fourth largest foreign investor in the U.S. is British Petroleum, which owns Standard Oil of Ohio, and British Petroleum of North America. One of the directors of British Petroleum is Sir Alastair Pilkington, who is also a director of the Bank of England.

The sixth largest foreign investor in the U.S. is B.A.T. Industries, a $12.9 billion a year operation which was formerly known as British-American Tobacco Corp. BAT owns 100% of BAT US, 100% of Peoples Drug Stores, Hardee’s Fast Foods, and Eagle Star Insurance, the Rothschild holding company, which controls the Bronfman empire. Sir Jasper Hollom, who has been a director of the Bank of England since 1936, is a director of BAT; also on the board of BAT is Sir Denis Mountain, who is chairman of Eagle Star Insurance, and Eagle Star Holdings, a principal Rothschild holding company. Another director of BAT is Sir Michael Palliser, who married the daughter of Paul Henri Spaak, former director general of the United Nations. Sir Michael was a career officer with the British Foreign Office, being named head of planning in 1946. He served with the Foreign Office from 1946 to 1964 as Minister to Paris, and Minister to Brussels, the two leading headquarters on the Continent of the Rothschild operations. Sir Michael is now chairman of the influential think tank, the Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He is also vice chairman of the oldest merchant bank in London, Samuel Montagu & Co., and interlocks with other Rothschild interests as director of Eagle Star, and Shell Transport & Trading Co.

Going on down the list, we find the 76th largest foreign investor in the U.S., is Olympia & York Co., which has been buying up large sections of Manhattan. Olympia & York has acquired the Rouse Co., a large developer; Trizec Corp. which controls the Seagram empire; and Abitibi-Price, a billion dollar producer of newsprint. Olympia & York is supposedly controlled by the well-publicized Reichmann brothers, Albert, Paul and Ralph, but here again, we have the paper “cutouts” for the real owners, the Rothschild family.

Far-reaching consequences are indicated by the foreign takeover of a number of large American supermarket chains. This could be crucial in view of projected food shortages around the end of this century. General Occidentale now owns 100% of Grand Union stores, as well as 25% of Crown Zellenbach. The Wall Street Journal will tell you that General Occidental is Sir James Goldsmith, but will neglect to tell you that Sir James was until recently one of the six partners of Banque Rothschild of Paris. He also owns Caveham Foods. The popular British TV series, “To the Manor Born,” featured a foreigner who had taken the name of Sir Richard de Vere, and who owned a large supermarket chain, Cavendish Foods. The character was a direct takeoff on Sir James Goldsmith and Cavenham Foods.

The Brussels firm, Delhaize de Lion, is now the 32nd largest foreign investor in the U.S. It owns the Food Giant and the Food Lion chain of supermarkets. The German firm, Tengelmann Group, has purchased 52% of A & P Stores. One of the directors of A & P is Barbara Haupthfuhrer. She is a trustee of the Markle Foundation, which interlocks with the Carnegie Corp., the German Marshall Fund, and the American Council on Germany. The last two groups exercise total control over the militarily occupied nation of West Germany.

During the past one hundred and fifty years, the Rothschild fortunes have been centered in the Bank of England, and four family controlled firms, Sun Alliance Assurance, Rio Tinto, DeBeers, and Eagle Star. Rio Tinto is the 41st largest foreign investor in the U.S., owning 100% of U.S. Borax and 100% of Indal U.S. It also has holdings in other U.S. companies. The Rothschilds also control Copperweld, Federal Express, and other U.S. firms. In the Forbes list of the 500 largest foreign corporations Sun Alliance Assurance is 332nd; Banque Bruxelles Lambert, the Belgian branch of the Rothschild bank, is 431st; and another family holding, Societe Generale de Banque, is number 224th.

A gentleman recently called me from Dallas, and said, “I always knew that the stock market is controlled, but until I read your books, I did not realize how absolute the control really is.” Of course, control, to be effective, must be absolute, or as absolute as possible. This is why the financiers must control all political parties, not merely the majority party. Realizing the extent of this control does not mean that you are helpless. On the contrary, you can turn it to your advantage. Knowing who exercises control and why can be a potent weapon in your hands. However, you must know who is actually in charge. You cannot be deceived by the pathetic stooges, the flotsam and jetsam dredged up by the financiers from the lowest elements of the population, and who ostensibly exercise control for the benefit of the real powers. Only children believe that clowns are the most important part of the circus.

Certainly it is better to know than not to know. You can read all the major financial journals for years, and you will not get the information which is being presented here. With this information you can decide where the market is going, plan your strategy. Ask yourself why stock prices, metals, and food prices have been held down at ruinous levels for the past quarter of a century. Economist William H. Meckling of the University of Rochester was quoted on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 20, 1985, as pointing out that the Dow Jones averages, to accurately reflect inflationary trends and monetary developments, should have reached 5600 on Jan. 1, 1983, instead of the actual 1047. He observes that in the eighteen year period from Dec. 1964 to Dec. 1982, the real value of Dow Jones stocks fell by 62%. Obviously, it is to someone’s advantage that stocks should be hovering in the 1300 range today, instead of selling at their true value of 5600. By keeping these prices depressed, the major players have forced out much of the stockbuying and stockholding public. They are now executing mergers and buyouts to grab these underpriced stocks for themselves. The leveraged buyouts also play into the hands of the financiers because they suddenly convert a debt-free corporation into one which is mortgaged to the full value of its holdings, and which is committed to paying heavy interest on its new loans.

Texaco borrowed $4 billion from a consortium of banks, Barclays, Chase Manhattan, Lloyds, Manufacturers Hanover, Midland Bank, and National Westminster Bank, to purchase Getty Oil. Norfolk Southern borrowed $1.3 billion from Morgan Guaranty Trust to buy Conrail; Nestle borrowed $2.5 billion from Citibank to buy Carnation. By creating these huge new debts, which take priority payment from the earnings of these firms, the banks can pay their way out of the dilemma of their disastrous Third World loans.

In the financing of these mergers, we find the new leaders of Wall Street. For almost a century, Wall Street was dominated by two Rothschild representatives. Although J.P. Morgan Co. is still going strong, Kuhn, Loeb Co., as well as Lehman Brothers, have been combined into a new operation, known as SLAM, or Shearson Lehman American Express. It is closely linked with First Boston Corp. in handling many of the large mergers. A double page spread in the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 15, 1985, hails First Boston Corp. for “Leadership in Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures.” The advertisement cites twelve recent mergers involving large firms, including Dunlop Tire, Revco, Cowles Media, Gulf, Allied Corp., Sara Lee, and Castle & Cooke.

The co-chairmen of First Boston are Pedro Paul Kuczynski and Yve Andre Istel. Kuczynski was born in Lima, Peru in 1938; his mother was a Godard. He was educated at Oxford, Cambridge, and Princeton. He served with the World Bank from 1961-67 and was named senior economist there 1971-73. He was with the Banco de Venezuela and the Central Bank of Peru from 1957-69, and with the International Monetary Fund in Washington from 1969-71. He joined Kuhn, Loeb Co. in 1975, staying until 1977. He became president of Halco Mining Co. in 1977, a Pittsburgh aluminum firm doing $277 million a year. Kuczynski was Minister of Energy of Peru from 1980-82. He joined First Boston in 1982. Richard Mellon Scaife, scion of the Mellon fortune, is a director of First Boston.

Kuczynski’s co-chairman at First Boston, Yve Andre Istel, also came from Kuhn Loeb Co. Born in Paris, he worked for his family banking house, Andre Istel and Co. of Paris and New York. He married Nancy Lazarus, and later joined Kuhn, Loeb Co. He is now manager of Shearson Lehman American Express. His brother Jacques Istel, is manager of Andre Istel & Co., and director of the Dreyfus Fund of New York.

SLAM, or Shearson Lehman, is actually the continuation of the old Kuhn, Loeb Co., which was set up by Jacob Schiff as the secret American representative of the Rothschild family. Schiff had been born in the Rothschild house on Judengasse in the Frankfurt ghetto.

The present directors of Shearson Lehman include Peter Cohen, president; George Sheinberg, director, who is also chairman of American Express Credit Corp., and director of Warner-Amex Cable, Franks Broadcasting System; ex-President Gerald Ford; Kenneth J. Bialkin, of the law firm of Willkie, Farr and Gallagher, director of Gulf, E.M. Warburg Pincus, and Municipal Assistance Corporation of New York, which bailed the city out of bankruptcy; Howard L. Clark, Jr., exec., v.p. American Express, director Magic Chef, and Palm Beach Co.; Roger S. Berlind, chairman Berlind Production Co., Financial News Network, and Etz Lavud Inc., an Israeli firm; and James S. Robinson III, chairman of American Express, director of Union Pacific Railroad (the Harriman family company), Coca Cola, and Bristol Myers Co.

American Express, a $9.77 billion a year operation, is in a very profitable business, the business of printing and circulating money. It is mind-boggling to think how many billions of dollars worth of American Express travelers checks are printed and sold each year. Judging from the volume of its television advertising it finds it worthwhile. Directors of American Express include the chairman, James D. Robinson III, mentioned above; ex-president Gerald R. Ford, who is also director of a large defense contractor, G.K. Technologies; Anne Armstrong, former Ambassador to England, chairman of the Reagan-Bush campaign, and director of the Texan axis of the Rothschild fortune, First City Bancorporation. She is also a trustee of the Atlantic Council, Guggenheim Foundation, Hoover Institution, and the Council on Foreign Relations; Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford, now partners with Lord Carrington of England in a public relations firm (Lord Carrington is related by marriage to the Rothschilds).

Kissinger is also a director of Chase Manhattan Bank, trustee of Aspen Institute and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; his brother Walter, also a refugee from Germany, is director of Manufacturers Hanover, another of the Rothschild banks, and the National Council on U.S.-China Trade; Joseph H. Williams, chairman of the Williams Companies, a $2.17 billion a year oil operation, director of American Petroleum Institute, and Peabody Coal Co.; Martha Wallace, management consultant, member Trilateral Commission, chairman Rhodes Scholar Selection Committee, American Council of Germany (which rules West Germany in the name of the financiers), and the Japan Society. She formerly was with RCA, Time, Fortune, and the Henry Luce Foundation, now director Chemical Bank NY, Bristol Myers, New York Stock Exchange, New York Telephone, National Council on U.S.-China Trade, British North American Committee, and International House; Rawleigh Warner, chairman of Mobil Corp., director of AT & T, Chemical Bank and Signal Co. (a $6.67 billion company which interlocks with Rothschild interests in Texas and Rothschild interests in Canada through another director, Philip Beckman, president of Seagrams); Robert V. Roosa, partner of Brown Bros. Harriman, chairman of Brookings Institution, Trilateral Commission, director Texaco; Peter Cohen, president Shearson Lehman Bros.; Charles W. Duncan, Chairman Coca Cola Europe, director United Technologies, former deputy Secretary of Defense, 1977-79, Secretary of Energy, 1979-81; Richard M. Furlaud, chairman Squibb Pharmaceutical, director of Olin, a munitions firm, trustee Rockefeller University; Magnus Bohm; David Culver, president Alcan, director of Seagrams, Canadair, and American Cyanamid.

Through Seagrams, Culver interlocks with the giant Rothschild complex, Eagle Star Holdings PLC, which controls their Canadian and American operations; Robert Genillard, chairman of Thyssen-Bornemitza, the giant European holding company formed from the former Thyssen Steel complex of Germany, also director Corning Glass and Swiss Aluminum; Fred Kirby, the Woolworth heir who is chairman of the Alleghany Corp.; and Archie McCardell, director of Honeywell, General Foods, and Harris Bancorp.

The presence of such well known political figures as Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger illustrates the fact that what we know as Big Business is inextricably linked with the wielding of total political power in America. The Central Intelligence Agency, known to its employees as The Company, and to those familiar with its operations as “The Central Investment Agency,” is headed by William Casey, who made a fortune while working with Leo Cherne at the Research Institute of America. Cherne has long been associated with such leftwing institutions as the New School for Social Research in New York. He was chairman of the board of Freedom House from 1946-75. As head of the CIA, Casey has devoted much of his time to managing his extensive stock portfolio. He was recently involved with one of his wartime OSS pals, Joe Rosenbaum, in a huge Mideast pipeline deal.

It is not coincidental that political power and international finance go hand in hand. All economic problems are eventually solved by the barrel of a gun. Money cannot own anything; it can only serve as the medium by which to transfer ownership. In the history of mankind, property has been transferred by the power of the gun perhaps as often as by any other technique. This is the unspoken reason for the frantic struggle to enact gun control legislation in the United States. As long as American citizens possess some 200,000,000 guns, the financiers have to put on hold their five thousand year old dream of seeing all of the world’s wealth fall into the hands of a small group of parasites.

The previously cited economist, William H. Meckling, has proposed that Congress and the state legislatures be abolished, and that all statutes be put to public referendum. This “revolutionary” solution would return the world to the pure Greek democracy of some five thousand years ago. It would also destroy the program of the parasites. Meckling’s proposal to abolish Congress is somewhat redundant, because the Congress of the United States has had no independent existence since 1945. It has been a rubber stamp Duma for the international financiers, and it has routinely enacted into law the most vicious acts against the interests of the American people. The state legislatures have served as a rubber stamp for the financial interests since the Council of State Governments was set up by the Rockefellers in the mid-1930s. Nevertheless, the American colony, although still under complete control, shows unmistakable signs of unrest, because of the ruthless war which has been waged against it since 1945 by the subversive interests.

A gun is being held to the heads of the American people. Their reaction must take place before they are completely overwhelmed by the vast number of aliens whom the parasites are importing into the U.S. to carry out their final solution. The parasites intend that these aliens shall make up 80% of the American population before the year 2000. This will insulate the parasites against any possible reaction from the outraged American people. An investment program must reflect these political developments that will offer higher taxes and inflation in the immediate future.

Who Owns The TV Networks ?

Exclusive Report by Eustace Mullins

Many observers have noticed the striking similarity of the programs offered to the public by the three “independent” television networks. For the first time, we present a detailed study of the directors of the three networks, revealing their interlocking banking and industrial connections, indicating that, instead of three major networks, we actually have only one.

NBC, a subsidiary of RCA, has the following directors:

John Brademas, president of New York University, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (which dominates the other Federal Reserve Banks by its control of the money market), and director of the Rockefeller Foundation. Brademas has received the George Peabody Award (George Peabody established the Peabody Educational Fund which later became the Rockefeller Foundation), and he was named Humanist of the Year in 1978.

Cecily B. Selby, born in London England, national director of the Girl Scouts, director of Avon Products and Loehmann’s, a dress firm. She is married to James Coles, president of Bowdoin College since 1952.

Peter G. Peterson, former head of Kuhn, Loeb Co., and ex-Secretary of Commerce.

Robert Cizik, chairman of Cooper Industries (sales of $1.5 billion), and director of RCA and First City Bancorp. First City was identified in Congressional testimony as one of the three Rothschild banks in the United States.

Thomas O. Paine, president of Northrup Co., a large defense contractor. Paine is a director of the influential Institute of Strategic Studies in London, director of the Institute of Metals, London, American Ordnance Assn., and many other professional munitions associations.

Donald Smiley, chairman R.H. Macy Co. since 1945; he is also a director of Metropolitan Life and U.S. Steel, known as Morgan-controlled firms, and director of Ralston-Purina Co., and Irving Trust.

David C. Jones, president of Consolidated Contractors, director of U.S. Steel, Kemper Insurance Co.

Thornton Bradshaw, chairman of RCA, director of Champion Paper Co., Atlantic Richfield Oil Co., Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies.

Although not listed as a director of NBC, Andrew Sigler is a director of its parent company, RCA. Sigler is chairman of Champion Paper Co., and director of General Electric, Bristol Myers, and Cabot Corp. (which traditionally has had heavy CIA involvement).

Thus we find that NBC has many Rothschild and J.P. Morgan connections among its directors, who include the chairman of the key to our monetary control, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other directors associated with such Rothschild operations as Kuhn, Loeb Co., First City Bancorp, and the Institute of Strategic Studies in London.

ABC-TV includes among its directors not one, but two, directors of J.P. Morgan Co.: Ray Adam, director of Metropolitan Life, Cities Service, Morgan Guaranty Trust, and chairman of the $2 billion NL Industries a petroleum field service concern; and Frank Cary, chairman of IBM, director of Merck, J.P. Morgan Co., Morgan Guaranty Trust, and Merck Drugs. Chairman of ABC is Leonard Goldenson who is a director of Allied Stores, and the Advertising Council, and Bankers Trust. Other directors are Donald C. Cook, general partner of Lazard Freres banking house, director of General Dynamics, and Amerada Hess; Leon Hess, chairman of Amerada Hess; John T. Connor, of the Kuhn Loeb law firm, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, who was former Asst. Secretary of the Navy, president of Merck Drugs, U.S. Secretary of Commerce 1965-67, chairman of Allied Chemical from 1969-79, director Chase Manhattan Bank, General Motors, Warner Lambert, and chairman of J. Henry Schroder Bank, and Schroders Inc. of London; Jack Hausman, vice chairman of Belden-Heminway, a large goods manufacturer which was founded by Samuel Hausman of Austria; Thomas M. Macioce, chairman of Allied Stores, director of Penn Central and Manufacturers Hanover Trust, one of the Rothschild banks in the United States; George P. Jenkins, chairman of Metropolitan Life (a J.P. Morgan firm), director of Citibank, which has many Rothschild connections, St. Regis Paper, Bethlehem Steel, and W.R. Grace Co.; Martin J. Schwab, chairman of United Manufacturers, and director of Manufacturers Hanover, a Rothschild bank; Norma T. Pace, who is also director of Sears Roebuck, Sperry, 3M and Vulcan; Alan Greenspan, consultant to the Federal Reserve Board, director of J.P. Morgan, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Hoover Institution, Time and General Foods; Ulric Haynes Jr., director of the Ford Foundation, Marine Midland Bank (which is owned by the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank), Cummins Engine Co., and the Association of Black Ambassadors.

Thus we see many J.P. Morgan and Rothschild associations among the directors of ABC which was recently purchased by Capital Cities Communications Co., whose chairman is Thomas S. Murphy. He is a director of Texaco, whose most prominent director is Robert Roosa, senior partner of Brown Bros. Harriman, a firm with close tics to the Bank of England. Roosa headed the “Roosa Brain Trust” at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which produced Paul Volcker. Roosa and David Rockefeller were credited with selecting Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. John McKinley, chairman of Texaco, is director of Manufacturers Hanover Bank and Manufacturers Hanover Trust, identified as Rothschild controlled in Congressional testimony. Other directors of Texaco are the Earl of Granard; Willard C. Butcher, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank; and Thomas Aquinas Vanderslice, who is chairman of the electronics firm GTE, and a former Fulbright Scholar who is now trustee of the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies.

Of the three major networks, CBS is the pillar of the “Establishment.” Its financial expansion for years was directed by Brown Bros. Harriman, whose senior partner, Prescott Bush, was a longtime director of CBS. (His son, George, is now Vice-President of the U.S.) When General Westmoreland sought to recover damages from CBS for a vicious personal assault on his reputation, Westmoreland seemed certain to win a stunning victory, until CBS brought in former CIA officials who testified that Westmoreland’s claims had no basis. George Bush was formerly head of the CIA. Westmoreland surrendered, and withdrew his suit.

Ted Turner’s expressed intention of buying control of CBS was applauded by millions of patriotic Americans, who had endured its vicious assaults on decent Americans with no means of protest. However, Turner’s campaign was viewed in London as a direct attack on the power of the Bank of England and its American subsidiary, Brown Bros. Harriman. Turner was finally deterred from his goal by a clever maneuver which diverted him into purchasing MGM-United Artists, one of whose directors is Alexander Haig, former White House intimate and Secretary of State, later chairman of United Technologies. Turner believed he was buying MGM’s extensive library of films for his WTBS channel, but the Wall Street Journal later chortled that he had been tricked, and that most of the film library had been sold before he negotiated for MGM. To finance his purchase of MGM-United Artists, Turner intended to borrow $1.5 billion through Drexel Burnham Lambert, the American branch of Banque Bruxelles Lambert, the Belgian branch of the Rothschild operations.

CBS is a $4.5 billion a year operation, which banks through the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. William S. Paley, heir to a cigar fortune, has been chairman of CBS for many years. To those who do not know of CBS’s many CIA and British Intelligence connections, he is supposed to run it as a one-man operation.

Directors of CBS are Harold Brown, who was Secretary of the Air Force from 1963-69, Secretary of Defense from 1977-81, and is now executive director of the Trilateral Commission;

Roswell Gilpatric, who has been with the Kuhn Loeb law firm of Cravath Swaine and Moore since 1931, and served as director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1973-76;

Henry B. Schacht, chairman Cummins Engine Co., director of AT&T, Chase Manhattan Bank, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, and Committee for Economic Development;

Michael C. Bergerac, chairman Revlon, director Manufacturers Hanover;

James D. Wolfensohn, former head of J. Henry Schroder Bank; Franklon A. Thomas, head of the Ford Foundation;

Walter Cronkite;

Newton D. Minow, director of Rand Corp., Pan American, Foote Cone & Belding;

Marietta Tree, director of Winston Churchill Foundation, Ditchley Foundation, U.S. Trust, and Salomon Bros. She is a granddaughter of Endicott Peabody, founder of Groton, which trains America’s elite. She married Ronald Tree, a high official of British intelligence, and godson of Marshall Field. She and her husband gave an ancestral estate, Ditchley Park, to the Ditchley Foundation. Located near Cambridge, it was W. Averell Harriman’s headquarters during World War II when he coordinated the partnership of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, who actively disliked and distrusted each other. They usually checked with Harriman before agreeing to any action. The Ditchley Foundation serves as a conduit for instructions to many American groups from the Tavistock Institute, an arm of the British Army Institute for Psychological Warfare. Marietta Tree’s career gave rise to the term “beautiful people,” to describe members of a glittering international set that represented the operations of the World Order. She began working for Nelson Rockefeller in 1942, and later served as Ambassador to the United Nations.

One victim of the CIA-British Intelligence operations at CBS was Roger Mudd, generally considered the brightest star among television reporters. A direct descendant of Dr. Samuel Mudd, who spent years as a political prisoner after the Civil War, Roger Mudd had a brilliant 19 year career at CBS, but was passed over as successor to Walter Cronkite in favor of Dan Rather. The excuse was that he was not “vicious enough,” but the real reason was that he had “sand-bagged his chances” (according to the Wall Street Journal), in 1980 when he conducted a revealing interview with Teddy Kennedy which destroyed Kennedy’s chances of being elected President.

Because of continuous Tavistock Institute – British Army Institute of Psychological Warfare control over the major television networks in the United States, ABC, CBS, and NBC present many programs heavily slanted in favor of psychiatry. They also emphasize the current “liberal” preoccupation with racial integration, crippled persons (who represent less of a threat to the mewling parasites), sports programs, and jiggle shows (also known in the trade as “t and a shows”).

Although the three networks are supposedly in bloodthirsty competition with each other, viewing of the daily evening news programs reveals that each of the competing networks shows exactly the same items of news each evening, usually in the same order. Almost all of the “news” stories are propaganda items intended to further current World Order goals. The only variations permitted in the iron control over network TV news is the final item, which is a “human interest” story. It usually praises a child who has collected considerable sums of money for UNICEF, or some other World Order operation.

For many months, the three “independent” networks have emphasized a hate campaign against South Africa on their evening news presentations. One could hardly believe that they are attempting to “conquer” South Africa for the World Order, because the Rothschilds and Oppenheimers won control of the rich South African gold and diamond fields in the Boer War of 1899. Today, DeBeers, the diamond monopoly, is operated by Oppenheimer and the Rothschilds, as is the gold mining, exemplified by their ownership of the giant Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, Ltd. Apparently, the parasites would like to exterminate the Boer population of South Africa, which has lived there for three centuries, and replace it entirely with black workers. Some observers might call this “genocide.” Each evening, the three networks outdo each other in their campaign of vilification of the white citizens of South Africa. The rioting and looting committed by the blacks, as well as the vicious murders of their fellow blacks, are glossed over by the news reports as inevitable results of “white oppression.” As usual, there is a more immediate benefit gained from this continuous propaganda barrage. The Rothschilds have profited enormously from currency speculations in the rand, i.e. the South African dollar. In a few months, they were able to drive the rand down from a value of $1.35, to thirty-five cents, selling short all the way. On September 2, 1985, they ran it back up to a full ten cents, from thirty-five to forty-five cents. This might seem small change to non-investors, but it has paid off handsomely for the speculators. The fact that the network hate campaign continues unabated suggests that there is still plenty of money to be made in the rand.

On July 31, 1985, the Chase Manhattan Bank announced it would not renew any loans to South Africa. Businessweek, Aug. 12, 1985, reported that this threw South African business into a panic. The bankers then demanded that South Africa give blacks the vote. Gavin Relly, chairman of the giant Oppenheimer-Rothschild conglomerate, Anglo-American Carp., tried to force Botha’s government to acceded to these demands. Botha refused. Relly then went to Zambia to negotiate with the Communist-dominated African National Congress, preparatory to turning South Africa over to them.

The similarity of the major networks evening “news” programs has given rise to a report that, each day, a list of ten or twelve “acceptable” news stories is prepared by British Intelligence in London for the networks, teletyped to Washington, where the CIA routinely approves it, and then delivered to the networks. The “selectivity” of the broadcasters has never been in doubt. Edith Efron, in “The News Twisters,” (Manor Books, N.Y., 1972) cites TV Guide’s interview with David Brinkley, April 11, 1964, with Brinkley’s declaration that “News is what I say it is. It’s something worth knowing by my standards.” This was merely vainglorious boasting on Brinkley’s part, as he merely reads the news stories previously selected for him.

Efron concludes this important book, which was refused by all the major New York publishers, as follows:

The networks actively slanted their opinion coverage against U.S. policy on the Vietnam war.

The networks actively slanted their opinion coverage in favor of the black militants and against U.S. policy on the Vietnam war.

The networks largely avoided the issue of violent radicals.

The networks actively favored the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, for President over his Republican opponent, Richard Nixon.

Efron could not foresee in 1972 that, having lost the election to Nixon, the networks would engage in a successful bid to negate the election and drive him from the White House through their trumped up “Watergate” campaign.

It seems incredible that there are literally thousands of interesting and vital news items from all over the world available to the networks’ evening “news” programs, and yet they are restricted to the ten or twelve stories approved by London. The American public has known for years that something was amiss. As cable programs became available, there were mass defections from the networks propaganda vehicles. Some authorities report that the three networks have lost 40% of their viewing audience, although they are desperately trying to conceal this. If forced to revise their advertising rates according to their actual viewing audience, they would be technically bankrupt, as their revenues would not cover operating expenses.

Television is a medium of light. It is a reflection upon all of us that we have allowed it to be taken over by the forces of darkness. What has been taken from us can be regained. Taxation is the medium by which the parasites maintain economic control over us because we refuse to admit the obvious fact that “TAXATION IS THE PRICE WE PAY FOR IRRESPONSIBILITY.”

We advise Americans to go to the United States Attorney and ask for an investigation of Criminal Syndicalism. We have exposed in great detail the interlocking Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation and Federal Reserve control of television and the goals of the World Order which they espouse. There are adequate laws on the books which forbid all of these activities. Corpus Juris Secundum 46, Insurrection and Sedition, sec. 461c, “Sabotage and syndicalism aiming to abolish the present political and social system, including direct action and sabotage.” Corpus Juris Secundum 46:462b, “Statutes against criminal syndicalism apply to corporations as well as to individuals organizing or belonging to criminal syndicalist society; evidence of the character and activities of other organizations in which the accused is a member or is affiliated is admissible.” This means that any of the networks presenting a program inimicable to the interests of the American nation, and socking to change its character to that of a “1984” style dictatorship, can be charged under the law of the United States.

Corpus Juris Secundum 22A identifies Criminal Syndicalism: “In a prosecution for being a member of an organization which teaches and abets criminal syndicalism, evidences of crimes committed by past or present members of the organization in their capacity as members is admissible to show its character,” People v. LaRue, 216 P 627 CA 276. This means that you can introduce into a charge of criminal syndicalism any information about activities of any organization with which any director of any television corporation is involved. LOOK INTO IT !

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/mullins/baron.html

General Patton’s Warning ..then when he put it together his assination

GENERAL PATTON’S WARNING

At the end of World War II, one of America’s top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable, to end that danger. Unfortunately, his warning went unheeded, and he was quickly silenced by a convenient “accident” which took his life.

Thirty-two years ago, in the terrible summer of 1945, the U.S. Army had just completed the destruction of Europe and had set up a government of military occupation amid the ruins to rule the starving Germans and deal out victors’ justice to the vanquished. General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army, became military governor of the greater portion of the American occupation zone of Germany.

Patton was regarded as the “fightingest” general in all the Allied forces. He was considerably more audacious and aggressive than most commanders, and his martial ferocity may very well have been the deciding factor which led to the Allied victory. He personally commanded his forces in many of the toughest and most decisive battles of the war: in Tunisia, in Sicily, in the cracking of the Siegfried Line, in holding back the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge, in the exceptionally bloody fighting around Bastogne in December 1944 and January 1945.

During the war Patton had respected the courage and the fighting qualities of the Germans –especially when he compared them with those of some of America’s allies — but he had also swallowed whole the hate-inspired wartime propaganda generated by America’s alien media masters. He believed Germany was a menace to America’s freedom and that Germany’s National Socialist government was an especially evil institution. Acting on these beliefs he talked incessantly of his desire to kill as many Germans as possible, and he exhorted his troops to have the same goal. These bloodthirsty exhortations led to the nickname “Blood and Guts” Patton.

It was only in the final days of the war and during his tenure as military governor of Germany –after he had gotten to know both the Germans and America’s “gallant Soviet allies” — that Patton’s understanding of the true situation grew and his opinions changed. In his diary and in many letters to his family, friends, various military colleagues, and government officials, he expressed his new understanding and his apprehensions for the future. His diary and his letters were published in 1974 by the Houghton Mifflin Company under the title The Patton Papers.

Several months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.

On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.

Patton said to Patterson:

“Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect.”

Patterson replied,

“Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.”

Patton rejoined:

“I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof — that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for rive days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”

Patton’s urgent and prophetic advice went unheeded by Patterson and the other politicians and only served to give warning about Patton’s feelings to the alien conspirators behind the scenes in New York, Washington, and Moscow.

The more he saw of the Soviets, the stronger Patton’s conviction grew that the proper course of action would be to stifle communism then and there, while the chance existed. Later in May 1945 he attended several meetings and social affairs with top Red Army officers, and he evaluated them carefully. He noted in his diary on May 14:

“I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers, with few exceptions, give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits.”

And Patton’s aide, General Hobart Gay, noted in his own journal for May 14: “Everything they (the Russians) did impressed one with the idea of virility and cruelty.”

Nevertheless, Patton knew that the Americans could whip the Reds then — but perhaps not later. On May 18 he noted in his diary:

“In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.”

Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: “If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.”

Having immediately recognized the Soviet danger and urged a course of action which would have freed all of eastern Europe from the communist yoke with the expenditure of far less American blood than was spilled in Korea and Vietnam and would have obviated both those later wars not to mention World War III — Patton next came to appreciate the true nature of the people for whom World War II was fought: the Jews.

Most of the Jews swarming over Germany immediately after the war came from Poland and Russia, and Patton found their personal habits shockingly uncivilized.

He was disgusted by their behavior in the camps for Displaced Persons (DP’s) which the Americans built for them and even more disgusted by the way they behaved when they were housed in German hospitals and private homes. He observed with horror that “these people do not understand toilets and refuse to use them except as repositories for tin cans, garbage, and refuse . . . They decline, where practicable, to use latrines, preferring to relieve themselves on the floor.”

He described in his diary one DP camp,

“where, although room existed, the Jews were .crowded together to an appalling extent, and in practically every room there was a pile of garbage in one corner which was also used as a latrine. The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression ‘lost tribes of Israel’ applied to the tribes which disappeared — not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe — lost to all decency.”

Patton’s initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower’s insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part: “This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General . . . The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it.”

These experiences and a great many others firmly convinced Patton that the Jews were an especially unsavory variety of creature and hardly deserving of all the official concern the American government was bestowing on them. Another September diary entry, following a demand from Washington that more German housing be turned over to Jews, summed up his feelings:

“Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German we punish an individual German, while the punishment is — not intended for the individual but for the race, Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.”

One of the strongest factors in straightening out General Patton’s thinking on the conquered Germans was the behavior of America’s controlled news media toward them. At a press conference in Regensburg, Germany, on May 8, 1945, immediately after Germany’s surrender, Patton was asked whether he planned to treat captured SS troops differently from other German POW’s. His answer was:

“No. SS means no more in Germany than being a Democrat in America — that is not to be quoted. I mean by that that initially the SS people were special sons of bitches, but as the war progressed they ran out of sons of bitches and then they put anybody in there. Some of the top SS men will be treated as criminals, but there is no reason for trying someone who was drafted into this outfit . . .”

Despite Patton’s request that his remark not be quoted, the press eagerly seized on it, and Jews and their front men in America screamed in outrage over Patton’s comparison of the SS and the Democratic Party as well as over his announced intention of treating most SS prisoners humanely.

Patton refused to take hints from the press, however, and his disagreement with the American occupation policy formulated in Washington grew. Later in May he said to his brother-in-law:

“I think that this non-fraternization is very stupid. If we are going to keep American soldiers in a country, they have to have some civilians to talk to. Furthermore, I think we could do a lot for the German civilians by letting our soldiers talk to their young people.”

Various of Patton’s colleagues tried to make it perfectly clear what was expected of him. One politically ambitious officer, Brig. Gen. Philip S. Gage, anxious to please the powers that be, wrote to Patton:

“Of course, I know that even your extensive powers are limited, but I do hope that wherever and whenever you can you will do what you can to make the German populace suffer. For God’s sake, please don’t ever go soft in regard to them. Nothing could ever be too bad for them.”

But Patton continued to do what he thought was right, whenever he could. With great reluctance, and only after repeated promptings from Eisenhower, he had thrown German families out of their homes to make room for more than a million Jewish DP’s — part of the famous “six million” who had supposedly been gassed — but he balked when ordered to begin blowing up German factories, in accord with the infamous Morgenthau Plan to destroy Germany’s economic basis forever. In his diary he wrote:

“I doubted the expediency of blowing up factories, because the ends for which the factories are being blown up — that is, preventing Germany from preparing for war — can be equally well attained through the destruction of their machinery, while the buildings can be used to house thousands of homeless persons.”

Similarly, he expressed his doubts to his military colleagues about the overwhelming emphasis being placed on the persecution of every German who had formerly been a member of the National Socialist party. In a letter to his wife of September 14, 1945, he said:

“I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff . It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death.”

Despite his disagreement with official policy, Patton followed the rules laid down by Morgenthau and others back in Washington as closely as his conscience would allow, but he tried to moderate the effect, and this brought him into increasing conflict with Eisenhower and the other politically ambitious generals. In another letter to his wife he commented: “I have been at Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it.”

And in his diary he noted:,

“Today we received orders . . . in which we were told to give the Jews special accommodations. If for Jews, why not Catholics, Mormons, etc? . . . We are also turning over to the French several hundred thousand prisoners of war to be used as slave labor in France. It is amusing to recall that we fought the Revolution in defense of the rights of man and the Civil War to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles.”

His duties as military governor took Patton to all parts of Germany and intimately acquainted him with the German people and their condition. He could not help but compare them with the French, the Italians, the Belgians, and even the British. This comparison gradually forced him to the conclusion that World War II had been fought against the wrong people.

After a visit to ruined Berlin, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945:

“Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It’s said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”

This conviction, that the politicians had used him and the U.S. Army for a criminal purpose, grew in the following weeks. During a dinner with French General Alphonse Juin in August, Patton was surprised to find the Frenchman in agreement with him. His diary entry for August 18 quotes Gen. Juin:

“It is indeed unfortunate, mon General, that the English and the Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country — and I do not mean France. Therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism.”

Later diary entries and letters to his wife reiterate this same conclusion. On August 31 he wrote:

“Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. it’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.” And on September 2: “What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole.”

By this time the Morgenthauists and media monopolists had decided that Patton was incorrigible and must be discredited. So they began a non-stop hounding of him in the press, a la Watergate, accusing him of being “soft on Nazis” and continually recalling an incident in which he had slapped a shirker two years previously, during the Sicily campaign. A New York newspaper printed the completely false claim that when Patton had slapped the soldier who was Jewish, he had called him a “yellow-bellied Jew.”

Then, in a press conference on September 22, reporters hatched a scheme to needle Patton into losing his temper and making statements which could be used against him. The scheme worked. The press interpreted one of Patton’s answers to their insistent questions as to why he was not pressing the Nazi-hunt hard enough as: “The Nazi thing is just like a Democrat-Republican fight.” The New York Times headlined this quote, and other papers all across America picked it up.

The unmistakable hatred which had been directed at him during this press conference finally opened Patton’s eyes fully as to what was afoot. In his diary that night lie wrote:

“There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs. They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . . Another point which the press harped on was the fact that we were doing too much for the Germans to the detriment of the DP’s, most of whom are Jews. I could not give the answer to that one, because the answer is that, in my opinion and that of most nonpolitical officers, it is vitally necessary for us to build Germany up now as a buffer state against Russia. In fact, I am afraid we have waited too long.”

And in a letter of the same date to his wife:

“I will probably be in the headlines before you get this, as the press is trying to quote me as being more interested in restoring order in Germany than in catching Nazis. I can’t tell them the truth that unless we restore Germany we will insure that communism takes America.”

Eisenhower responded immediately to the press outcry against Patton and made the decision to relieve him of his duties as military governor and “kick him upstairs” as the commander of the Fifteenth Army. In a letter to his wife on September 29, Patton indicated that he was, in a way, not unhappy with his new assignment, because “I would like it much better than being a sort of executioner to the best race in Europe.”

But even his change of duties did not shut Patton up. In his diary entry of October 1 we find the observation:

“In thinking over the situation, I could not but be impressed with the belief that at the present moment the unblemished record of the American Army for non-political activities is about to be lost. Everyone seems to be more interested in the effects which his actions will have on his political future than in carrying out the motto of the United States Military Academy, ‘Duty, Honor, Country.’ I hope that after the current crop of political aspirants has been gathered our former tradition will be restored.”

And Patton continued to express these sentiments to his friends — and those he thought were his friends. On October 22 he wrote a long letter to Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord, who was back in the States. In the letter Patton bitterly condemned the Morgenthau policy; Eisenhower’s pusillanimous behavior in the face of Jewish demands; the strong pro-Soviet bias in the press; and the politicization, corruption, degradation, and demoralization of the U.S. Army which these things were causing.

He saw the demoralization of the Army as a deliberate goal of America’s enemies:

“I have been just as furious as you at the compilation of lies which the communist and Semitic elements of our government have leveled against me and practically every other commander. In my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to alienate the soldier vote from the commanders, because the communists know that soldiers are not communistic, and they fear what eleven million votes (of veterans) would do.”

His denunciation of the politicization of the Army was scathing:

“All the general officers in the higher brackets receive each morning from the War Department a set of American (newspaper) headlines, and, with the sole exception of myself, they guide themselves during the ensuing day by what they have read in the papers. . . .”

In his letter to Harbord, Patton also revealed his own plans to fight those who were destroying the morale and integrity of the Army and endangering America’s future by not opposing the growing Soviet might:

“It is my present thought . . . that when I finish this job, which will be around the first of the year, I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth . . . I should not start a limited counterattack, which would be contrary to my military theories, but should wait until I can start an all-out offensive . . . .”

communist’s won WW2 both Patton and MacArthur discovered that.

The Man Who Refused To Lose

By Eustace Mullins

General Douglas MacArthur He Wanted To Win … His Government Did Not

Thousands of American boys died on barren Pacific sandpits during World War II, never knowing they had been condemned to die because of the hatred the Communists felt for their commander, General Douglas MacArthur. Let us go back to Washington, D.C., for the birthpangs of this hatred; the time, July 28, 1932. The nation is in the depths of an economic depression brought on by classic gold movements of the international bankers. Some gold bricks had been moved from one section of the Federal Reserve Bank vaults in New York City to another section a few feet away; this seemingly insignificant act brought on a contraction of credit and the puncturing of the Wall Street boom. Eighty-five billion dollars in inflated stock values vanished into the vaults of the bankers, leaving the American Middle Class a robbed and beaten people. Since this middle-class created the jobs, the workers were now without employment and were in an ugly mood. This was the background of the dispatching of a special Communist task force to Washington to take over the Bonus March of the American veterans, provoke a massacre by local police or troops, and begin a conflagration which would quickly sweep the country and deliver us into the waiting hands of the Communists.

It was a simple technique, which had worked marvelously well in Czarist Russia. Some people were idling around in front of a bakery, a few Communists in the crowd threw stones at the Imperial Guard, shots were fired, and a few people were killed. Within weeks, the Imperial Government was no more; and the Czar and his wife and children were locked in a cellar, waiting to be executed by their captors.

There was no reason to suppose that this technique would not work in America, where the Communists were a well-organized, militant group. They had survived the “Palmer Raids” of the nineteen twenties with their revolutionary organization intact; despite the moans of the bleeding hearts that civil liberties had been violated, the Party had been strengthened by the arrests of a few hangers on and would-be Communist sympathizers, who were an embarrassment to the genuinely dedicated conspirators.

A detachment of American troops, neatly dressed and marching in perfect order, came through the streets of Washington, led by Major George Patton and General Douglas MacArthur, then Chief of Staff of the United States Army. The soldiers ignored the taunts and threats of the Communists sprinkled in the crowd. Suddenly a fat man dashed into the well disciplined ranks. “Shoot, damn you, shoot!” he screamed. The soldiers shoved him aside, not even bothering to poke a rifle butt into his protruding stomach. Disappointed, the man shook his fist. “We’ll get you for this, MacArthur !” he shouted. The General, erect on his charge, stared straight ahead. He could hardly know that the man’s threat would cloud the last two decades of his brilliant career and cost the lives of many thousands of his men.

The man was David Neyhus, who had accompanied the large detachment of Communists from New York. Although the revolutionaries were under the command of a well-known Communist leader, Emmanuel Levin, Neyhus was the Moscow contact, who dictated the strategy of the operation. Levin disappeared from history, but Neyhus, using the name of David Niles, became an influential White House advisor and the principal architect of national policies during the Truman Administration.

The Bonus Marchers were unemployed veterans from World War I, who had been ruined by the Crash of 1929. Some sixty thousand of them had come to Washington for an orderly protest against Congressional reluctance to grant them a bonus for military service. Superintendent of Police Pelham Glass had only six hundred policemen to contain this huge force, but he gave them $733 from his own pocket, raised $2500 more to feed them by staging boxing matches for them, and enlisted the aid of Evelyn Walsh McLean in helping them.

The leader of the marchers, Walter W. Waters, was dedicated to maintaining an orderly protest, but on June 1, 1932, the Communist detachment arrived from New York with instructions to provoke a riot. Waters had his men arrest them; they were court-martialled, sentenced to fifteen lashes each, and their literature was burned. Nevertheless, they hung around, hoping that things would turn their way, as the men grew more disillusioned. The Communists chose John T. Pace, as the leader of their group, hoping to make a better impression than the lisping aliens. Pace testified in 1949 before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, “I led the Communist section of the Bonus March. I was ordered by my Red superiors to provoke riots. I was told to use every trick in the book to bring about bloodshed … General MacArthur put down a Moscow-directed revolution without bloodshed and that’s why the Communists hate him.”

One can only shudder to think that a Dwight Eisenhower, had he been in command of the troops in Washington, might have panicked and ordered the men to fire, and provoked a revolution. General MacArthur maintained perfect discipline, and not a shot was fired. Some of the Communists occupied an armory building, in a classic technique of revolution; and when the police tried to evict them, Glassford was attacked and his clothes torn off. The Communists gleefully exhibited his gold badge, which they had ripped from him; it was then that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia asked President Hoover for troops. Hoover conveyed the order to the Secretary of War, Patrick Hurley, who passed on the request to General MacArthur as Chief of Staff. Although it was unheard of for the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to lead a riot patrol, MacArthur was determined that none of the marchers should be hurt, for many of them were men he had commanded in the Rainbow Division in France. He knew that his prestige would be placed on the line; for if a disaster should occur, he would be held personally responsible. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to risk his career. Leading about one thousand soldiers, he marched them through the crowds of marchers, and on to the Anacostia flats, where the marchers had made their encampment. The camp was methodically torn down and the Bonus March was over.

The Communists, seeing their plans for revolution going up in the smoke of the burning Ana costia camp, went into paroxysms of fury. They immediately unleashed a terrible campaign of vilification against President Hoover, branding him as the “mass murderer” of the Bonus Marchers and a tyrant who had used armed force against peaceful demonstrators. This was the first really vicious propaganda campaign in the history of American politics. Based entirely on lies and personal attacks on Hoover, it swept him out of office and inaugurated as President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Roosevelt never forgot that it was the Communist support which turned his campaign from a lackluster effort against a wellentrenched incumbent into a national sweep to victory. Forty of the Communist members who had infiltrated the Bonus Marchers were appointed to government posts during Roosevelt’s first year in office, while the national policies of Roosevelt’s Administration were largely formulated and executed by members of the top secret Harold Ware cell of Communists, which comprised the Underground Cabinet of the Roosevelt White House. One of the Harold Ware cell’s first goals was to reduce the size of America’s already small Army. The Communists considered the Regular Army as Cossacks, or an Imperial Guard, which was a counter-revolutionary force, and which, of course, had thwarted their plans during the Bonus March.

Soon after Roosevelt’s entry into the White House, he summoned General MacArthur to inform him that the Army was to be cut by fifty per cent. MacArthur immediately contested the decision, arguing with Roosevelt while the cripple grew purple with rage in his wheelchair. Finally, Roosevelt agreed to reconsider his decision, and Secretary of War, George Dern, complimented MacArthur, saying, “You have just saved the Army.” However, MacArthur states in his memoirs that he was made physically ill by this encounter with the Great Cripple, and that he vomited on the steps of the White House, overcome by nausea and disgust at the thought of his native land being subverted by this man.

In 1941, Roosevelt maneuvered the Pacific Fleet into Pearl Harbor to await the Japanese attack, while MacArthur warned him of the Japanese buildup and was puzzled that he received no answer from the White House. When MacArthur assumed command of the defense of the Philippines, he anticipated little difficulty in halting the Japanese advance. The entire Japanese strategy had been detailed many years before by the brilliant American strategist Homer Lea. Knowing the Japanese plans, MacArthur was ready to thwart them. However, he was never informed of a high-level decision in Washington, soon after Pearl Harbor, that American military power would be concentrated on the defeat of Germany, in order to save Soviet Russia and the Jews from the German armies. General MacArthur was left holding the bag in the Philippines, while Churchill, Marshall and Roosevelt sent America’s military aid to Russia. As a result, many thousands of MacArthur’s men were doomed to die in the infamous Bataan Death March, after their capture by the Japanese, because their own President had abandoned them to the enemy.

Meanwhile, the Communists, firmly in command of the American press establishment, carried on a furious campaign of hate against MacArthur. Roosevelt ordered MacArthur to leave the Philippines and go to Australia, and the White House immediately leaked to the press that MacArthur was running away ! Reporters printed wild stories that the departing general had planes carrying his grand piano and other possessions. In fact, MacArthur left with nothing but the clothes on his back, and lost most of his personal possessions in the Philippines. It was at this time that the Communist press coined the most cruel epithet of all, “Dugout Doug”, implying that MacArthur was a coward, when in fact the General risked his life many times before enemy fire. MacArthur himself was unable to understand the press’ vicious hatred of him. He had forgotten the encounter with David Niles and the other Communists in 1932, and in any case he was incapable of understanding such subhuman feelings.

Although MacArthur had by 1930 been considered America’s most brilliant military mind, throughout World War Two he was never invited to participate in a single high-level conference ! The war was run strictly by Roosevelt’s Communist advisers, principally Lauchlin Currie and Harry Dexter White, a Lithuanian man whose real name was Weiss. It was “White” who thought up the infamous “island hopping” plan of fighting the Pacific War. The Japanese had occupied and fortified a number of Pacific islands between Hawaii and Japan. MacArthur devised a plan for mounting massive strike forces against the Philippines and against Japan herself, forcing an early end to the war. Roosevelt was upset by the plan, foreseeing that such a brilliant victory would make MacArthur a powerful political rival. Weiss immediately devised a counter plan, which delighted Roosevelt. Instead of leaving the little Japanese Maginot Lines to wither on the vine, it would play into the Japanese hands by mounting huge assaults on each little island. The MacArthur Plan was never acknowledged by the White House, and instead, the Pacific forces were committed to a series of operations later called “Feeding the Fishes”, whereby many thousands of American boys were shot down in the water while trying to storm almost impregnable Japanese island redoubts. The names of Iwo Jima and Tarawa recall the incredible heroism of American youths who gave their lives attacking these fortresses, but they also recall the incredible infamy of a sinister Lithuanian man whose only purpose was to bleed this country to death and weaken it for a Communist victory at some later date. The island hopping campaign ensured that MacArthur would have no great victory and that the losses in these battles would cause Americans to think he was a poor strategist. Nevertheless, Roosevelt, always a coward, continued to fear MacArthur as a political rival; and in 1944 he wrung from an astounded MacArthur a pledge that he would not be a candidate that year !

Despite his limited resources, MacArthur performed brilliantly throughout World War Two. He was able to make good his prophetic statement, “I shall return”, when he left the Philippines at Roosevelt’s order. His successful campaign to retake the Philippine Islands is regarded as a classic of military strategy.

Despite the Communist press vilification of MacArthur, he was repeatedly decorated during World War Two for his victories and for his bravery in combat. For instance, he won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his defense of the Philippines, he was awarded the Air Medal for personally leading the attack on Nadzab airstrip on Sept. 9, 1943, and he received the Distinguished Service Medal three times. Of course, the American public, like MacArthur himself, never realized the background of the press attacks on him, which continued unabated throughout the war.

With the conclusion of the war, the Communists feared more than ever the return to America of a victorious MacArthur. Once again “White” conceived the brilliant plan of ordering MacArthur to become Commander of the occupied nation of Japan, effectively removing him from the American political scene. Accepting this order without question, as he always did, MacArthur devoted himself to rebuilding a shattered Japan while his own nation, which solely needed him at home to counter the growing power of the Communists, was denied his services.

Beginning in June, 1949, MacArthur began to submit reports to Washington that the Communists in North Korea were building up forces for an assault on the non-Communist nation of South Korea. All of these warnings were ignored. When the Communists swept through South Korea, MacArthur was asked to stop them, but, as in 1941, was given insufficient forces. Making up for his lack of strength, MacArthur broke the Communist attack by a magnificent stroke, the Inchon landing. Admiral Halsey wrote to him. “Congratulations. Characteristic and magnificent. The Inchon landing is the most masterly and audacious strategic stroke in all history.” President Truman wired him, “I know I speak for the entire American people when I send you my warmest congratulations in the victory which has been achieved under your leadership in Korea.” A few weeks later, Truman fired him. What had happened ? MacArthur was doing the unforgivable; he was beating the Communists. Truman summoned MacArthur to a conference at Wake Island. Truman later told a number of lies about this meeting, boasting that he had circled for an hour making MacArthur wait for him, and in another version said MacArthur had made him wait by circling above his plane. Others present said they had arrived at the same time. Nothing was discussed at the conference, and MacArthur surmised Truman had summoned him merely to bolster a faltering Congressional campaign at home.

A series of directives now came from Washington forbidding MacArthur from “hot pursuit” of enemy attackers, or from bombing their marshalling yards, or bombing the hydroelectric plants in North Korea. The entire conduct of the war became a dress rehearsal for the Vietnam War, in which American commanders were forbidden to inflict any real damage on the Communist enemy. MacArthur asked to be relieved from command, as he could not fight under these restrictions, but Marshall begged him to stay on. Meanwhile, General Walker complained to MacArthur that his operations were known to the enemy in advance through their sources in Washington. MacArthur began to attack the Communist forces without revealing his plans to Washington. He won a series of stunning victories, whereupon the Communists insisted that MacArthur be removed.

Now David Niles would have his revenge for 1932. It was he who ordered Truman to relieve MacArthur from command. On April 11, 1957, Truman, with deliberate malice, held a press conference in Washington announcing that he was recalling MacArthur and relieving him from command. MacArthur heard the decision on Radio Japan ! MacArthur noted in his Memoirs a significant comment, “Moscow and Peiping rejoiced. The bells were rung and a holiday atmosphere prevailed.”

Certainly the Communists had reason to rejoice. The greatest anti-Communist soldier in the world had been fired. Now they were safe. Thus we come to the great final act of this hero’s life. A military plane roars in from the Pacific, sighting the California coast. Aboard it is the world’s most famous soldier, General Douglas MacArthur, with a trusted staff of aides. The plane continues high over the nation, bound for Washington. MacArthur believes that when he lands, a delegation of loyal Congressman will meet him with a request that he form a Provisional Military Government, and that he must arrest the pitiful Communist traitors who demanded his removal. In Washington, among the subhuman filth which has infested the offices of the nation’s capital like some medieval plague of diseased rats, each bearing fearful contamination in its mangy hide, the treasonous garbage cowers in helpless fear, awaiting the inevitable landing of the exterminator. The fat alcoholic, David Niles, the Moscow Communist who had ordered MacArthur’s dismissal, is now collapsed in a drunken stupor in his White House room. The members of the Harold Ware cell of Communists, who have directed America’s national policies since 1933, have, according to prearranged plans, gone into hiding. Harry Truman impassively awaits the end, playing poker with a few cronies on the second floor of the White House. Described by the poet Ezra Pound in the Cantos as “always loyal to his kind, the underworld”, Truman has little fear of arrest; it is part of a criminal career. He began his life as a bagman for the Kansas City brothels; his mentor, Boss Prendergast, has been in prison for years, having been convicted of stealing forty million dollars. However, some of the Communists had not given up. Desperate promises were made — threats, deals, blackmail. When MacArthur landed, the expected Congressional delegation was not there. Supposing that he had already been named Provisional Governor, MacArthur proceeded to Capitol Hill. He was amazed to find that nothing had been done ! There was no proclamation; his strongest supporters in Congress were strangely evasive. MacArthur, the greatest military strategist, found that he had no strategy for forming a government. After wavering for several hours, he was dissuaded by none other than Senator Robert Taft. Taft boldly declared that America must solve her problems at the ballot box, and that MacArthur could run for President and cure the nation’s ills. Had MacArthur known that Taft was echoing the advice of Rabbi Hillel Silver, his mentor, he might have countered with the statement that Washington did not use a ballot box at Trenton or at Valley Forge. But MacArthur had been away from his country for many years. He still did not know what was going on behind the scenes. He supposed that there were only a few principal Communists behind Truman. He had never heard of the Harold Ware cell; he knew nothing of the Communists placed strategically in every major government office.

The moment passed. MacArthur made a stirring address to the Congress, and retreated to New York to await the still expected call to national office. It would never come. Instead, the communists double-crossed Taft, who had been promised the Presidency for diverting MacArthur from the takeover, and instead brought in the servile Eisenhower, who had already proven his willingness to serve his Communist masters, or anyone who was willing to accept his professional acts of self-prostitution. While MacArthur was making his address to Congress, the Communists were already coming out of their hiding-places and resuming their offices in Washington. Nothing had changed. In retrospect, we see that we Americans must now inaugurate a national campaign to honor MacArthur’s memory by expelling the Communist rats from their holes. How much blood should we shed to avenge the dead of Iwo Jima and Tarawa, murdered by the Communist plotter Harry Weiss ? We have only to recall that when a MacArthur Memorial Museum was proposed for Washington, the Communists boasted that it would be bombed within a week of its opening. The fearful government officials then moved the MacArthur Museum to Norfolk, where it remains today. Even in death, MacArthur could not win over the Communist traitors. In respect to his memory, and in order to save ourselves, we must unite in a massive national effort to defeat the traitors in our midst. Today it is not MacArthur who is in peril, but each of us, daily assaulted by vicious Communist officials from Washington who seek to strip from us the last of our personal property and our self respect.

England’s leading military writer, Lord Alanbrooke, wrote of World War Two, “MacArthur was the greatest general and the best strategist that the war produced. He certainly outshowed Marshall, Eisenhower, and the other Amencan generals, as well as Montgomery. In all of these operations I never felt he had the full support of the American Chiefs of Staff. I am convinced that, as the war can be viewed in better perspective, it will be agreed that the strategic ability shown by MacArthur was in a class of its own.”

Hey Politicians I want you to get your history straight ..the Holocaust

THE HOLOCAUST EXPLAINED

By Eustace Mullins

The CDL Report Published by the Christian Defense League P.O. Box 493 Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70821 Issue 40 November-December 1981

Holocaust — from the meaning wholly burnt. 1) a sacrifice wholly consumed by fire. 2) complete consumption by fire. Oxford English Dictionary.

If the Jewish claim that they were the victims of a holocaust in Germany is true, then they were consumed entirely by fire. This Jewish claim is unacceptable because there were so many survivors. Not only were the Jews not consumed wholly by fire, as they claim, but, forty years after this non-event, there are more Jews claiming to be survivors of the Holocaust than there were Jews living at the time of the Holocaust. In one small American suburb, Skokie, Ill. are now residing many thousands of healthy Jews who claim to be “survivors” of the Holocaust.

For more than thirty years, American voters have mutely accepted the fact that anyone seeking public office in the United States must make a routine pledge of undying allegiance to the State of Israel. Few of these voters realize that these office-seekers must also make a ritual obeisance to the Myth of the Holocaust and swear eternal belief in the doctrine that six million Jews were killed by the Germans during World War II. As was noted on the editorial page of the Washington Post, the regnant world journal of international Zionism, on October 29, 1981. “Anyone who refuses to support the State of Israel admits his sympathy for the murderers of six million Jews.”

Webster’s dictionary defines treason as “the offense of betraying the state or subverting the government of the state to which the subverter belongs.” Officeholders of the United States who are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and who then pledge allegiance to a foreign government and act in allegiance to that foreign government are guilty of high treason and are subject to the death penalty. The situation is more flagrant in the case of the State of Israel because, from its inception in 1948, the State of Israel has maintained a state of war against the citizens of the United States. If the objective of making war is to subdue another people and to seize their goods and enslave them, then Israel’s activities towards the United States can only be described as engaging in constant warfare. Thus the Zionist collaborators all over the United States are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States during a time of war. These acts of treason can only be punished by the death penalty.

The Zionist collaborators have as their sole excuse that they are aiding the Jews because they were the victims of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, this excuse has now been demolished by the revelations that there were no gas chambers and that the Germans had no plan to “exterminate” the Jews. In 1952, I wrote in “Blood and Gold”, “The claim that Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews is belied by their own figures in the World Almanac. Immediately after Germany’s surrender, a plane load of American editors and correspondents were flown to the concentration camps, where they were shown huge piles of bones. These were the remains of Russian prisoners of war, but they were filmed and shown all over the United States as ‘Jewish bones’. In one of the most revolting attempts to influence public opinion ever known, Jewish owned movie houses showed these gruesome photos over and over again.”

Once again, we are inundated by the Jewish propaganda, as the ludicrous bone pictures, some of which have been established as having been taken during World War I, become our daily fare. The Public Broadcasting System, financed with taxpayers funds, recently showed a series of “holocaust” films, each more incredible than the last. In one, an elderly Jewess returns to Auschwitz, where she claims to have been incarcerated forty years age. “It voss a death camp?” she exclaims. She then stated that she remained there for four years, although the Germans “killed everybody every day.” She was then asked how she has survived. “I hid in the camp,” she explained, “but I had nothing to eat for three years.”

After this astounding statement, she pointed to the rows of peaceful barracks and shrieked, “But just look ! You can see for yourself it actually happened !” The bemused viewer, seeing only a pleasant rural scene, apparently was expected to conjure up visions of six million Jews being marched to the gas chambers.

Nearly all of the Jewish “survivors” claim that they lived in the “death camps” from three to four years, while “everybody was being killed”. It seems obvious that no one could survive in a “labor camp”, which is what these camps actually were. Over the entrance to each camp was placed a sign, “Arbeit Machs du Frei,” or, “Work Makes You Free”.

In the “Nation”, Sept. 26, 1981, Albert Speer, the German Minister for Armaments, was quoted as having answered, in response to a demand from the leaders of the Jewish community in South Africa that he verify that Jews were killed during World War II by the Germans, so that they could prosecute the distributors of the pamphlet, “Did Six Million Really Die ?”, “I couldn’t.” Although Speer refused to submit to pressure from the Jews that he lie and “confess” that the Jews had been killed, he did admit some sort of “collective guilt” in the matter, but denied that he had any direct knowledge of any Holocaust activities. His admission of “guilt” brought praise from the Jewish agitator, Simon Weisenthal, who then proceeded to endorse Speer’s new book, “Infiltration”. However, this book defined the camps as labor camps. On p. 9, Speer writes, “During factory inspections, I saw concentration camp prisoners working in our plants among German workers.”

Note that Speer does not even identify these laborers as Jews. On p. 41, he writes, “During my inspection (at Mauthausen, March, 1943,) I was surprised to see expensive granite retaining walls, on which barracks, likewise of native stone, had been erected. Everything was clean and orderly. The level, say, of an average anti aircraft barrack. The camp made an almost romantic impression with its stone portal and mediaeval castle yards, its pseudohistorical walls and towers.”

The German soldier in the field never enjoyed such pleasant quarters as did the labor camp workers. Otto Friedrich, a senior editor of Time Magazine, wrote an article in Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1981, which he stated was based entirely on the writings of survivors of the camps, and which could hardly be accused of painting a rosy picture of their existence. In “The Kingdom of Auschwitz”, Friedrich writes, “Auschwitz was a society of extraordinary complexity. It had its own soccer stadium, its own library, its own soccer stadium, its own library, its own photo lab, and its own symphony orchestra … There was no reason that a death camp should have a hospital at all, yet the one at Auschwitz grew to considerable size, with about twenty doctors and more than three hundred nurses.”

Friedrich ignores the implications of his own writing, that a “death camp” with a large modern hospital is not a death camp at all, but a health camp. All of the camps had their own symphony orchestras, an amenity which was not provided by any of the twenty two military stations at which this writer served in the United States Air Force throughout World War II. Friedrich also writes that Auschwitz had its own brothel for the workers. And a photo lab, in which the inmates could develop their snapshots of the millions of Jews being herded into the gas chambers ? No such photos have ever been exhibited. Later in his article, Friedrich writes that Auschwitz actually was developed throughout the war into a vast industrial complex, with a network of thirty-four outlaying camps, which provided workers for cement plants, coal mines, and a steel factory. I.G. Farben operated a huge synthetic rubber plant there.

An intensely religious person, Adolf Hitler had written in Mein Kampf that “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord … The fight against Jewish world Bolshevization requires a clear attitude towards Soviet Russia. You cannot drive out the Devil with Beelzebub.”

During the war, while fighting on two fronts, Hitler allowed himself to be swayed from these fervent sentiments by an extremely clever campaign on the part of the Jews. Having been warned that the Allies planned a campaign of terror bombing against German civilians, it was necessary that the Jews be evacuated from German cities. Through their close contacts with a number of Nazi bureaucrats, the leaders of the Jewish communities organized whereby the Jews would be evacuated in “the eastward migration”. Even Speer approved the plan, but specified that “The ablebodied Jews destined for eastward migration must therefore interrupt their journey and do armaments labor.” The result was that the labor camps were established in rural areas, far from the cities, and the Jews were spared the ordeal of the terrible bombings which engulfed German women and children in torrents of flame and phosphorus bombs. There was a Holocaust in Germany during World War II, but the victims were Germans, in a well-planned campaign of genocide, while the evacuated Jews survived en masse.

After the war, with their genius for perverting the truth, the Jews completely reversed the facts. Instead of the Holocaust engulfing German non-combatants in the cities, the victims were now the Jews, who had been “exterminated” in the “death camps”. Since the evacuation of the Jews, the “eastward migration”, had been organized at the behest of the Jewish leaders, many Jews now believed their own propaganda, and accused the Jewish leaders of having organized the “extermination” of European Jewry. Thus Hannah Arendt, a leading Jewish intellectual, writes bitterly, in “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, “Wherever Jews lived, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership, almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another with the Nazis.” Of course they cooperated, so successfully that while a million German women and children died in mass bombing raids on German cities, not a Jewish life was lost. The Allied bombing of Berlin killed so many German families that Eisenhower is remembered there today by the wry sobriquet, “the Mad Butcher of Berlin”. The firestorms created by bombing the cities of Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities remain the greatest atrocities of World War II.

It was to obscure the real atrocities of World War II that the Myth of the Jewish Holocaust was invented. Its earliest application was intended to cover up the discovery that the Soviet Army had systematically murdered 14,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. These Polish officers comprised the most highly educated and skilled segment of the Polish population. Stalin ordered them exterminated to facilitate Communist rule in Poland. It was the Katyn massacre which later became the inspiration for the stories of columns of Jews being marched into rural areas and executed. Indeed, the basic purpose of the invention of the Holocaust Myth was to prevent Soviet Russia from being embarrassed by any mention of the Katyn Forest massacre at the Nuremberg Trials. Roosevelt’s pro-Communist regime battled valiantly to assist Russia in covering up the Katyn horror. Elmer Davis, who had been placed in the Office of War Information by James Paul Warburg, refused to mention this atrocity in his broadcasts, while W. Averell Harriman cooperated in keeping the story out of print until the Nuremberg Trials had been completed. “Jewish Comment”, May 21, 1943, sneered at the German discovery of the massacre as follows; “After its sensational success with the story of the 10,000 Polish officers allegedly killed by the Soviets, the German Propaganda Ministry has evidently determined to explore further possibilities of splitting the Allies.”

Because of the many atrocities committed by the Jewish-directed Allies, not only the firestorm incineration of German civilians in many German cities, but the incineration of hundreds’ of thousands of Japanese civilians in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Operation Keelhaul, the murder of one million anti-Communist Russians who were ordered handed over to the Soviet executioners by Eisenhower, and many other horrors, it was necessary to invent a German atrocity which would eclipse these horrors. The “extermination” of the Jews seemed made to order. Since there was no basis for any numerical figures, the earliest projections were that 12,000,000 Jews had been killed. Wiser heads among the Jews suggested that no figure higher than one million should be advanced, since a larger figure was likely to be discredited, thus invalidating the entire Holocaust claim. Some Jewish writers in New York began to publicize a figure of six million, and this soon gained such wide currency that the Jews had to settle for it, and it has remained the standard figure ever since. The self appointed “historian” of the Holocaust, Lucy S. Davidowicz, coyly presents a figure of 5,933,900 in her “Holocaust Reader”. Certainly no one objects to rounding this off to the more practical figure of six million. Congressman George G. Sadowski, in opposing the Marshall Plan, stated, “That 10,000,000 Jews were killed, tortured, placed in slave labor camps … that all means nothing.” Congressional Record, Feb. 23, 1948.

While protecting the Jews from the horrors of the Allied bombing raids, the Germans were forced by the exigencies of the war to leave the Jews largely to their own devices. As a result, the Jews, in the midst of war and universal devastation, thrived with their talents for black marketeering and scavenging. As Werner Sombart has written, “Wars are the Jews harvests.” In “The War Against the Jews”, Lucy Davodowicz writes of the Jewish profiteers, “This new class — smugglers, underworld, nouveaux riches — became the clientele for dozens of cafes, restaurants, and nightclubs that mushroomed in the ghetto. They passed their time dining, drinking, dancing.”

In the camps, the Jewish inmates assumed complete charge of their administration. They converted the camps into training schools in which they subjected their students to the most intensive methods of Jewish survival and victory. Every morsel of food, clothing, every sexual pleasure and other aspect of life, became the vehicle of the most vicious bartering and maneuvering for advantage. Friedrich quotes one of them in “The Kingdom of Auschwitz”. Concentration camp existence … taught us that the whole world is really like a concentration camp. The world is ruled by neither justice nor morality; crime is not punished nor virtue rewarded. The world is ruled by power. We are laying the foundation for some new, monstrous civilization.”

In fact, the Jews used the camps as the opportunity to recreate the most intensive Talmudic training schools for themselves, a rigid education which they had lost since emerging from their mediaeval ghettoes. Now, raging in their genetic powerhouses which they recreated in the camps, they prepared themselves for the inevitable ending of the war, when they loosed themselves upon the wartorn nations of the earth like the most devastating plagues from Pandora’s box. When they descended upon the helpless Christians, they immediately created a “new, monstrous civilization”. As one Jew boasted, “When I left the concentration camp, I suddenly realized that I could take anybody.”

The graduates of this school for power quickly became wealthy and influential residents of many countries. One and all, they were fanatical Zionists; they were united in their contempt for the “goyim”, the gentile cattle whom they proposed to enslave and manipulate. With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, they quickly converted the government of the United States into a vassal of Tel Aviv, and used the wealth of the greatest country in the world to advance their goals in other nations. In every instance, they used the Myth of the Holocaust to advance their objectives. The goyim were inundated with stories and movies of “the extermination” of the Jews. Anne Roiphe wrote, in “Generation Without a Memory,”, p. 62, “When gas became costly and ran short, they threw the infants and children directly into burning ovens.” She fails to tell us what sort of fuel the Germans were using for their “burning ovens”. The Jews continually wrote of the “modern technology” which had enabled the Germans to dispose of millions of Jews, and invariably, the sole illustration of this “technology” was a pair of small ovens which seemed a relic of the nineteenth century, and which could have disposed of only a few bodies a day. A crematorium requires a temperature of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit for the first ninety minutes, and then 1800 degrees for from sixty to one hundred fifty minutes, and even this does not burn bones. Lacking fuel supplies, the Germans could not even have provided the necessary fuel to embark on any program of burning victims.

The Jews then introduced lurid stories of chemical experiments on the victims. In fact, the Washington Post recently carried a series of horror stories in which helpless victims were given chemical substances which caused then intense agony, vomiting and convulsions, loss of hair and many other excruciating symptoms. However, the victims were not Jews in Nazi concentration camps. They were patients at the National Institute of Health in Washington, where government doctors experimented on them with various chemicals for cancer treatments. Most of the victims died in agony, without the slightest amelioration of their cancers. In American prisons, chemical testing of various substances on prisoners has been going on for many years. While our government continues to appropriate millions of dollars for the pursuit of “Nazi war criminals”, these chemical experiments in our prisons and hospitals go on without interruption.

The “Nazi hunter”, Simon Weisenthal, has become a cult figure in Washington, despite the revelations that throughout World War II he was a Gestapo agent. He has come under increasing criticism from many of his fellow Jews for his claim that he alone has kept the Holocaust Myth alive in recent years. Soon he may even claim that he invented the entire myth. Meanwhile, the American people, driven to the brink of bankruptcy by our support of the State of Israel, can find no prospect of relief.

Now the United States faces the possibility of a lawsuit projected by a group of German citizens, for the sum of $400 billion. This claim is based on the more than 100 billion marks which West Germany has been forced to pay the State of Israel as “reparations” for “the extermination of six million Jews.” Not only was the claim false, but it was extorted from the German people solely because of the continued military occupation of West Germany by the United States. The Germans point out that in all the prosecutions of former camp guards, they have only been charged with “beating and kicking” the Jewish inmates. None of them has been charged with actually “gassing” anyone. Kurt Becker, of the Press Information Office in Bonn, Germany, stated in Newsweek, June 8, 1981, that as of Dec. 31, 1980, West Germany had paid to the State of Israel 63 billion DM, or $30 billion, and was still committed to pay a further $9.5 billion. In addition, German firms have been forced to pay Israel many more billions as reparations to Jewish “laborers”, and to furnish many billions of dollars worth of electrical systems, telephone systems, and other technological gifts to Israel.

In contrast, after World War I, the Reparations Commission submitted to Germany a demand that $30 billion be paid, to be divided among all the nations which Germany had fought in that war. Of this demand, only a few million dollars was ever paid, yet the State of Israel has already exacted from West Germany more money than was asked by all the nations whom Germany fought in World War I. The East Democratic Republic of Germany has denied that Germany owes any reparations to the State of Israel, and has paid nothing, leaving the United States as the nation solely responsible for forcing West Germany to pay many billions to the State of Israel. The German government would never have paid this money without the force of the American occupying power, yet American taxpayers are told that we maintain a military presence in West Germany to oppose Russian aggression. The farcical nature of this explanation of our military collection agency is exposed when it is admitted that American forces in West Germany could only delay a Russian advance from two to four hours !

The payments which the American military has demanded that West Germany pay to Israel have contributed heavily to West Germany’s economic problems, and are responsible for the growing anti-American feeling in Germany. Many Germans openly sneer at the “mongrel culture” of the United States and call us a “nation of mulattoes”, due to the presence of many black troops occupying West Germany.

Because of the nature of the dictatorship maintained by the force of the American military occupying army, in which no German is allowed to question the Myth of the Holocaust, the German patriots believe the only way to expose this conspiracy on behalf of Israel is to sue the United States for the return of all the “Holocaust” payments to Israel, with interest. This demand will soon be brought before the World Court. Meanwhile, Americans must decide what action to take to salvage their collapsing economy from the demands made on it by the insatiable Israeli power. Only the complete exposure of the Holocaust hoax will free our government officials from their commitments to ever increasing payments to the State of Israel.

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/mullins/caust.html

US General joint chiefs of staff not on the same Zionist pagebook.

When last week satanyahoo sent a missle message to General Dempey’s plane
Killing 2 of his aides this week the brave General gets our respect. Maybe Zionism own’s Washington DC but not completely our militaries.

Top US military commander: ‘I don’t want to be complicit’ if Israel attacks Iran

Published: 31 August, 2012, 20:07
Deposited from Presstv.com

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey

The highest ranking officer in the United States military has announced that he is against American participation in any Israeli-led attack on Iran, even as pressure to destroy the Islamic Republic’s rumored nuclear program remain unrelieved.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in London on Thursday that an Israeli attack would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” adding that he was against US cooperation in a unilateral assault.

“I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it,” Dempsey told reporters.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been adamant that the nation’s nuclear facilities exist solely for peaceful purposes and that the country is not in the market for procuring nuclear warheads, a sentiment echoed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who earlier this week told heads of state, “Our motto is nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none.”

So far, no foreign nations have been able to independently confirm or deny that claim. On Thursday, however, the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency wrote that Iran has been uncooperative with attempts to investigate their facilities and suggested that they could be procuring nukes.

Israel, a close ally of the United States, has also claimed that Iran’s intentions are motivated by manufacturing of warheads. In May of this year, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated, “Our position has not changed. The world must stop Iran from becoming nuclear. All options remain on the table.”

From an executive standpoint, President Obama has also remained willing to strike if necessary, but has not pushed for pressure on Iran aside from the sanctions currently imposed by the United States.

“I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But (both) governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” President Obama said earlier this year to The Atlantic.

On Thursday, Gen. Dempsey commented that a strike against Iran over fears of their nuclear program, if conducted, could be without merit and might even erode the pro-Israeli alliance currently in place.

“International coalition” applying pressure on Iran “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely,” Dempsey said, adding that “Intelligence did not reveal intentions” to procure nukes.

Gen. Dempsey was in the UK to attend the Paralympic Games, where he is serving as the head of the U.S. delegation.

What a healthy world view looks like …vs Africom

China’s winning strategy in Africa By Brendan O’Reilly

Contention between China and the United States is extending far beyond the current hot spot of the South China Sea. As China’s economy continues its rapid expansion, a truly global realignment of power is taking place. Regions that were dominated by the West for centuries are now coming into China’s orbit, challenging America’s position at the top on a once-unipolar world.

This trend is particularly evident in Africa. The United States is now seeking to counter China’s economic and political inroads in the African continent. The Africa policies of both the US and China are important not only in their own right, but also because these policies serve to indicate the significant differences in these two powers’ general foreign strategies and world views.

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been quick to question China’s relationship with Africa, and highlight the

purported difference in Africa policy between the US and China. During her visit to Senegal (the first stop of her African tour), she promoted “a model of sustainable partnership that adds value, rather than extracts it”. She went on to promise: “America will stand up for democracy and universal human rights even when it might be easier to look the other way and keep the resources flowing.” [1]

These comments have been widely understood as thinly disguised swipes at Chinese efforts in the region. Chinese state media reacted swiftly, saying Clinton’s words constituted “cheap shots”. An editorial from the official Xinhua news agency, titled “US plot to sow discord between China, Africa is doomed to fail” stated:

China’s booming economic relations with Africa have stemmed both from their time-honored friendship and complementary needs of development. Its genuine respect of and support for African countries’ development paths are lauded and welcomed across the continent. The friendly and mutually beneficial interaction between China and Africa gives the lie to Clinton’s insinuation. [2]

One must sift through the propaganda on both sides to arrive at an objective truth behind the motives of the US and China in Africa. Both act in Africa to promote the perceived self-interest of their respective nations. While the US speaks of human rights and democracy, counterterrorism and security are at the top of its agenda. Meanwhile, China’s “friendly interaction” with African states has an almost entirely economic purpose.

The raw numbers reveal China’s massive economic impact in Africa. Trade between Africa and China has more than trebled since 2006, passing US$166 billion last year. [3]

The majority of this figure comes from Africa’s $93 billion of exports to China – most of which is raw materials, especially petroleum and copper. African imports from China consist largely of consumer and electronic goods. According to Beijing, the past decade has seen $15 billion worth of Chinese commercial investment in Africa. In 2009 China overtook the United States to become Africa’s No 1 trading partner.

However, China’s footprint in Africa extends far beyond the bustling trade in natural resources and manufactured goods. Last month, at the fifth Forum on Africa-China Cooperation, China promised to lend African governments $20 billion. This figure has consistently doubled at the last three forums – in 2006 $5 billion was pledged, and in 2009 $10 billion in loans were agreed upon. Inter-government ties between Africa and China were further solidified by China’s building of the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa free of charge.

The Chinese government clearly expects dividends on its massive investment in the African continent. Many of the loans to Africa are focused on infrastructure. New roads, railways and ports, while obviously useful to the Africans themselves, will help facilitate the export of natural resources to China.

China’s role in Africa reveals a singular economic focus. Beijing’s emphasis on economic growth and increasing trade ties with other nations is the defining point of its foreign policy – not only in Africa, but also around the world. The current leadership earns its legitimacy largely on the capability to provide an improved standard of living to its citizens, and much of China’s ongoing economic miracle is based on wealth created through international trade. Its dealings with various unsavory regimes in Africa are not a purposeful affront to Western sensibilities, but are rather based purely on economic self-interest.

Meanwhile, Western critiques of China’s impact in Africa often overlook the opinions of Africans themselves. Undoubtedly, there are some concerns in Africa with China’s increasing presence. At the fifth Forum on Africa-China Cooperation, South African President Jacob Zuma expressed mild reservations with Sino-African relations:

Africa’s commitment to China’s development has been demonstrated by supply of raw materials, other products and technology transfer … This trade pattern is unsustainable in the long term. Africa’s past economic experience with Europe dictates a need to be cautious when entering into partnerships with other economies. [4]

Zuma’s misgivings regarding the pattern of trade represent a common concern among some African leaders. However, this by no means is indicative of a general anti-Chinese attitude throughout the continent.

According to a 2011 BBC World Service Poll, 82% of Nigerians and 77% of Kenyans believed that China’s economic growth had a “positive impact” on their country. [5] These were the highest positive ratings of China’s economic rise of any of the 27 countries polled, excluding China itself. This optimistic attitude was mirrored in Ghana (62%), but markedly less prevalent in Egypt (54%) and South Africa (52%).

Furthermore, the same study found an overwhelming majority of Africans to view China’s trading practices as “fair” – from 88% in Nigeria to 61% in South Africa. According to the same poll, only 5% of Nigerians and 18% of South Africans viewed Chinese trading practices as “unfair”.

China’s image problem in Africa resides primarily in the minds of Western observers. Although there are significant concerns about unsustainable trading practices, these concerns do not constitute a continent-wide anti-China sentiment.

Charges of Chinese “neo-imperialism” in Africa are primarily based on a pattern of trade: importing materials and exporting finished goods typical is a formula typical of colonial powers. However, the major defining factor of imperialism – military dominance and use of force – is simply not present in China’s Africa policy. This is not true of China’s prime Western critics, especially the United States of America.

During the past decade of China’s rapidly increasing trade and investment in Africa, the United States was primarily focused on “security” issues in the continent. US involvement in Somalia’s long-standing civil war has been extensive, with numerous casualties from drone strikes targeting Islamist militias. Ethiopian and Ugandan soldiers, backed by American weaponry and intelligence, have intervened in Somalia to counter the Islamists. Furthermore, in 2007, the Pentagon established the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), with military jurisdiction over the entire continent. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s bombing campaign in Libya (which earned China’s disapproval) was strongly backed by US firepower.

The myopic focus of the US on security and counterterrorism gave China an important opportunity to make economic inroads in Africa. Nowhere in the world is the foreign-policy focus of these two nations better contrasted than in the African continent. While the US was busy been bombing and arming, China was buying, selling, building and lending.

Secretary Clinton’s criticisms of China’s Africa policy are likely to fall on deaf ears. China’s cold hard cash has proved much more effective at winning friends in the region than America’s military approach.

Furthermore, China by no means has a monopoly on dealing with oppressive regimes to promote self-interest. While championing “human rights” and “democracy”, the US has made deals with the authoritarian governments of Ethiopia and Uganda to promote its counterterrorism and security agenda. Daniel Kalinaki of Uganda’s Daily Monitor complains that the US push for good governance is “inconsistent and shifts with its interests”. [6]

Both China and the United States have extensive interests in Africa. Where Washington focuses on combating a global jihadist tide (and ostensibly promoting democracy), Beijing sees a rich potential of natural resources and new customers for Chinese goods. Africa serves to highlight the stark contrast of Chinese and US foreign policy. Both nations have been willing to strike deals with unsavory regimes for the sake of self-interest, be it economic (in China’s case) or strategic (America’s).

As the US “pivots” toward Asia, it is only natural that China will seek strategic depth in areas that were once dominated by the US and its European allies. If the US becomes more openly determined to contain China’s rise, the ensuing struggle will be not be confined to the Asia-Pacific region. China’s extensive economic ties with Africa will eventually pay political dividends.

Notes: 1. Hillary Clinton launches African tour with veiled attack on China , The Guardian, Aug 1, ’12. 2. US plot to sow discord between China, Africa is doomed to fail , Xinhua, Aug 3, ’12. 3. Chart of the week: China steps up the Africa charm offensive , The Financial Times, Jul 23, ’12. 4. Zuma warns on Africa’s trade ties to China , The Washington Post, Jul 19, ’12. 5. Rising Concern about China’s Increasing Power: Global Poll , BBC World Service, Mar 27, ’11 (pdf file). 6. China attacks Clinton’s Africa comments , The Financial Times, Aug 3, ’12.

Brendan P O’Reilly is a China-based writer and educator from Seattle. He is author of The Transcendent Harmony.

An age of hypocrisy

Putin Is Demonized While Democracy Fails In Amerika – Paul Putin Is Demonized While Democracy Fails In Amerika – Paul Craig Roberts Craig Roberts August 30th, 2012

Like Sign Up to see what your friends like.

(PCR) – The latest “rights group” to jump on Russia’s President Putin about Pussy Riot is RootsAction. Following the propaganda line that Washington has established, RootsAction’s appeal for money and petition signers states that the three Russian women were sentenced to two years in prison “for the ‘crime’ of performing a song against Russia’s president Vladimir Putin in a Moscow church.”

This statement is a propagandistic misrepresentation of the offense for which the women were tried and convicted.

I have expressed my sympathies for the convicted women, and as a member of Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union, I support human rights.

But I do not support the use of human rights organizations in behalf of Washington’s propaganda.

If Putin or some other official has the power to commute the sentences, I hope he uses it. But I do not think that the concerted Western propaganda campaign against Putin encourages that result. Twice as many Russians support the sentence than oppose it.

If the sentence is commuted in response to the Western propaganda campaign against Putin, Russian nationalists will depict Putin as a weak leader unable to stand up to Western intimidation. The more internal dissension there is in Russia, the easier for Washington to marginalize the country and kick it out of Washington’s path to the overthrow of Syria and Iran by brutal human-rights-violating violence, such as Washington has applied to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

The State Department, the EU, and human rights groups are sufficiently politically astute to be aware of this fact. Yet, the propaganda continues.

As Putin has said, “we know what Comrade Wolf is up to.” But what about the human rights organizations? What are they up to? Have they been incorporated into Washington’s propaganda machine, like the Western media, or are they latching on to Pussy Riot as a visibility and fundraising issue for themselves?

Do-good organizations hurt for money, because compassion for others is not in abundant supply. Pussy Riot is a fundraising opportunity. If the Russian government succumbs to the propaganda, it provides an opportunity for human rights organizations to tout their influence. In other words, human rights organizations have independent reasons to align with Washington’s propaganda. Their alignment does not necessarily mean that they are conscious tools of Washington.

You can bet your last dollar that Washington, which dismisses as “collateral damage” the hundreds of thousands of women, children, and village elders murdered in Washington’s wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Syria, is not concerned with the three Pussy Riot women’s 2-year prison sentence.

Washington has kept the American hero, Bradley Manning in prison for two years without a trial. Washington claims the power, strictly prohibited by the US Constitution, that “scrap of paper,” to hold US citizens indefinitely in prison without due process of law and to murder them on suspicion alone without due process of law. Does any sentient person really believe that such a government gives a hoot about a two-year prison sentence for three Russian women?

The Western media is silent about the collapse of the United States into tyranny. But, on cue from Washington, the Western media is loud about the dire plight of Pussy Riot.

For example, this from the UK’s The Week with First Post: “Beyond Pussy Riot: slow death of freedom in Putin’s Russia.” Louisa Loveluck introduces her report: “The Russian government’s distaste for freedom of expression has been in the headlines recently thanks to the trial and subsequent imprisonment of three members of punk collective Pussy Riot. But the persecution of these women forms only a small part of a much broader crackdown on civil liberties in President Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

Has Putin, like the Amerikan presidents Bush and Obama, declared that he has the power to throw Russian citizens in a dungeon for life without ever presenting evidence in a court? No, he has not.

Has Putin, like the Amerikan president Obama, declared that he has the power to assassinate Russian citizens without due process of law? No, he has not.

Has Putin, like the Amerikan president Obama, declared that he has the legal authority to invade any country of which he disapproves and to overthrow its government? No, he has not.

So why is the UK’s Louisa Loveluck going on about a two-year prison sentence in Russia when the UK government, in defiance of international law and in obedience to its Amerikan master, refuses safe passage to Ecuador for Julian Assange, who has been granted political asylum? Even “authoritarian” China grants safe passage to those granted asylum.

The hypocrisy of the West, including the rank hypocrisy of human rights organizations, is nauseating. It makes one ashamed.

Julian Assange faces life imprisonment in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London because the puppet UK government is helping Washington make an example of what happens to journalists who dare to publish the truth about Washington’s mendacity and war crimes.

Is Washington paying Louisa Loveluck’s salary or is she, along with the First Post, simply terrified of Washington’s power? Or are Ms. Loveluck and the First Post simply going with the flow and avoiding criticism by not differing from the propaganda line?

No one will investigate, so we will never know.

Meanwhile in “freedom and democracy” america, at their Tampa, Florida, nominating convention, the Republican Party showed its true colors. It is a Brownshirt Party.

The tyrannical Republican machine refused to allow Ron Paul’s name to be mentioned or his delegate count to be presented.

Reports from the Republican nomination convention read like reports of Stalin’s takeover of the Communist Party or the Nazi takeover of the German state. Rules adopted at the convention eliminate any grass roots input. The Republican politburo is supreme. The party is subservient, and the members’ voices are eliminated. Mimicking Lenin, the Republicans declared that Republican rule “means neither more nor less than unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything, not restricted by any laws, nor any absolute rules. Nothing else but that.”

As Mother Jones reported, Ron Paul supporters shouted from the convention floor, “Fuck You, Tyrants!” http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ron-paul-supporters-rebel-convention-floor-fuck-you-tyrants

The Republicans are the party of “freedom and democracy.” The Republicans are the party most controlled by the neoconservatives, who are strongly allied with Israel’s far right-wing government and are most hostile to the US Constitution. The Republicans are the party that gave us the PATRIOT Act, the first massive assault on the US Constitution. The Republicans are the party that gave us 9/11. The Republicans are the party that gave us the $3 trillion war against Iraq based on the Republican party’s lies about “weapons of mass destruction.” The Republicans are the party that gave us the $3 trillion war in Afghanistan based on lies about Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. The Republicans are the party that gave us the supremacy of the President over both the US Constitution and US statutory law; the executive branch is bound by neither according to the Republican Federalist Society members of the US Department of Justice (sic).

Obama is a despicable patsy, a front man for powerful private interests, and Democrats should be totally ashamed to have elevated such a cowardly lowlife. But as awful as Obama is, a vote for Republicans is a vote for Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, the election of Romney and Ryan would be worse than either.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.