Tuesday, December 25, 2007

The secret history of the atomic bomb, why Hiroshima was destroyed

The Untold Story

by Eustace C. Mullins June 1998

THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE ATOMIC BOMB
A NEW MISSION
CRIMINALS ON DISPLAY
ATOMIC TERRORISM
A UNITED NATIONS PROJECT
THE JEWISH HELL-BOMB
THE BUCK PASSES TO TRUMAN
LIPMAN SIEW
WILL JAPAN SURRENDER BEFORE THE BOMB IS DROPPED?
THE HORROR OF HIROSHIMA
MASS MURDER
A PILOT'S STORY
DID THE ATOMIC BOMB WIN THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN?
THE NAGASAKI BOMB
AMERICAN MILITARY AUTHORITIES SAY ATOMIC BOMB UNNECESSARY
ANOTHER EISENHOWER SPEAKS
MACARTHUR'S WARNING
THE NEW ATOMIC AGE
THE REBIRTH OF ISRAEL
THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR WARFARE
GANDHI SPEAKS
Cast of Characters
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE


The world was stunned to learn that India has now tested nuclear weapons. For many years, all nations have been concerned about the proliferation of atomic explosives. Even in their distress, no one seems to be interested in the historic or the psychological record of why these weapons were developed, and what special breed of mankind devoted themselves to this diabolical goal.

Despite the lack of public interest, the record is clear, and easily available to anyone who is interested. My interest in this subject, dormant for many years was suddenly rekindled during my annual lecture tour in Japan. My hosts had taken me to the city of Nagasaki for the first time. Without telling me their plans, they entered the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. I thought it would be an interesting experience, but, to my surprise, when I walked into the exhibition rooms, I was suddenly overcome by sadness. Realizing that I was about to burst into tears, I moved away from my companions, and stood biting my lip. Even so, it seemed impossible to control myself. I was surrounded by the most gruesome objects, the fingers of a human hand fused with glass, a photograph of the shadow of a man on a brick wall; the man had been vaporized in the explosion .

A NEW MISSION

When I returned to the United States, I knew1 had to unearth the sinister figures behind greatest of human catastrophes. It took many weeks of research to uncover what turned out to be the most far-reaching conspiracy of all time, the program of a few dedicated revolutionaries to seize control of the entire world, by inventing the powerful weapon ever unveiled.

The story begins in Germany. In the 1930s, Germany and Japan had a number of scientists icing on the development of nuclear fission. In both of these countries, their leaders sternly forbade them to continue their research. Adolf Hitler said he would never allow anyone in Germany to work to work on such an inhumane weapon.

The Emperor of Japan let his scientists know that he would never approve such a weapon. At that time the United States had no one working on nuclear fission. The disgruntled German scientists contacted friends in the United States, and were told that there was a possibility of government support for their work here. As Don Beyer tells these immigrants to the United States pushed their program.

"Leo Szilard, together with his long time friends and fellow Hungarian physicists, Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller, agreed that the President must be warned; fission bomb tehnology was not so farfetched. The Jewish emigres, now living in America, had personal experience of fascism in Europe. In 1939, the three physicists enlisted the support of Albert Einstein, letter dated August 2 signed by Einstein was delivered by Alexander Sachs to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House on October 11, 39."

CRIMINALS ON DISPLAY

At the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, photographs of two men are prominently displayed; Albert Einstein, and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who developed the atomic bomb at Los Alamos laboratories, New Mexico. Also on display is a statement from General Eisenhower, who was then supreme Military Commander, which is found in number of books about Eisenhower, and which can be found on p.426, Eisenhower by Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & Shuster, NY, 1983.

"Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson first told Eisenhower of the bomb's existence. Eisenhower was engulfed by "a feeling of depression'. When Stimson said the United States proposed to use the bomb against Japan, Eisenhower voiced 'my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use (of atomic weapons).' Stimson was upset by Eisenhower's attitude 'almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusion'. Three days later, Eisenhower flew to Berlin, where he met with Truman and his principal advisors. Again Eisenhower recommended against using the bomb, and again was ignored.

Other books on Eisenhower state that he endangered his career by his protests against the bomb, which the conspirators in the highest level of the United States government had already sworn to use against Japan, regardless of any military developments. Eisenhower could not have known that Stimson was a prominent member of Skull and Bones at Yale, the Brotherhood of Death, founded by the Russell Trust in 1848 as a bunch of the German Illuminati, or that they had played prominent roles in organizing wars and revolutions since that time. Nor could he have known that President Truman had only had one job in his career, as a Masonic organizer for the State of Missouri, and that the lodges he built up later sent him to the United States Senate and then to the presidency.

ATOMIC TERRORISM

The man who set all this in motion was Albert Einstein, who left Europe and came to the United States in October 1933. His wife said that he "regarded human beings with detestation". He had previously corresponded with Sigmund Freud about his projects of "peace" and "disarmament", although Freud later said he did not believe that Einstein ever accepted any of his theories. Einstein had a personal interest in Freud's work because his son Eduard spent his life in mental institutions, undergoing both insulin therapy and electroshock treatment, none of which produced any change in his condition.

When Einstien arrived in the United States, he was feted as a famous scientist, and was invited to the White House by President and Mrs. Roosevelt. He was soon deeply involved with Eleanor Roosevelt in her many leftwing causes, in which Einstein heartily concurred. Some of Einstein's biographers hail the modern era as "the Einstein Revolution" and "the Age of Einstein", possibly because he set in motion the program of nuclear fission in the United States. His letter to Roosevelt requesting that the government inaugurate an atomic bomb program was obviously stirred by his lifelong commitment to "peace and disarmament". His actual commitment was to Zionism; Ronald W. Clark mentions in Einstein; His Life And Times, Avon, 1971, p.377, "He would campaign with the Zionists for a Jewish homeland in Palestine." On p.460, Clark quotes Einstein, "As a Jew I am from today a supporter of the Jewish Zionist efforts." (1919) Einstein's letter to Roosevelt, dated august 2, 1939, was delivered personally to President Roosevelt by Alexander Sachs on October 11. Why did Einstein enlist an intermediary to bring this letter to Roosevelt, with whom he was on friendly terms? The atomic bomb program could not be launched without the necessary Wall Street sponsorship. Sachs, a Russian Jew, listed his profession as "economist" but was actually a bagman for the Rothschilds, who regularly delivered large sums of cash to Roosevelt in the White House. Sachs was an advisor to Eugene Meyer of the Lazard Freres International Banking House, and also with Lehman Brothers, another well known banker. Sachs' delivery of the Einstein letter to the White House let Roosevelt know that the Rothschilds approved of the project and wished him to go full speed ahead.

A UNITED NATIONS PROJECT

In May of 1945, the architects of postwar strategy, or, as they liked to call themselves, the "Masters of the Universe", gathered in San Francisco at the plush Palace Hotel to write the Charter for the United Nations. Several of the principals retired for a private meeting in the exclusive Garden Room. The head of the United States delegation had called this secret meeting with his top aide, Alger Hiss, representing the president of the United States and the Soviet KGB; John Foster Dulles, of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, whose mentor, William Nelson Cromwell, had been called a "professional revolutionary" on the floor of Congress; and W. Averill Harriman, plenipotentiary extraordinary, who had spent the last two years in Moscow directing Stalin's war for survival. These four men represented the awesome power of the American Republic in world affairs, yet of the four, only Secretary of State Edward Stettinius Jr., had a position authorized by the Constitution. Stettinius called the meeting to order to discuss an urgent matter; the Japanese were already privately suing for peace, which presented a grave crisis. The atomic bomb would not be ready for several more months. "We have already lost Germany," Stettinius said. "If Japan bows out, we will not have a live population on which to test the bomb."

"But, Mr. Secretary," said Alger Hiss, "no one can ignore the terrible power of this weapon." "Nevertheless," said Stettinius, "our entire postwar program depends on terrifying the world with the atomic bomb." "To accomplish that goal," said John Foster Dulles, "you will need a very good tally. I should say a million." "Yes," replied Stettinius, "we are hoping for a million tally in Japan. But if they surrender, we won't have anything." "Then you have to keep them in the war until the bomb is ready," said John Foster Dulles. "That is no problem. Unconditional surrender." "They won't agree to that," said Stettinius. "They are sworn to protect the Emperor." "Exactly," said John Foster Dulles. "Keep Japan in the war another three months, and we can use the bomb on their cities; we will end this war with the naked fear of all the peoples of the world, who will then bow to our will."

Edward Stettinius Jr. was the son of a J.P. Morgan partner who had been the world's largest munitions dealer in the First World War. He had been named by J.P. Morgan to oversee all purchases of munitions by both France and England in the United States throughout the war. John Foster Dulles was also an accomplished warmonger. In 1933, he and his brother Allen had rushed to Cologne to meet with Adolf Hitler and guaranteed him the funds to maintain the Nazi regime. The Dulles brothers were representing their clients, Kuhn Loeb Co., and the Rothschilds. Alger Hiss was the golden prince of the communist elite in the united States. When he was chosen as head of the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace after World War II, his nomination was seconded by John Foster Dulles. Hiss was later sent to prison for perjury for lying about his exploits as a Soviet espionage agent.

This secret meeting in the Garden Room was actually the first military strategy session of the United Nations, because it was dedicated to its mission of exploding the world's first atomic weapon on a living population. It also forecast the entire strategy of the Cold War, which lasted forty-three years, cost American taxpayers five trillion dollars, and accomplished exactly nothing, as it was intended to do. Thus we see that the New World Order has based its entire strategy on the agony of the hundreds of thousands of civilians burned alive at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including many thousands of children sitting in their schoolrooms. These leaders had learned from their master, Josef Stalin, that no one can rule without mass terrorism, which in turn required mass murder. As Senator Vandenberg, leader of the Republican loyal opposition, was to say (as quoted in American Heritage magazine, August 1977), "We have got to scare the hell out of "em."

THE JEWISH HELL-BOMB

The atomic bomb was developed at the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico. The top secret project was called the Manhattan Project, because its secret director, Bernard Baruch, lived in Manhattan, as did many of the other principals. Baruch had chosen Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves to head the operation. He had previously built the Pentagon, and had a good reputation among the Washington politicians, who usually came when Baruch beckoned.

The scientific director at Los Alamos was J. Robert Oppenheimer, scion of a prosperous family of clothing merchants. In Oppenheimer; the Years Of Risk, by James Kunetka, Prentice Hall, NY, 1982, Kunetka writes, p. 106, "Baruch was especially interested in Oppenheimer for the position of senior scientific adviser." The project cost an estimated two billion dollars. No other nation in the world could have afforded to develop such a bomb. The first successful test of the atomic bomb occurred at the Trinity site, two hundred miles south of Los Alamos at 5:29:45 a.m. on July 16, 1945. Oppenheimer was beside himself at the spectacle. He shrieked, "I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds." Indeed, this seemed to be the ultimate goal of the Manhattan Project, to destroy the world. There had been considerable fear among the scientists that the test explosion might indeed set off a chain reaction, which would destroy the entire world. Oppenheimer's exultation came from his realization that now his people had attained the ultimate power, through which they could implement their five-thousand-year desire to rule the entire world.

THE BUCK PASSES TO TRUMAN

Although Truman liked to take full credit for the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, in fact, he was advised by a prestigious group, The National Defense Research Committee, consisting of George L. Harrison, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Dr. James B. Conant, president of Harvard, who had spent the First World War developing more effective poison gases, and who in 1942 had been commissioned by Winston Churchill to develop an Anthrax bomb to be used on Germany, which would have killed every living thing in Germany. Conant was unable to perfect the bomb before Germany surrendered, otherwise he would have had another line to add to his resume. His service on Truman's Committee which advised him to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, added to his previous record as a chemical warfare professional, allowed me to describe him in papers filed before the United States Court of Claims in 1957, as "the most notorious war criminal of the Second World War". As Gauleiter of Germany after the war, he had ordered the burning of my book, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, ten thousand copies having been published in Oberammergau, the site of the world-famed Passion Play.

Also on the committee were Dr. Karl Compton, and James F. Byrnes, acting Secretary of State. For thirty years, Byrnes had been known as Bernard Baruch's man in Washington. With his Wall Street profits, Baruch had built the most lavish estate in South Carolina, which he named Hobcaw Barony. As the wealthiest man in South Carolina, this epitome of the carpet-bagger also controlled the political purse strings. Now Baruch was in a position to dictate to Truman, through his man Byrnes, that he should drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

LIPMAN SIEW

Despite the fact that the Manhattan Project was the most closely guarded secret of World War II, one man, and one many only, was allowed to observe everything and to know everything about the project. He was Lipman Siew, a Lithuanian Jew who had come to the United States as a political refugee at the age of seventeen. He lived in Boston on Lawrence St., and decided to take the name of William L. Laurence. At Harvard, he became a close friend of James B. Conant and was tutored by him. When Laurence went to New York, he was hired by Herbert Bayard Swope, editor of the New York World, who was known as Bernard Baruch's personal publicity agent. Baruch owned the World. In 1930, Laurence accepted an offer from the New York Times to become its science editor. He states in Who's Who that he "was selected by the heads of the atomic bomb project as sole writer and public relations." How one could be a public relations writer for a top secret project was not explained. Laurence was the only civilian present at the historic explosion of the test bomb on July 16, 1945. Less than a month later, he sat in the copilots seat of the B-29 on the fateful Nagasaki bombing run.

WILL JAPAN SURRENDER BEFORE THE BOMB IS DROPPED?

There were still many anxious moments for the conspirators, who planned to launch a new reign of terror throughout the world. Japan had been suing for peace. Each day it seemed less likely that she could stay in the war. On March 9 and 10, 1945, 325 B-29s had burned thirty-five square miles of Tokyo, leaving more than one hundred thousand Japanese dead in the ensuing firestorm. Of Japan's 66 biggest cities, 59 had been mostly destroyed. 178 square miles of urban dwellings had been burned, 500,000 died in the fires, and now twenty million Japanese were homeless. Only four cities had not been destroyed; Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki. Their inhabitants had no inkling that they had been saved as target cities for the experimental atomic bomb. Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves, at Bernard Baruch's insistence, had demanded that Kyoto be the initial target of the bomb. Secretary of War Stimson objected, saying that as the ancient capital of Japan, the city of Kyoto had hundreds of historic wooden temples, and no military targets. The Jews wanted to destroy it precisely because of its great cultural importance to the Japanese people.

THE HORROR OF HIROSHIMA

While the residents of Hiroshima continued to watch the B-29s fly overhead without dropping bombs on them, they had no inkling of the terrible fate which the scientists had reserved for them. William Manchester quotes General Douglas MacArtbur in American Caesar, Little Brown, 1978, p.437

[quoting:] There was another Japan, and MacArthur was one of the few Americans who suspected its existence. He kept urging the Pentagon and the State Department to be alert for conciliatory gestures. The General predicted that the break would come from Tokyo, not the Japanese army. The General was right. A dovish coalition was forming in the Japanese capital, and it was headed by Hirohito himself, who had concluded in the spring of 1945 that a negotiated peace was the only way to end his nation's agony. Beginning in early May, a six-man council of Japanese diplomats explored ways to accommodate the Allies. The delegates informed top military officials that "our resistance is finished". [End quoting]

On p.359, Gar Alperowitz quotes Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, in charge of preparing the MAGIC summary in 1945, who stated in a 1959 historical interview, "We brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Although President Truman referred to himself as the sole authority in the decision to drop the bomb, in fact he was totally influenced by Bernard Baruch's man in Washington, James F. Byrnes. Gar Alperowitz states, p. 196, "Byrnes spoke with the authority of�personally represented�the president of the United States on all bomb-related matters in the Interim Committee's deliberations." David McCullough, in his laudatory biography of Truman, which was described as "a valentine", admitted that "Truman didn't know his own Secretary of State, Stettinius. He had no background in foreign policy, no expert advisors of his own."

The tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that a weak, inexperienced president, completely under the influence of Byrnes and Baruch, allowed himself to be manipulated into perpetrating a terrible massacre. In the introduction to Hiroshima's Shadows, we find that "Truman was moving in quite the opposite direction, largely under the influence of Byrnes. The atom bomb for Byrnes was an instrument of diplomacy-atomic diplomacy." (p.ix)

MASS MURDER

On August 6, 1945, a uranium bomb 3-235, 20 kilotons yield, was exploded 1850 feet in the air above Hiroshima, for maximum explosive effect. It devastated four square miles, and killed 140,000 of the 255,000 inhabitants. In Hiroshima's Shadows, we find a statement by a doctor who treated some of the victims; p.415, Dr. Shuntaro Hida: "It was strange to us that Hiroshima had never been bombed, despite the fact that B-29 bombers flew over the city every day. Only after the war did I come to know that Hiroshima, according to American archives, had been kept untouched in order to preserve it as a target for the use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps, if the American administration and its military authorities had paid sufficient regard to the terrible nature of the fiery demon which mankind had discovered and yet knew so little about its consequences, the American authorities might never have used such a weapon against the 750,000 Japanese who ultimately became its victims."

Dr. Hida says that while treating the terribly mangled and burned victims, "My eyes were ready to overflow with tears. I spoke to myself and bit my lip so that I would not cry. If I had cried, I would have lost my courage to keep standing and working, treating dying victims of Hiroshima."

On p.433, Hiroshima's Shadows, Kensaburo Oe declares, "From the instant the atomic bomb exploded, it became the symbol of all human evil; it was a savagely primitive demon and most modern curse.... My nightmare stems from a suspicion that a 'certain trust in human strength' or 'humanism' flashed across the minds of American intellectuals who decided upon the project that concluded with the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima."

In the introduction to Hiroshima's Shadows, we find that "One of the myths of Hiroshima is that the inhabitants were warned by leaflets that an atomic bomb would be dropped. The leaflets Leonard Nadler and William P. Jones recall seeing in the Hiroshima Museum in 1960 and 1970 were dropped after the bombing. This happened because the President's Interim Committee on the Atomic Bomb decided on May 31 'that we could not give the Japanese any warning'. Furthermore, the decision to drop 'atomic' leaflets on Japanese cities was not made until August 7, the day after the Hiroshima bombing. They were not dropped until August 10, after Nagasaki had been bombed. We can say that the residents of Hiroshima received no advance warning about the use of the atomic bomb. On June 1, 1945, a formal and official decision was taken during a meeting of the so-called Interim Committee not to warn the populations of the specific target cities. James Byrnes and Oppenheimer insisted that the bombs must be used without prior warning."

"Closely linked to the question of whether a warning of an atomic bomb attack was given to the civilian populations of the target cities is the third 'article of fifth' that underpins the American legend of Hiroshima; the belief that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. The Headquarters of the Japanese Second army were located in Hiroshima and approximately 20,000 men�of which about half, or 10,000 died in the attack. In Nagasaki, there were about 150 deaths among military personnel in the city. Thus, between the two cities, 4.4% of the total death toll was made up of military personnel. In short, more than 95% of the casualties were civilians."

On p.39 of Hiroshima's Shadows we find that (at Hiroshima) "strictly military damage was insignificant." How are we to reconcile this statement with Harry Truman's vainglorious boast in Off The Record; the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman Harper, 1980, p.304, "In 1945 I had ordered the Atomic Bomb dropped on Japan at two places devoted almost exclusively to war production." In fact, many thousands of the Hiroshima casualties were children sitting in their classrooms.

The bomb was dropped because (p.35) "The Manhattan Project's managers were lobbying to use the atomic bomb. Byrnes sat in on these meetings. Maj. Gen. Groves seems to have been the author of the claim that the use of the bomb would save a million American lives�-a figure in the realm of fantasy."

Truman himself variously stated that the use of the use of the atomic bomb saved "a quarter of a million American lives", a "half-million American lives", and finally settled on the Gen. Groves figure of "a million American lives saved."

Meanwhile (p.64) William L. Laurence, who was writing for the New York Times at full salary while also receiving a full salary from the War Department as the "public relations agent for the atomic bomb" published several stories in the New York Times denying that there had been any radiation effects on the victims of the Hiroshima bombing (Sept. 5, 1945 et seq.) in which he quotes General Groves' indignant comment, "The Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression we won the war unfairly and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves."

(p.66) "The Legation of Switzerland on August 11, 1945 forwarded from Tokyo the following memorandum to the State Department (which sat on it for twenty-five years before finally releasing it): 'The Legation of Switzerland has received a communication from the Japanese Government.' On August 6, 1945, American airplanes released on the residential district of the town of Hiroshima, bombs of a new type, killing and injuring in one second a large number of civilians and destroying a great part of the town. Not only is the city of Hiroshima a provincial town without any protection or special military installations of any kind, but also none of the neighboring regions or towns constitutes a military objective."

The introduction to Hiroshima's Shadows concludes that (p.lxvii) "The claim that an invasion of the Japanese home islands was necessary without the use of the atomic bombs is untrue. The claim that an 'atomic warning' was given to the populace of Hiroshima is untrue. And the claim that both cities were key military targets is untrue."

A PILOT'S STORY

Corroboration of these statements is found in the remarkable record of Ellsworth Torrey Carrington, "Reflections of a Hiroshima Pilot", (p.9) "As part of the Hiroshima atomic battle plan my B-29 (named Jabbitt III, Captain John Abbott Wilson's third war plane) flew the weather observation mission over the secondary target of Kokura on August 6, 1945." (p. 10) "After the first bomb was dropped, the atom bomb command was very fearful that Japan might surrender before we could drop the second bomb, so our people worked around the clock, 24-hours-a-day to avoid such a misfortune." This is, of course, satire on Carrington's part. (p. 13) "in city after city all over the face of Japan (except for our cities spared because reserved for atomic holocaust) they ignited the most terrible firestorms in history with very light losses (of B-29s). Sometimes the heat from these firestorms was so intense that later waves of B-29s were caught by updrafts strong enough to loft them upwards from 4 or 5,000 feet all the way up to 8 or 10,000 feet. The major told us that the fire-bombing of Japan had proven successful far beyond anything they had imagined possible and that the 20th Air Force was running out of cities to burn. Already there were no longer (as of the first week in June 1945) any target cities left that were worth the attention of more than 50 B-29s, and on a big day, we could send up as many as 450 planes!" "The totality of the devastation in Japan was extraordinary, and this was matched by the near-totality of Japan's defencelessness." (as of June 1, 1945, before the atomic bombs were dropped.) (p. 14) "The Truman government censored and controlled all the war information that was allowed to reach the public, and of course, Truman had a vested interest in obscuring the truth so as to surreptitiously prolong the war and be politically able to use the atom bomb. Regarding the second element of the Roosevelt-Truman atomic Cold War strategy of deceiving the public into believing that Japan was still militarily viable in the spring and summer of 1945, the centerpiece was the terribly expensive and criminally unnecessary campaign against Okinawa.

Carrington quotes Admiral William D. Leahy, p. 245, I Was There, McGraw Hill: "A large part of the Japanese Navy was already on the bottom of the sea. The combined Navy surface and air force action even by this time had forced Japan into a position that made her early surrender inevitable. None of us then knew the potentialities of the atomic bomb, but it was my opinion, and I urged it strongly on the Joint Chiefs, that no major land invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary to win the war. The JCS did order the preparation of plans for an invasion, but the invasion itself was never authorized."

Thus Truman, urged on by General Groves, claims that "a million American lives were saved" by the use of the atomic bomb, when no invasion had ever been authorized, and was not in the cards. Carrington continues, p. 16, "The monstrous truth is that the timing of the Okinawa campaign was exclusively related to the early August timetable of the atomic bomb. J'accuse! I accuse Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman of deliberately committing war crimes against the American people for the sole purpose of helping set the stage for the criminally unnecessary use of atomic weapons on Japan."

Carrington further quotes Admiral Leahy, from I Was There, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagaski was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Carrington concludes, p.22, "Truman's wanton use of atomic weapons left the American people feeling dramatically less secure after winning World War II than they had ever felt before, and these feelings of insecurity have been exploited by unscrupulous Cold War Machine Politicians ever since." As Senator Vandenberg said, "We have to scare the hell out of 'em" in order to browbeat the American people into paying heavy taxes to support the Cold War.

DID THE ATOMIC BOMB WIN THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN?

Admiral William Leahy also stated in I Was There, "My own feeling is that being the first to use it (the atomic bomb) we had adopted an ethical standard common to the Barbarism of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Gar Alperowitz notes, p. 16, "On May 5, May 12 and June 7, the Office of Strategic Services (our intelligence operation), reported Japan was considering capitulation. Further messages came on May 18, July 7, July 13 and July 16."

Alperowitz points out, p.36, "The standing United States demand for 'unconditional surrender' directly threatened not only the person of the Emperor but such central tenets of Japanese culture as well."

Alperowitz also quotes General Curtis LeMay, chief of the Air Forces, p.334, "The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. PRESS INQUIRY: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and without the atomic bomb? LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." September 29, 1945, statement.

THE NAGASAKI BOMB

When the Air Force dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, with William Laurence riding in the co-pilot's seat of the B-29, pretending to be Dr. Strangelove, here again the principal target was a Catholic church. P.93, The Fall Of Japan, by William Craig, Dial, NY, 1967, "the roof and masonry of the Catholic cathedral fell on the kneeling worshippers. All of them died." This church has now been rebuilt, and is a prominent feature of the Nagasaki tour.

After the terror bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the victorious Allies moved promptly to try Japanese officials for their "war crimes". From 1945-51 several thousand Japanese military men were found guilty of war crimes by an International Military Tribunal which met in Tokyo from 1946 to 1948. Twenty-eight Japanese military and civilian leaders were accused of having engaged in conspiracy to commit atrocities. The dissenting member of the Tokyo tribunal, Judge Radhabinod of India, dismissed the charge that Japanese leaders had conspired to commit atrocities, stating that a stronger case might be made against the victors, because the decision to use the atomic bomb resulted in indiscriminate murder.

A very popular movie in Japan today is Pride, The Fateful Moment, which shows Prime Minister General Hideki Tojo in a favorable light. With six others, he was hanged in 1968 as a war criminal. During his trial, his lawyers stated to the International Tribunal for the Far East, the Asian version of Nuremberg Trials, that Tojo's war crimes could not begin to approach the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The prosecutors immediately objected, and censored their statements. That was the last time there was any official recognition of the atomic bomb massacres in Japan. Japanese officials have been effectively prevented from taking any stand on this matter because the American military occupation, which officially ended in 1952 with the Treaty with Japan, was quietly continued. Today, 49,000 American troops are still stationed in Japan, and there is no public discussion of the crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

AMERICAN MILITARY AUTHORITIES SAY ATOMIC BOMB UNNECESSARY

The most authoritative Air Force unit during World War II was the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which selected targets on the basis of need, and which analyzed the results for future missions. In Hiroshima's Shadow, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey report of July 1, 1946 states, "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister, and the navy minister had decided as early as May 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms.... It is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 1, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Both military, political and religious leaders spoke out against the atomic bombing of Japanese civilians. The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America issued a formal statement in March 1946 (cited by Gar Alperowitz):

"The surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible. Both bombings must be judged to have been unnecessary for winning the war. As the power that first used the atomic bomb under these circumstances, we have sinned grievously against the laws of God and against the people of Japan."�Commission on the Relation of the Church to the War in the Light of the Christian Faith.

On p.438, Gar Alperowitz quotes James M. Gillis, editor of Catholic World, "I would call it a crime were it not that the word 'crime' implies sin, and sin requires a consciousness of guilt. The action taken by the Untied States government was in defiance of every sentiment and every conviction upon which our civilization is based."

One of the most vociferous critics of the atomic bombings was David Lawrence, founder and editor of U.S. News and World Report. He signed a number of stinging editorials, the first on August 17, 1945.

"Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth, that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children." On October 5, Lawrence continued his attack, "The United States should be the first to condemn the atomic bomb and apologize for its use against Japan. Spokesmen for the Army Air Forces said it wasn't necessary and that the war had been won already. Competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb came." On November 23, Lawrence wrote, "The truth is we are guilty. Our conscience as a nation must trouble us. We must confess our sin. We have used a horrible weapon to asphyxiate and cremate more than 100,000 men, women and children in a sort of super-lethal gas chamber� and all this in a war already won or which spokesman for our Air Forces tell us we could have readily won without the atomic bomb. We ought, therefore, to apologize in unequivocal terms at once to the whole world for our misuse of the atomic bomb."

David Lawrence was an avowed conservative, a successful businessman, who knew eleven presidents of the United States intimately, and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Richard M. Nixon, April 22, 1970.

ANOTHER EISENHOWER SPEAKS

Although Eisenhower never changed his opinion of the use of the atomic bomb, during his presidency he repeatedly voiced his opinion, as quoted by Steve Neal, The Eisenhowers Doubleday, 1978. P.225, "Ike would never lose his scepticism of the weapon and later referred to it as a 'hellish contrivance'."

His brother, Milton Eisenhower, a prominent educator, was even more vocal on this subject. As quoted by Gar Alperwitz, p.358, Milton Eisenhower said, "Our employment of this new force at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a supreme provocation to other nations, especially the Soviet Union. Moreover, its use violated the normal standards of warfare by wiping out entire populations, mostly civilians, in the target cities. Certainly what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki will forever be on the conscience of the American people."

During his Presidency, Dwight Eisenhower tried to find peaceful uses for atomic energy. In The Eisenhower Diaries, p.261, we find that "The phrase 'atoms for peace' entered the lexicon of international affairs with a speech by Eisenhower before the United Nations December 8, 1953." Control of atomic energy had now given the New World Order clique enormous power, and Eisenhower, in his farewell speech to the American people on leaving the Presidency In Review (Doubleday, 1969), on January 17, 1961, warned, "In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the miliary-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

By failing to name the power behind the military-industrial complex, the international bankers, Eisenhower left the American people in the dark as to he was actually warning them against. To this day they do not understand what he was trying to say, that the international bankers, the Zionists and the Freemasons had formed an unholy alliance whose money and power could not be overcome by righteous citizens of the United States.

MACARTHUR'S WARNING

General Douglas MacArthur also tried to warn the American people of this threat, as quoted in American Ceaser, by William Manchester, Little Brown, 1978, p.692, "In 1957, he lashed out at large Pentagon budgets. 'Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear�kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor�with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

This was the restatement of Senator Vandenberg's famous comment, "We have to scare the hell out of 'em."

THE NEW ATOMIC AGE

The scientists who had built the atomic bomb were gleeful when they received the news of its success at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the book, Robert Oppenheimer, Dark Prince, by Jack Rummel, 1992, we find, p.96, "Back in the United States the news of the bombing of Hiroshima was greeted with a mixture of relief, pride, joy, shock and sadness. Otto Frisch remembers the shouts of joy, 'Hiroshima has been destroyed!' 'Many of my friends were rushing to the telephone to book tables at the La Fonda Hotel in Santa Fe in order to celebrate. Oppenheimer walked around "like a prizefighter, clasping his hands together above his head as he came to the podium".'"

Oppenheimer had been a lifelong Communist. "He was heavily influenced by Soviet Communism ": A New Civilization, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the founders of Fabian Socialism in England. He became director of research at the newly formed U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, with his mentor, Bernard Baruch, serving as chairman. Oppenheimer continued his many Communist Party Associations; his wife was Kitty Peuning, widow of Joe Dallet, an American Communist who had been killed defending Communism with the notorious Lincoln Brigade in Spain. Because Oppenheimer was under Party discipline, the Party then ordered him to marry Kitty Peuning and make a home for her.

Baruch resigned from the Atomic Energy Commission to attend to his business interests. He was replaced by Lewis Lichtenstein Strauss, of Kuhn, Loeb Co. Strauss was apprised of Oppenheimer's many Communist associations, but he decided to overlook them until he found that Oppenheimer was sabotaging progress on developing the new and much more destructive hydrogen bomb. It seemed apparent that Oppenheimer was delaying the hydrogen bomb until the Soviet Union could get its own version on line. Furious at the betrayal, he asked Oppenheimer to resign as director of the Commission. Oppenheimer refused. Strauss then ordered that he be tried. A hearing was held from April 5 to May 6, 1954. After reviewing the results, the Atomic Energy Commission voted to strip Oppenheimer of his security clearance, ruling that he "possessed substantial defects of character and imprudent dangerous associations with known subversives".

Oppenheimer retired to Princeton, where his mentor, Albert Einstein, presided over the Institute for Advanced Study, a think tank for refugee "geniuses", financed by the Rothschilds through one of their many secret foundations. Oppenheimer was already a trustee of the Institute, were he remained until his death in 1966.

THE REBIRTH OF ISRAEL

Einstein considered the atomic age merely as a stage for the rebirth of Israel. On p.760 of Einstein; His Life And Times we find that Abba Eban, the Israeli Ambassador, came to his home with the Israeli consul, Reuben Dafni. He later wrote, "Professor Einstein told me that he saw the rebirth of Israel as one of the few political acts in his lifetime which had an essential moral quality. He believed that the conscience of the world should, therefore, be involved in Israel's preservation." by Ronald W. Clarke, Avon Books 1971.

On March 1, 1946, Army Air Force Contract No. MX-791 was signed, creating the RAND Corporation as an official think tank, defining Project RAND as "a continuing program of scientific study and research on the broad subject of air warfare with the object of recommending to the Air Force preferred methods of techniques and instrumentalities for this purpose." On May 14, 1948, RAND Corporation funding was taken over by H. Rowan Gaither, head of the Ford Foundation. This was done because the Air Force had sole control of the atomic bomb, RAND Corp. developed the Air Force and atomic bomb program for the Cold War, with the Strategic Air Command, the missile program, and many other elements of the "terror strategy". It became a billion dollar game for these scientists, with John von Neumann, their leading scientist, becoming world famous as the inventor of "game theory", in which the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a worldwide "game" to see which would be the first to attack the other with nuclear missiles. In the United States, the schools held daily bomb drills, with the children hiding under their desks. No one told them that thousands of schools children in Hiroshima had been incinerated in their classrooms; the desks offered no protection against nuclear weapons. The moral effect on the children was devastating. If they were to be vaporized in the next ten seconds, there seemed little reason to study, marry and have children, or prepare for a steady job. This demoralization through the nuclear weapons program is the undisclosed reason for the decline in public morality.

In 1987, Phyllis LaFarge published The Strangelove Legacy, The Impact Of The Nuclear Threat On Children, chronicling through extended research the moral devastation wreaked on the children by the daily threat of annihilation. She quotes Freeman Dyson, who stated the world has been divided into two worlds, the world of the warriors, and the world of the victims, the children. It was William L. Laurence, sitting in the co-pilot's seat of a B-29 over Nagasaki, and the children waiting to be vaporized below. This situation has not changed.

THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR WARFARE

Because Japan was occupied by the U.S. Military in 1945, the Japanese Government was never allowed any opportunity to file any legal charges about the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although Japanese leaders were tried and executed for "war crimes" no one was ever charged for the atomic bombings. It was not until 1996 that the World Court delivered an opinion on the use of nuclear weapons, (p.565, Hiroshima's Shadows) "In July 1996, the World court took a stand in its first formal opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. Two years earlier, the United Nations had asked the Court for an advisory opinion. The General Assembly of the United Nations posed a single, yet profoundly basic, question for consideration. It the threat of use of nuclear weapons on any circumstances permitted under international law? For the first time, the world's pre-eminent judicial authority has considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it has come to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is 'unlawful'. It is also the Court's view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal. Although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the 'Hague' and 'Geneva' laws."

Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. They were illegal then, and they are illegal now.

GANDHI SPEAKS

Among world leaders who spoke out about the United States' use of atomic weapons in Japan, Mahatma Gandhi echoed the general climate of opinion. P.258, Hiroshima's Shadow: "The atomic bomb has deadened the finest feelings which have sustained mankind for ages. There used to be so-called laws of war which made it tolerable. Now we understand the naked truth. War knows no law except that of might. The atomic bomb brought an empty victory to the Allied armies. It has resulted for the time being in the soul of Japan being destroyed. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see. Truth needs to be repeated as long as there are men who do not believe it."

Memorial Day, 1998

Cast of Characters: The House of Rothschild; international bankers who made enormous profits during the nineteenth century, and used their money to take over governments.

Bernard Baruch: New York agent of the Rothschilds who at the turn of the century set up the tobacco trust, the copper trust and other trusts for the Rothschilds. He became the grey eminence of the United States atomic bomb program when his lackey, J. Robert Oppenheimner, became director of the Los Alamos bomb development, and when his Washington lackey, James F. Byrnes, advised Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Albert Einstein; lifelong Zionist who initiated the United States' atomic bomb program with a personal letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

The Private Lives Of Albert Einstein, by Roger Highfield, St. Martins Press, NY, 1993.

The Wizards Of Armageddon, by Fred Kaplan, Simon & Shuster, NY, 1993.

Albert Einstein, by Milton Dank, Franklin Watts, 1983.

Off The Record; The Private Papers Of Harry S. Truman, Harper & Row, 1980.

The Eisenhowers, by Steve Neal, Doubleday, 1978.

The Eisenhower Diaries, W.W. Norton, 1981.

In Review, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Doubleday, 1969.

Eisenhower, Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & Schuster, 1983.

The Strangelove Legacy, Phyllis LaFarge, Harper & Row, 1987.

Einstein, His Life & Times, Ronald W. Clark, Avon books, 1971.

Robert Oppenheimer, Dark Prince, by Jack Rummel, 1992.

The Manhattan Project, by Don E. Beyer, Franklin Wat, 1991.

The Great Decision, The Secret History Of The Atomic Bomb, Michael Amrine, Putnams, NY, 1959.

Eisenhower At War, by David Eisenhower, Random House, NY, 1986.

The Fall Of Japan, by William Craig, Dial, NY, 1967.

Oppenheimer, The Years Of Risk, Jas W. Kunetka, Prentice Hall, 1982.

Target Tokyo, Gordon W. Prange, McGraw Hill, 1984.

Hiroshima's Shadow, edited by Kai Bird, Pamphleteer Press, 1998.

The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb, by Gar Alperowitz, Knopf, NY, 1995.

Was Einstein Right? by Clifford M. Will, Basic Books, 1986.

THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

Eustace C. Mullins, Ezra Pound World Peace Foundation Japanese-American Friendship Society and the People of Japan,

Plaintiffs,

The United States Government, Defendant.

The plaintiffs bring this action before the World Court of International Justice to resolve the following charges:

1. Defendant conspired to commit war crimes against the people of Japan during World War II.

2. Defendant conspired to commit atrocities against the people of Japan during World War II.

3. Defendant conspired to subsequently evade and cover up these crimes by militarily occupying the nation of Japan, effectively preventing the people of Japan from seeking legal recourse for the actions of defendant. Defendant continues to militarily occupy Japan today, with 49,999 troops stationed there, on the pretext that the Soviet Union might attack. This pretext ignores the geopolitical fact that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 and does not pose a threat to anyone.

4. Defendant conspired to commit crimes of genocide against the people of Japan, motivated by racial hatred and religious bigotry.

5. Defendant violated the Hague agreements and the Geneva Convention, as determined by the World Court in June 1996, by making war against civilians and inflicting millions of casualties by firebombing Japanese cities and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

6. After committing these crimes, defendant conspired to cover up these crimes by issuing a number of false statements, denying war crimes, and distortions of fact to evade any punishment for these war crimes.

7. Defendant also conspired to conceal from the American people the circumstances behind the commission of these war crimes, that a small group of conspirators, refugees from Europe, came to the United States and infiltrated the government of the United States, and in total secrecy launched the project to manufacture an atomic bomb for use against Germany and Japan. At no time during this conspiracy were the people of the United States aware of what was taking place, nor consulted for their approval, in violation of republican'principles and the Constitution of the United States.

8. Since World War II, defendant has conducted a worldwide program of atomic terrorism, called atomic diplomacy, to ensure that its program continues unabated, and without punishment.

9. Although Japan had been reduced to ashes by June 1945, defendant insisted that an invasion was necessary, while ignoring peace tenders from Japan since May 1945, and defendant further claimed that the American military would suffer one million war dead while invading Japan, and that it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima, August 6, 1945, and Nagasaki, August 9, 1945. In fact, as Admiral William D. Leahy pointed out in his book, I Was There, "the invasion itself was never authorized." General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Military Commander, Admiral William D. Leahy, Air force General Curtis LeMay, and many other American military leaders, made public statements that it was not necessary to drop the atomic bombs. Political considerations dictated that it be dropped on Japan, in order to test it on a living population, and, if possible, to "tally" a million or more victims with the bombs, for the purpose of postwar intimidation of all other nations.

10. The atomic bomb was the creation of a small group of European refugees, whose efforts to develop such a bomb in Europe had been indignantly rejected. Albert Einstein, the physicist, wrote a personal letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 2, 1939, recommending that this bomb be built by the United States. His letter was hand-delivered to Roosevelt by Alexander Sachs, a Wall Street speculator. The atomic bomb program was directed from behind the scenes by another Wall Street speculator, Bernard Baruch, an agent of the Rothschilds. Baruch selected Major General Leslie Groves as the director of the project, and J. Robert Oppenheimer as science director of the program. Baruch continued to issue directives throughout the program, insisting to Major General Groves that the city of Kyoto be the primary target of the atomic bombs. Military leaders opposed this selection, pointing out that Kyoto was the ancient capital of Japan, and a religious center with more than two hundred ancient temples. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were finally chosen, although neither of these cities offered a primary military target. Baruch continued to dictate decisions on the atomic bomb, through the President's National Defense Research Committee, chaired by Baruch's Washington representative, James F. Byrnes.

11. After the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, defendant perpetrated a number of outright falsehoods to avoid blame for these massacres of civilians. The first was that the inhabitants were warned by leaflets dropped over the city that an atomic bomb would be used. In fact, the leaflets were not dropped until August 10, after the bombs had exploded. The President's Committee had resolved on May 31, 1945 that "we could not give the Japanese any warning." The second falsehood was that an invasion of Japan would be necessary if the atomic bomb was not used; this would cost a million American lives. Many leading American military authorities state this is absolutely false. The third falsehood was that both cities were "key military targets". President Truman boasted in his private papers that "in 1945 I had ordered the atomic bomb dropped on Japan at two places devoted almost exclusively to war production."

In fact, more than 95% of the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians. Only 4.4% of the death toll was made up of military personnel. A fourth falsehood, printed in the New York Times September 5, 1945, was that the victims had suffered no radiation damage. This story was written by William L. Laurence, the paid propagandist for the War Department with exclusive rights to material on the atomic bomb. Laurence quoted Major General Groves that the Japanese "are attempting to create sympathy for themselves".

12. The Legation of Switzerland in Tokyo forwarded to the defendant a statement from the Japanese government, the complaint that "the city of Hiroshima is a provincial town without any protection or military installations of any kind, but also none of the neighboring regions or towns constitutes a military objective." Observers on the scene recorded that "strictly military damage was insignificant."

13. The most authoritative official United States unit during World War II was the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which selected targets and analyzed the results of the bombings for the benefit of future missions. Their report of July 1, 1946 states, "the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister, and the navy minister had decided as early as May 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms... It is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 1, 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

14. This proves that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes deliberately committed, with foreknowledge that it was not necessary to drop the atomic bombs on these two cities. As David Lawrence, founder and editor of U.S. News And World Report, wrote in his editorial November 23, 1945, "the truth is we are guilty. Our conscience as a nation must trouble us. We must confess our sin. We have used a horrible weapon to asphyxiate and cremate more than 100,000 men, women and children in a sort of super-lethal gas chamber��and all this in a war already won or which spokesman for our Air Forces tell us we could have readily won without the atomic bomb."

15. The world leader and pacifist Mahatma Gandhi spoke sadly about the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "The atomic bomb has deadened the finest feelings which have sustained mankind for ages. There used to be so-called laws of war which made it tolerable. Now we understand the naked truth. War knows no law except that of might. The atomic bomb brought an empty victory to the Allied armies. It has resulted for the time being in the soul of Japan being destroyed. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see."

16. Defendant is in violation of the Geneva Convention. Protocol 2, Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law, states: 1. "International humanitarian law is applicable to international armed conflicts. The international law of peace existing between the states concerned will thus be large superseded by the rules of international humanitarian law.... A state can not, therefore, be allowed to invoke military necessity as a justification for upsetting that balance by departing from those rules."

17. IV. Humanitarian Requirements and Military Necessity. "In war, a belligerent many apply only that amount and kind of force necessary to defeat the enemy. Acts of war are only permissible if they are directed against military objectives, if they are not likely to cause unnecessary suffering, and if they are not perfidious." The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly falls outside the scope of this ruling, being civilian targets, the bombing caused unnecessary suffering, and defendant's attempted justification was openly perfidious.

18. 129. If an act of war is not expressly prohibited by international agreements or customary law, this does not necessarily mean that it is actually permissible. The so-called Martens Clause, developed by the Livonian professor Friedrich von Martens (1845-1909) delegate of Tsar Nicholas II at the Hague Peace Conferences, which has been included in the Preamble to the 1907 Hague Convention IV and reaffirmed in the 1977 Additional Protocal I as stated below, will always be applicable. In cases not covered by the Protocol or by other international agreement, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience. (Artl., pars. 2 AP 1; see also Preamble pars. 4 AP II)

19. Protocol I�Part IV. Section i. "....the obligation of the Parties to the conflict to 'at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants'." Article 48�Basic rule, "the prohibition of 'indiscriminate attacks'." Article 51�Protection of the civilian population, paragraph 4, in particular "an attack by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives, located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects" (Article 51�Protection of the civilian population paragraph 5 (a) and "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated (article 51�Protection of the civilian population, paragraph 5 [b]).

20. Protocal I�Part IV, Section 1. "Protection of civilians from arbitrary and oppressive enemy action, outlined in 1899, and later in 1907, was expressed in its most complete form in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is now supplemented by this Protocol.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to hear these charges of conspiracy to commit war crimes and atrocities, conspiracy to cover up their crimes, motivated by racial hatred and religious bigotry, and having intimidated the government of Japan and prevented them from seeking any redress for these crimes, and by defendant's ongoing program of atomic terrorism, perfidious falsehoods, and their continuing conspiracy to cover up crimes of genocide, mass murder and undue suffering among their victims, and that the Court shall hear these charges, decide upon appropriate damages, and punishment for the offenders.

Respectfully submitted

Eustace C. Mullins

as a citizen in party, the movant, having firsthand knowledge of the facts.

Eustace C. Mullins 126 Madison Place Staunton, VA 24401 540-886-5580 ^

from

Royal Institute of International Affairs

The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) is nothing but the Milner Group “writ large.” It was founded by the Group, has been consistently controlled by the Group, and to this day is the Milner Group in its widest aspect. It is the legitimate child of the Round Table organization, just as the latter was the legitimate child of the “Closer Union” movement organized in South Africa in 1907.

All three of these organizations were formed by the same small group of persons, all three received their initial financial backing from Sir Abe Bailey, and all three used the same methods for working out and propagating their ideas (the so-called Round Table method of discussion groups plus a journal). This similarity is not an accident.

The new organization was intended to be a wider aspect of the Milner Group, the plan being to influence the leaders of thought through The Round Table and to influence a wider group through the RIIA.

The real founder of the Institute was Lionel Curtis, although this fact was concealed for many years and he was presented to the public as merely one among a number of founders. In more recent years, however, the fact that Curtis was the real founder of the Institute has been publicly stated by members of the Institute and by the Institute itself on many occasions, and never denied.

One example will suffice. In the Annual Report of the Institute for 1942-1943 we read the following sentence:

“When the Institute was founded through the inspiration of Mr. Lionel Curtis during the Peace Conference of Paris in 1919, those associated with him in laying the foundations were a group of comparatively young men and women.”

The Institute was organized at a joint conference of British and American experts at the Hotel Majestic on 30 May 1919. At the suggestion of Lord Robert Cecil, the chair was given to General Tasker Bliss of the American delegation. We have already indicated that the experts of the British delegation at the Peace Conference were almost exclusively from the Milner Group and Cecil Bloc.

The American group of experts, “the Inquiry,” was manned almost as completely by persons from institutions (including universities) dominated by J.P. Morgan and Company. This was not an accident. Moreover, the Milner Group has always had very close relationships with the associates of J.P. Morgan and with the various branches of the Carnegie Trust.

These relationships, which are merely examples of the closely knit ramifications of international financial capitalism, were probably based on the financial holdings controlled by the Milner Group through the Rhodes Trust. The term “international financier” can be applied with full justice to several members of the Milner Group inner circle, such as Brand, Hichens, and above all, Milner himself.

At the meeting at the Hotel Majestic, the British group included:

  • Lionel Curtis

  • Philip Kerr

  • Lord Robert Cecil

  • Lord Eustace Percy

  • Sir Eyre Crowe

  • Sir Cecil Hurst

  • J.W. Headlam-Morley

  • Geoffrey Dawson

  • Harold Temperley

  • G.M. Gathorne-Hardy

It was decided to found a permanent organization for the study of international affairs and to begin by writing a history of the Peace Conference.

A committee was set up to supervise the writing of this work. It had Lord Meston as chairman, Lionel Curtis as secretary, and was financed by a gift of £2000 from Thomas W. Lamont of J.P. Morgan and Company. This group picked Harold Temperley as editor of the work. It appeared in six large volumes in the years 1920-1924, under the auspices of the RIIA.

The British organization was set up by a committee of which Lord Robert Cecil was chairman, Lionel Curtis was honorary secretary and the following were members:

  • Lord Eustace Percy

  • J.A.C. (later Sir John) Tilley

  • Philip Noel-Baker

  • Clement Jones

  • Harold Temperley

  • A.L. Smith (classmate of Milner and Master of Balliol)

  • George W. Prothero

  • Geoffrey Dawson

This group drew up a constitution and made a list of prospective members. Lionel Curtis and Gathorne-Hardy drew up the by-laws.

The above description is based on the official history of the RIIA published by the Institute itself in 1937 and written by Stephen King-Hall. It does not agree in its details (committees and names) with information from other sources, equally authoritative, such as the journal of the Institute or the preface to Temperley's History of the Peace Conference. The latter, for example, says that the members were chosen by a committee consisting of Lord Robert Cecil, Sir Valentine Chirol, and Sir Cecil Hurst.

As a matter of fact, all of these differing accounts are correct, for the Institute was formed in such an informal fashion, as among friends, that membership on committees and lines of authority between committees were not very important. As an example, Mr. King-Hall says that he was invited to join the Institute in 1919 by Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), although this name is not to be found on any membership committee.

At any rate, one thing is clear:

The Institute was formed by the Cecil Bloc and the Milner Group, acting together, and the real decisions were being made by members of the latter.

As organized, the Institute consisted of a council with a chairman and two honorary secretaries, and a small group of paid employees. Among these latter, A.J. Toynbee, nephew of Milner's old friend at Balliol, was the most important. There were about 300 members in 1920, 714 in 1922, 1707 in 1929, and 2414 in 1936.

There have been three chairmen of the council:

  1. Lord Meston in 1920-1926

  2. Major-General Sir Neill Malcolm in 1926-1935

  3. Lord Astor from 1935 to the present

All of these are members of the Milner Group, although General Malcolm is not yet familiar to us.

General Malcolm, from Eton and Sandhurst, married the sister of Dougal Malcolm of Milner's Kindergarten in 1907, when he was a captain in the British Army. By 1916 he was a lieutenant colonel and two years later a major general. He was with the British Military Mission in Berlin in 1919-1921 and General Officer Commanding in Malaya in 1921-1924, retiring in 1924.

He was High Commissioner for German Refugees (a project in which the Milner Group was deeply involved) in 1936-1938 and has been associated with a number of industrial and commercial firms, including the British North Borneo Company, of which he is president and Dougal Malcolm is vice-president. It must not be assumed that General Malcolm won advancement in the world because of his connections with the Milner Group, for his older brother, Sir Ian Malcolm was an important member of the Cecil Bloc long before Sir Neill joined the Milner Group.

Sir Ian, who went to Eton and New College, was assistant private secretary to Lord Salisbury in 1895-1900, was parliamentary private secretary to the Chief Secretary for Ireland (George Wyndham) in 1901-1903, and was private secretary to Balfour in the United States in 1917 and at the Peace Conference in 1919. He wrote the sketch of Walter Long of the Cecil Bloc (Lord Long of Wraxall) in the Dictionary of National Biography.

From the beginning, the two honorary secretaries of the Institute were Lionel Curtis and G.M. Gathorne-Hardy. These two, especially the latter, did much of the active work of running the organization.

In 1926 the Report of the Council of the RIIA said:

“It is not too much to say that the very existence of the Institute is due to those who have served as Honorary Officers.”

The burden of work was so great on Curtis and Gathorne-Hardy by 1926 that Sir Otto Beit, of the Rhodes Trust, Milner Group, and British South Africa Company, gave £1000 for 1926 and 1927 for secretarial assistance.

F.B. Bourdillon assumed the task of providing this assistance in March 1926. He had been secretary to Feetham on the Irish Boundary Commission in 1924-1925 and a member of the British delegation to the Peace Conference in 1919. He has been in the Research Department of the Foreign Office since 1943.

The active governing body of the Institute is the council, originally called the executive committee. Under the more recent name, it generally had twenty-five to thirty members, of whom slightly less than half were usually of the Milner Group. In 1923, five members were elected, including Lord Meston, Headlam-Morley, and Mrs. Alfred Lyttelton. The following year, seven were elected, including Wilson Harris, Philip Kerr, and Sir Neill Malcolm. And so it went. In 1936, at least eleven out of twenty-six members of the council were of the Milner Group.

These included:

  • Lord Astor (chairman)

  • L. Curtis

  • G.M. Gathorne-Hardy

  • Lord Hailey

  • H.D. Henderson

  • Stephen King-Hall

  • Mrs. Alfred Lyttelton

  • Sir Neill Malcolm

  • Lord Meston

  • Sir Arthur Salter

  • J.W. Wheeler-Bennett

  • E.L. Woodward

  • Sir Alfred Zimmern

Among the others were:

  • A.V. Alexander

  • Sir John Power

  • Sir Norman Angell

  • Clement Jones

  • Lord Lytton

  • Harold Nicolson

  • Lord Snell

  • C.K. Webster

Others who were on the council at various times were

  • E.H. Carr

  • Harold Butler

  • G.N. Clark

  • Geoffrey Crowther

  • H.V. Hodson

  • Hugh Wyndham

  • G.W.A. Ormsley-Gore

  • Walter Layton

  • Austen Chamberlain

  • Malcolm MacDonald (elected 1933)

  • and many other members of the Group...

The chief activities of the RIIA were the holding of discussion meetings, the organization of study groups, the sponsoring of research, and the publication of information and materials based on these. At the first meeting, Sir Maurice Hankey read a paper on “Diplomacy by Conference,” showing how the League of Nations grew out of the Imperial Conferences. This was published in The Round Table.

No complete record exists of the meetings before the fall of 1921, but, beginning then, the principal speech at each meeting and resumes of the comments from the floor were published in the Journal.

  1. At the first of these recorded meetings, D.G. Hogarth spoke on “The Arab States,” with Lord Chelmsford in the chair. Stanley Reed, Chirol, and Meston spoke from the floor.

  2. Two weeks later, H.A.L. Fisher spoke on “The Second Assembly of the League of Nations,” with Lord Robert Cecil in the chair. Temperley and Wilson Harris also spoke.

  3. In November, Philip Kerr was the chief figure for two evenings on “Pacific Problems as They Would Be submitted to the Washington Conference.”

  4. At the end of the same month, A.J. Toynbee spoke on “The Greco-Turkish Question,” with Sir Arthur Evans in the chair,

  5. Early in December his father-in-law, Gilbert Murray, spoke on “Self-Determination,” with Lord Sumner in the chair.

  6. In January 1922, Chaim Weizmann spoke on “Zionism”;

  7. In February, Chirol spoke on “Egypt”;

  8. In April, Walter T. Layton spoke on “The Financial Achievement of the League of Nations,” with Lord Robert Cecil in the chair.

  9. In June, Wilson Harris spoke on “The Genoa Conference,” with Robert H. Brand in the chair.

  10. In October, Ormsby-Gore spoke on “Mandates,” with Lord Lugard in the chair.

  11. Two weeks later, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland spoke on “The League of Nations,” with H.A.L. Fisher in the chair.

  12. In March 1923, Harold Butler spoke on the “International Labour Office,” with G.N. Barnes in the chair.

  13. Two weeks later, Philip Kerr spoke on “The Political Situation in the United States,” with Arthur Balfour in the chair.

  14. In October 1923, Edward F.L. Wood (Lord Halifax) spoke on “The League of Nations,” with H.A.L. Fisher in the chair.

  15. In November 1924, E.R. Peacock (Parkin's protege) spoke on “Mexico,” with Lord Eustace Percy in the chair.

  16. In October 1925, Leopold Amery spoke on “The League of Nations,” with Robert Cecil as chairman,

  17. In May 1926, H.A.L. Fisher spoke on the same subject, with Neill Malcolm as chairman.

  18. In November 1925, Paul Mantoux spoke on “The Procedure of the League,” with Brand as chairman.

  19. In June 1923, Edward Grigg spoke on “Egypt,” with D.G. Hogarth in the chair.

In the season of 1933-1934 the speakers included Ormsby-Gore, Oliver Lyttelton, Edward Grigg, Donald Somervell, Toynbee, Zimmern, R.W. Seton-Watson, and Lord Lothian. In the season of 1938-1939 the list contains the names of Wilson Harris, C.A. Macartney, Toynbee, Lord Hailey, A.G.B. Fisher, Harold Butler, Curtis, Lord Lothian, Zimmern, Lionel Hichens, and Lord Halifax.

These rather scattered observations will show how the meetings were peppered by members of the Milner Group. This does not mean that the Group monopolized the meetings, or even spoke at a majority of them. The meetings generally took place once a week from October to June of each year, and probably members of the Group spoke or presided at no more than a quarter of them. This, however, represents far more than their due proportion, for when the Institute had 2500, members the Milner Group amounted to no more than 100.

The proceedings of the meetings were generally printed in abbreviated form in the Journal of the Institute. Until January 1927, this periodical was available only to members, but since that date it has been open to public subscription. The first issue was as anonymous as the first issue of The Round Table: no list of editors, no address, and no signature to the opening editorial introducing the new journal.

The articles, however, had the names of the speakers indicated. When it went on public sale in January 1927, the name of the Institute was added to the cover. In time it took the name International Affairs. The first editor, we learn from a later issue, was Gathorne-Hardy. In January 1932 an editorial board was placed in charge of the publication. It consisted of Meston, Gathorne-Hardy, and Zimmern.

This same board remained in control until war forced suspension of publication at the end of 1939. When publication was resumed in 1944 in Canada, the editorial board consisted of Hugh Wyndham, Geoffrey Crowther, and H.A.R. Gibb. Wyndham is still chairman of the board, but since the war the membership of the board has changed somewhat. In 1948 it had six members, of whom three are employees of the Institute, one is the son-in-law of an employee, the fifth is Professor of Arabic at Oxford, and the last is the chairman, Hugh Wyndham. In 1949 Adam Marris was added.

In addition to the History of the Peace Conference and the journal International Affairs, the Institute publishes the annual Survey of International Affairs. This is written either by members of the Group or by employees of the Institute. The chief writers have been Toynbee; his second wife, V.M. Boulter; Robert J. Stopford, who appears to be one of R.H. Brand's men and who wrote the reparations section each year;* H.V. Hodson, who did the economic sections from 1930-1938; and A.G.B. Fisher, who has done the economic sections since Hodson.

Until 1928 the Survey had an appendix of documents, but since that year these have been published in a separate volume, usually edited by J.W. Wheeler-Bennett. Mr. Wheeler-Bennett became a member of the Milner Group and the Institute by a process of amalgamation. In 1924 he had founded a document service, which he called Information Service on International Affairs, and in the years following 1924 he published a number of valuable digests of documents and other information on disarmament, security, the World Court, reparations, etc., as well as a periodical called the Bulletin of International News.

In 1927 he became Honorary Information Secretary of the RIIA, and in 1930 the Institute bought out all his information services for £3500 and made them into the Information Department of the Institute, still in charge of Mr. Wheeler-Bennett. Since the annual Documents on International Affairs resumed publication in 1944, it has been in charge of Monica Curtis (who may be related to Lionel Curtis), while Mr. Wheeler-Bennett has been busy elsewhere.

In 1938-1939 he was Visiting Professor of International Relations at the University of Virginia: in 1939-1944 he was in the United States in various propaganda positions with the British Library of Information and for two years as Head of the British Political Warfare Mission in New York. Since 1946, he has been engaged in editing, from the British side, an edition of about twenty volumes of the captured documents of the German Foreign Ministry. He has also lectured on international affairs at New College, a connection obviously made through the Milner Group.

The Survey of International Affairs has been financed since 1925 by an endowment of £20,000 given by Sir Daniel Stevenson for this purpose and also to provide a Research Chair of International History at the University of London. Arnold J. Toynbee has held both the professorship and the editorship since their establishment. He has also been remunerated by other grants from the Institute.

When the first major volume of the Survey, covering the years 1920-1923, was published, a round-table discussion was held at Chatham House, 17 November 1925, to criticize it. Headlam-Morley was chairman, and the chief speakers were Curtis, Wyndham, Gathorne-Hardy, Gilbert Murray, and Toynbee himself.

Since the Survey did not cover British Commonwealth affairs, except in a general fashion, a project was established for a parallel Survey of British Commonwealth Relations. This was financed by a grant of money from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The task was entrusted to W.K. Hancock, a member of All Souls since 1924 and Chichele Professor of Economic History residing at All Souls since 1944. He produced three substantial volumes of the Survey in 1940-1942, with a supplementary legal chapter in volume I by R.T.E. Latham of All Souls and the Milner Group.

The establishment of the Stevenson Chair of International History at London, controlled by the RIIA, gave the Group the idea of establishing similar endowed chairs in other subjects and in other places. In 1936, Sir Henry Price gave £20,000 to endow for seven years a Chair of International Economics at Chatham House. This was filled by Allan G.B. Fisher of Australia.

In 1947 another chair was established at Chatham House: the Abe Bailey Professorship of Commonwealth Relations. This was filled by Nicholas Mansergh, who had previously written a few articles on Irish affairs and has since published a small volume on Commonwealth affairs.

By the terms of the foundation, the Institute had a voice in the election of professors to the Wilson Chair of International Politics at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. As a result, this chair has been occupied by close associates of the Group from its foundation.

The following list of incumbents is significant:

  • A.E. Zimmern, 1919-1921

  • C.K. Webster, 1922-1932

  • J.D. Greene, 1932-1934

  • J.F. Vranek, (Acting), 1934-1936

  • E.H. Carr, 1936 to now (1949)

Three of these names are familiar. Of the others, Jiri Vranek was secretary to the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation (to be discussed in a moment). Jerome Greene was an international banker close to the Milner Group. Originally Mr. Greene had been a close associate of J.D. Rockefeller, but in 1917 he shifted to the international banking firm Lee, Higginson, and Company of Boston. In 1918 he was American secretary to the Allied Maritime Transport Council in London (of which Arthur Salter was general secretary).

He became a resident of Toynbee Hall and established a relationship with the Milner Group. In 1919 he was secretary to the Reparations Commission of the Peace Conference (a past in which his successor was Arthur Salter in 1920-1922). He was chairman of the Pacific Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations in 1929-1932. This last point will be discussed in a moment. Mr. Greene was a trustee and secretary of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913-1917, and was a trustee of the Rockefeller Institute and of the Rockefeller General Education Board in 1912-1939.

The study groups of the RIIA are direct descendants of the roundtable meetings of the Round Table Group. They have been defined by Stephen King-Hall as,

“unofficial Royal Commissions charged by the Council of Chatham House with the investigation of specific problems.”

These study groups are generally made up of persons who are not members of the Milner Group, and their reports are frequently published by the Institute. In 1932 the Rockefeller Foundation gave the Institute a grant of £8000 a year for five years to advance the study-group method of research. This was extended for five years more in 1937.

In 1923, Lionel Curtis got a Canadian, Colonel R.W. Leonard, so interested in the work of the Institute that he bought Lord Kinnaird's house at 10 St. James Square as a home for the Institute. Since William Pitt had once lived in the building, it was named “Chatham House,” a designation which is now generally applied to the Institute itself. The only condition of the grant was that the Institute should raise an endowment to yield at least £10,000 a year for upkeep. Since the building had no adequate assembly hall, Sir John Power, the honorary treasurer, gave £10,000 to build one on the rear. The building itself was renovated and furnished under the care of Mrs. Alfred Lyttelton, who, like her late husband but unlike her son, Oliver, was a member of the Milner Group.

The assumption of the title to Chatham House brought up a major crisis within the Institute when a group led by Professor A.F. Pollard (Fellow of All Souls but not a member of the Milner Group) opposed the acceptance of the gift because of the financial commitment involved. Curtis put on an organized drive to mobilize the Group and put the opposition to flight. The episode is mentioned in a letter from John Dove to Brand, dated 9 October 1923.

This episode opens up the whole question of the financial resources available to the Institute and to the Milner Group in general. Unfortunately, we cannot examine the subject here, but it should be obvious that a group with such connections as the Milner Group would not find it difficult to finance the RIIA.

In general, the funds came from the various endowments, banks, and industrial concerns with which the Milner Group had relationships. The original money in 1919, only £200, came from Abe Bailey. In later years he added to this, and in 1928 gave £5000 a year in perpetuity on the condition that the Institute never accept members who were not British subjects.

When Sir Abe died in 1940, the annual Report of the Council said:

“With the passing of Sir Bailey the Council and all the members of Chatham House mourn the loss of their most munificent Founder.”

Sir Abe had paid various other expenses during the years. For example, when the Institute in November 1935 gave a dinner to General Smuts, Sir Abe paid the cost. All of this was done as a disciple of Lord Milner, for whose principles of imperial policy Bailey always had complete devotion.

Among the other benefactors of the Institute, we might mention the following. In 1926 the Carnegie United Kingdom Trustees (Hichens and Dame Janet Courtney) gave £3000 for books; the Bank of England gave £600; J.D. Rockefeller gave £3000. In 1929 pledges were obtained from about a score of important banks and corporations, promising annual grants to the Institute. Most of these had one or more members of the Milner Group on their boards of directors.

Included in the group were:

  1. Anglo-Iranian Oil Company

  2. Bank of England

  3. Barclay's Bank

  4. Baring Brothers

  5. British American Tobacco Company

  6. British South Africa Company

  7. Central Mining and Investment Corporation

  8. Erlangers, Ltd

  9. Ford Motor Company

  10. Hambros' Bank

  11. Imperial Chemical Industries

  12. Lazard Brothers

  13. Lever Brothers

  14. Lloyd's

  15. Lloyd's Ban

  16. Mercantile and General Insurance Company

  17. Midland Bank

  18. Reuters

  19. Rothschild and Sons

  20. Stern Brothers

  21. Vickers-Armstrong

  22. Westminster Bank

  23. Whitehall Securities Corporation

Since 1939 the chief benefactors of the Institute have been the Astor family and Sir Henry Price. In 1942 the latter gave £50,000 to buy the house next door to Chatham House for an expansion of the library (of which E.L. Woodward was supervisor).

In the same year Lord Astor, who had been giving £2000 a year since 1937, promised £3000 a year for seven years to form a Lord Lothian Memorial Fund to promote good relations between the United States and Britain. At the same time, each of Lord Astor's four sons promised £1000 a year for seven years to the general fund of the Institute.

Chatham House had close institutional relations with a number of other similar organizations, especially in the Dominions. It also has a parallel organization, which was regarded as a branch, in New York. This latter, the Council on Foreign Relations, was not founded by the American group that attended the meeting at the Hotel Majestic in 1919, but was taken over almost entirely by that group immediately after its founding in 1919.

This group was made up of the experts on the American delegation to the Peace Conference who were most closely associated with J.P. Morgan and Company. The Morgan bank has never made any real effort to conceal its position in regard to the Council on Foreign Relations. The list of officers and board of directors are printed in every issue of Foreign Affairs and have always been loaded with partners, associates, and employees of J.P. Morgan and Company. According to Stephen King-Hall, the RIIA agreed to regard the Council on Foreign Relations as its American branch.

The relationship between the two has always been very close. For example, the publications of one are available at reduced prices to the members of the other; they frequently sent gifts of books to each other (the Council, for example, giving the Institute a seventy-five-volume set of the Foreign Relations of the United States in 1933); and there is considerable personal contact between the officers of the two (Toynbee, for example, left the manuscript of Volumes 7-9 of A Study of History in the Council's vault during the recent war).

Chatham House established branch institutes in the various Dominions, but it was a slow process. In each case the Dominion Institute was formed about a core consisting of the Round Table Group's members in that Dominion. The earliest were set up in Canada and Australia in 1927. The problem was discussed in 1933 at the first unofficial British Commonwealth relations conference (Toronto), and the decision made to extend the system to New Zealand, South Africa, India, and Newfoundland. The last-named was established by Zimmern on a visit there the same year. The others were set up in 1934-1936.

As we have said, the members of the Dominion Institutes of International Affairs were the members of the Milner Group and their close associates. In Canada, for example,

  • Robert L. Borden was the first president (1927-1931)

  • N.W. Rowell was the second president

  • Sir Joseph Flavelle and Vincent Massey were vice-presidents

  • Glazebrook was honorary secretary

  • Percy Corbett was one of the most important members

Of these, the first three were close associates of the Milner Group (especially of Brand) in the period of the First World War; the last four were members of the Group itself.

When the Indian Institute was set up in 1936, it was done at the Viceroy's house at a meeting convened by Lord Willingdon (Brand's cousin).

  • Robert Cecil sent a message, which was read by Stephen King-Hall.

  • Sir Maurice Gwyer of All Souls became a member of the council.

  • In South Africa, B.K. Long of the Kindergarten was one of the most important members.

  • In the Australian Institute, Sir Thomas Bavin was president in 1934-1941, while F.W. Eggleston was one of its principal founders and vice-president for many years.

  • In New Zealand, W. Downie Stewart was president of the Institute of International Affairs from 1935 on.

Naturally, the Milner Group did not monopolize the membership or the official positions in these new institutes any more than they did in London, for this would have weakened the chief aim of the Group in setting them up, namely to extend their influence to wider areas.

Closely associated with the various Institutes of International Affairs were the various branches of the Institute of Pacific Relations. This was originally founded at Atlantic City in September 1924 as a private organization to study the problems of the Pacific Basin. It has representatives from eight countries with interests in the area. The representatives from the United Kingdom and the three British Dominions were closely associated with the Milner Group.

Originally each country had its national unit, but by 1939, in the four British areas, the local Institute of Pacific Relations had merged with the local Institute of International Affairs. Even before this, the two Institutes in each country had practically interchangeable officers, dominated by the Milner Group. In the United States, the Institute of Pacific Relations never merged with the Council on Foreign Relations, but the influence of the associates of J.P. Morgan and other international bankers remained strong on both. The chief figure in the Institute of Pacific Relations of the United States was, for many years, Jerome D. Greene, Boston banker close to both Rockefeller and Morgan and for many years secretary to Harvard University.

The Institutes of Pacific Relations held joint meetings, similar to those of the unofficial conferences on British Commonwealth relations and with a similar group of delegates from the British member organizations. These meetings met every two years at first, beginning at Honolulu in 1925 and then assembling at Honolulu again (1927), at Kyoto (1929), at Shanghai (1931), at Banff (1933), and at Yosemite Park (1936). F.W. Eggleston, of Australia and the Milner Group, presided over most of the early meetings. Between meetings, the central organization, set up in 1927, was the Pacific Council, a self-perpetuating body.

In 1930, at least five of its seven members were from the Milner Group, as can be seen from the following list:

THE PACIFIC COUNCIL, 1930

  • Jerome D. Greene of the United States

  • F.W. Eggleston of Australia

  • N.W. Rowell of Canada

  • D.Z.T. Yui of China

  • Lionel Curtis of the United Kingdom

  • I. Nitobe of Japan

  • Sir James Allen of New Zealand

The close relationships among all these organizations can be seen from a tour of inspection which Lionel Curtis and Ivison S. Macadam (secretary of Chatham House, in succession to F.B. Bourdillon, since 1929) made in 1938. They not only visited the Institutes of International Affairs of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada but attended the Princeton meeting of the Pacific Council of the IPR. Then they separated, Curtis going to New York to address the dinner of the Council on Foreign Relations and visit the Carnegie Foundation, while Macadam went to Washington to visit the Carnegie Endowment and the Brookings Institution.

Through the League of Nations, where the influence of the Milner Group was very great, the RIIA was able to extend its intellectual influence into countries outside the Commonwealth. This was done, for example, through the Intellectual Cooperation Organization of the League of Nations.

This Organization consisted of two chief parts:

(a) The International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, an advisory body

(b) The International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, an executive organ of the Committee, with headquarters in Paris

The International Committee had about twenty members from various countries; Gilbert Murray was its chief founder and was chairman from 1928 to its disbandment in 1945. The International Institute was established by the French government and handed over to the League of Nations (1926). Its director was always a Frenchman, but its deputy director and guiding spirit was Alfred Zimmern from 1926 to 1930. It also had a board of directors of six persons; Gilbert Murray was one of these from 1926.

It is interesting to note that from 1931 to 1939 the Indian representative on the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation was Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. In 1931 he was George V Professor of Philosophy at Calcutta University. His subsequent career is interesting. He was knighted in 1931, became Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics at Oxford in 1936, and became a Fellow of All Souls in 1944.

Beginning in 1928 at Berlin, Professor Zimmern organized annual round-table discussion meetings under the auspices of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. These were called the International Studies Conferences and devoted themselves to an effort to obtain different national points of view on international problems. The members of the Studies Conferences were twenty-five organizations. Twenty of these were Coordinating Committees created for the purpose in twenty different countries.

The other five were the following international organizations:

  1. The Academy of International Law at The Hague

  2. The European Center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  3. The Geneva School of International Studies

  4. The Graduate Institute of International Studies at Geneva

  5. The Institute of Pacific Relations

In two of these five, the influence of the Milner Group and its close allies was preponderant. In addition, the influence of the Group was decisive in the Coordinating Committees within the British Commonwealth, especially in the British Coordinating Committee for International Studies. The members of this committee were named by four agencies, three of which were controlled by the Milner Group.

They were:

  1. the RIIA

  2. the London School of Economics and Political Science

  3. the Department of International Politics at University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

  4. the Montague Burton Chair of International Relations at Oxford

We have already indicated that the Montague Burton Chair was largely controlled by the Milner Group, since the Group always had a preponderance on the board of electors to that chair. This was apparently not assured by the original structure of this board, and it was changed in the middle 1930s.

After the change, the board had seven electors:

  1. the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, ex officio

  2. the Master of Balliol, ex officio

  3. Viscount Cecil of Chelwood

  4. Gilbert Murray, for life

  5. B.H. Sumner

  6. Sir Arthur Salter

  7. Sir J. Fischer Williams of New College

Thus, at least four of this board were members of the Group. In 1947 the electoral board to the Montague Burton Professorship consisted of:

  • R.M. Barrington-Ward (editor of The Times)

  • Miss Agnes Headlam-Morley (daughter of Sir James Headlam-Morley of the Group)

  • Sir Arthur Salter

  • R.C.K. Ensor

  • and one vacancy, to be filled by Balliol College

It was this board, apparently, that named Miss Headlam-Morley to the Montague Burton Professorship when E.L. Woodward resigned in 1947. As can be seen, the Milner Group influence was predominant, with only one member out of five (Ensor) clearly not of the Group.

The RIIA had the right to name three persons to the Coordinating Committee. Two of these were usually of the Milner Group. In 1933, for example, the three were Lord Meston, Clement Jones, and Toynbee.

The meetings of the International Studies Conferences were organized in a fashion identical with that used in other meetings controlled by the Milner Group-for example, in the unofficial conferences on British Commonwealth relations-and the proceedings were published by the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation in a similar way to those of the unofficial conferences just mentioned, except that the various speakers were identified by name.

As examples of the work which the International Studies Conferences handled, we might mention that,

  • at the fourth and fifth sessions (Copenhagen in 1931 and Milan in 1932), they examined the problem of “The State and Economic Life”

  • at the seventh and eighth session (Paris in 1934 and London in 1935), they examined the problem of “Collective Security”

  • at the ninth and tenth sessions (Madrid in 1936 and Paris 1937) they examined the problem of “University Teaching of International Relations”

In all of these conferences the Milner Group played a certain part. They could have monopolized the British delegations at these meetings if they had wished, but, with typical Milner Group modesty they made no effort to do so. Their influence appeared most clearly at the London meeting of 1935. Thirty-nine delegates from fourteen countries assembled at Chatham House to discuss the problem of collective security.

Great Britain had ten delegates. They were:

  1. Dr. Hugh Dalton

  2. Professor H. Lauterpacht

  3. Captain Liddell Hart

  4. Lord Lytton

  5. Professor A.D. McNair

  6. Professor C.A.W. Manning

  7. Dr. David Mitrany

  8. Rear Admiral H.G. Thursfield

  9. Arnold J. Toynbee

  10. Professor C.K. Webster

In addition, the Geneva School of International Studies sent two delegates: J.H. Richardson and A.E. Zimmern. The British delegation presented three memoranda to the conference.

  • The first, a study of “Sanctions,” was prepared by the RIIA and has been published since.

  • The second, a study of “British Opinion on Collective Security,” was prepared by the British Coordinating Committee.

  • The third, a collection of “British Views on Collective Security,” was prepared by the delegates.

It had an introduction by Meston and nine articles, of which one was by G.M. Gathorne-Hardy and one by H.V. Hodson. Zimmern also presented a memorandum on behalf of the Geneva School. Opening speeches were made by Austen Chamberlain, Allen W. Dulles (of the Council on Foreign Relations), and Louis Eisenmann of the University of Paris. Closing speeches were made by Lord Meston, Allen Dulles, and Gilbert Murray. Meston acted as president of the conference, and Dulles as chairman of the study meetings. The proceedings were edited and published by a committee of two Frenchmen and A.J. Toynbee.

At the sessions on “Peaceful Change” in 1936-37, Australia presented one memorandum (“The Growth of Australian Population”). It was written by F.W. Eggleston and G. Packer. The United Kingdom presented fifteen memoranda. Eight of these were prepared by the RIIA, and seven by individuals. Of the seven individual works, two were written by members of All Souls who were also members of the Milner Group (C.A. Macartney and C.R.M.F. Cruttwell). The other five were written by experts who were not members of the Group (A.M. Carr-Saunders, A.B. Keith, D. Harwood, H. Lauterpacht, and R. Kuczynski).

In the middle 1930s the Milner Group began to take an interest in the problem of refugees and stateless persons, as a result of the persecutions of Hitler and the approaching closing of the Nansen Office of the League of Nations. Sir Neill Malcolm was made High Commissioner for German Refugees in 1936. The following year the RIIA began a research program in the problem.

This resulted in a massive report, edited by Sir John Hope Simpson who was not a member of the Group and was notoriously unsympathetic to Zionism (1939). In 1938 Roger M. Makins was made secretary to the British delegation to the Evian Conference on Refugees. Mr. Makins' full career will be examined later. At this point it is merely necessary to note that he was educated at Winchester School and at Christ Church, Oxford, and was elected to a Fellowship at All Souls in 1925, when only twenty-one years old.

After the Evian Conference (where the British, for strategic reasons, left all the responsible positions to the Americans), Mr. Makins was made secretary to the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees. He was British Minister in Washington from 1945 to 1947 and is now Assistant Under Secretary in the Foreign Office.

Before leaving the subject of refugees, we might mention that the chief British agent for Czechoslovakian refugees in 1938-1939 was R.J. Stopford, an associate of the Milner Group already mentioned.

At the time of the Czechoslovak crisis in September 1938, the RIIA began to act in an unofficial fashion as an adviser to the Foreign Office. When war began a year later, this was made formal, and Chatham House became, for all practical purposes, the research section of the Foreign Office. A special organization was established in the Institute, in charge of A.J. Toynbee, with Lionel Curtis as his chief support acting “as the permanent representative of the chairman of the Council, Lord Astor.”

The organization consisted of the press-clipping collection, the information department, and much of the library. These were moved to Oxford and set up in Balliol, All Souls, and Rhodes House. The project was financed by the Treasury, All Souls, Balliol, and Chatham House jointly. Within a brief time, the organization became known as the Foreign Research and Press Service (FRPS).

It answered all questions on international affairs from government departments, prepared a weekly summary of the foreign press, and prepared special research projects. When Anthony Eden was asked a question in the House of Commons on 23 July 1941, regarding the expense of this project, he said that the Foreign Office had given it £,53,000 in the fiscal year 1940-1941.

During the winter of 1939-1940 the general meetings of the Institute were held in Rhodes House, Oxford, with Hugh Wyndham generally presiding. The periodical International Affairs suspended publication, but the Bulletin of International News continued, under the care of Hugh Latimer and A.J. Brown. The latter had been an undergraduate at Oxford in 1933-1936, was elected a Fellow of All Souls in 1938, and obtained a D.Phil. in 1939. The former may be Alfred Hugh Latimer, who was an undergraduate at Merton from 1938 to 1946 and was elected to the foundation of the same college in 1946.

As the work of the FRPS grew too heavy for Curtis to supervise alone, he was given a committee of four assistants. They were G.N. Clark, H.J. Paton, C.K. Webster, and A.E. Zimmern. About the same time, the London School of Economics established a quarterly journal devoted to the subject of postwar reconstruction. It was called Agenda, and G.N. Clark was editor. Clark had been a member of All Souls since 1912 and was Chichele Professor of Economic History from 1931 to 1943. Since 1943 he has been Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. Not a member of the Milner Group, he is close to it and was a member of the council of Chatham House during the recent war.

At the end of 1942 the Foreign Secretary (Eden) wrote to Lord Astor that the government wished to take the FRPS over completely. This was done in April 1943. The existing Political Intelligence Department of the Foreign Office was merged with it to make the new Research Department of the Ministry. Of this new department Toynbee was director and Zimmern deputy director.

This brief sketch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs does not by any means indicate the very considerable influence which the organization exerts in English-speaking countries in the sphere to which it is devoted. The extent of that influence must be obvious. The purpose of this chapter has been something else: to show that the Milner Group controls the Institute.

Once that is established, the picture changes.

The influence of Chatham House appears in its true perspective, not as the influence of an autonomous body but as merely one of many instruments in the arsenal of another power. When the influence which the Institute wields is combined with that controlled by the Milner Group in other fields—in education, in administration, in newspapers and periodicals—a really terrifying picture begins to emerge.

This picture is called terrifying not because the power of the Milner Group was used for evil ends. It was not. On the contrary, it was generally used with the best intentions in the world—even if those intentions were so idealistic as to be almost academic. The picture is terrifying because such power, whatever the goals at which it may be directed, is too much to be entrusted safely to any group. That it was too much to be safely entrusted to the Milner Group will appear quite clearly in Chapter 12.

No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner Group accomplished in Britain—that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.

References

1 Robert Jemmett Stopford (1895- ) was a banker in London from 1921 to 1928. He was private secretary to the chairman of the Simon Commission in 1928-1930, a member of the “Standstill Committee” on German Foreign Debts, a member of the Runciman Commission to Czechoslovakia in 1938, Liaison Officer for Refugees with the Czechoslovakian government in 1938-1939, Financial Counsellor at the British Embassy in Washington in 1943-1945.


from

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Italian Says 9-11 Solved

It’s common knowledge, he reveals, CIA, Mossad behind terror attacks


By the Staff of American Free Press

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

“All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.

Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed “false flag” operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcherWebster Tarpley saying “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and
flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America’s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

(Issue #52, December 24, 2007)


Please make a donation to American Free Press


Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

from

The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul

Liberty Maven has uncovered a letter from the office of the “Main Stream Media Czar”. Unfortunately, the letter was not signed by name, only title. We didn’t even know there was such a thing as a “Main Stream Media Czar” prior to discovering this letter. My only reaction to this letter was, “it all makes so much sense now.” Here is the letter itself, transcribed word for word.

We in the main stream media all know that Ron Paul cannot win the presidency because of his extremist views. Given this fact, it is important we don’t allow him the same media coverage as our preferred candidates. It is true that we must give him some coverage, but it is also true that we must adhere to the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” when giving him coverage during this campaign season. Generally, the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” can be summed up in two words:

Marginalize him.

Here are some wonderful tactics to utilize when applying the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule:

Continually label him as a long shot candidate. This is the most important of all the tactics so we list it first. Sure, it is true that Ron Paul has won or placed high in many straw polls across the country but we must never mention it. Instead, in every article or television news story copy we should use one or more of the terms “dark horse”, “long shot”, “barely registering in the polls”, “quixotic”, or “gadfly”. If we can do this consistently, our job is complete.

Attack his supporters. Ron Paul has a stellar personal record with his marriage of over 50 years, 5 children, and 18 grandchildren. His political record is also exemplary with him never voting to raise taxes and always voting in accordance with the Constitution. Because of this, attacking him on his record is a daunting task. The best method to marginalize him is to attack his supporters. This can be accomplished by calling his supporters names like “kooky”, “crazy”, “conspiracy nutjobs”, “paultards”, and the like. This is classic “guilt by association” and works well on the apathetic electorate.

Call him “Libertarian” as much as possible. Continually giving him the libertarian label is a great covert method of Ron Paul marginalization. This reinforces that he’s not really a Republican even though he has held office as a Republican for 10 terms. We find that if you are in radio or television you may even say the word “libertarian” using a negative tone during questions. This perpetuates the extremism inherent in Ron Paul’s policies even though the word libertarian simply means: one who believes in liberty.

Continually ask him if he’s planning on running as a third party candidate. This tactic should be used often. It accomplishes two things. First, it suggests that he is not a serious candidate for the Republican party. Second, it will get him on record as saying he won’t run for a third party. If he should happen to run third party at a later date he can be attacked for changing his position.

Ask him if he would support the GOP nominee if he doesn’t win. Ron Paul is against the Iraq war and wishes to bring the troops home from overseas in order to help stem the tide of government overspending. This makes him different than all of the other Republican candidates who support keeping our troops overseas indefinitely. As media we must make all attempts to not only marginalize his candidacy, but also marginalize his steadfast message of linking the cost of the war on terror to our economic woes here at home.

Focus on his campaign strategy rather than his message. Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace should be overshadowed by talk of his successful grassroots campaign. The more we focus on how he raises money and the types of supporters he has, the less time he has to talk about his message that is sure to resonate with most Americans. We must make all attempts to block or cloud that message. If it were to get out, it could spell doom for our chosen candidates.

Attack him for not returning donations from fringe supporters. White supremacists and prostitutes have donated money to Ron Paul and that is bad. We can use our political correctness and superior morality as a weapon and ask him why does he not return that donation money. After all a white supremacist would do more good with having an extra $500 in his pocket than a doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies while preaching peace and equal rights for everyone.

Abolishing the IRS is crazy. Attacking his stance on abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing is also effective. After all most Americans don’t know that we could do without the income tax if we just went back to the same level of government spending that we had in the 1990’s. A great method is to reply to his answer with an incredulous “replace it with NOTHING? How can the government function?” comment. This tactic will scare people into believing in how the government always has our best interests at heart. It will help people ignore the fact that Ron Paul also wants to cut government spending drastically in order to balance the budget.

Label him an isolationist for his foreign policy views. Since he wants to bring our troops home from not just Iraq, but all of the 130 other occupied countries he should be deemed an isolationist. It doesn’t matter that Ron Paul wants free trade and travel with other countries and thus is not truly an isolationist. The people will believe what we tell them to believe.

This directive gives us several tactics to be used in the fight against Ron Paul’s candidacy for president. We should use them all and use them often. After all Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace is antiquated and has no place in our authoritarian world.

Sincerely,

The Main Stream Media Czar


from

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Ten questions to the Zionists

by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"L
Dean of Nitra Yeshiva and author of min hametzar
(Published by the author in 1948 and reprinted many times)

1. IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

2. IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

3. IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid

4. IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

5. IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.

6. IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

7. IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

8. IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"

9. IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

10. IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

There are additional similar questions to be asked of these atheist degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", but for the time being let them respond to the ten questions.

These Zionist "statesmen" with their great foresight, sought to bring an end two two-thousand years of Divinely ordained Jewish subservience and political tractability. With their offensive militancy, they fanned the fires of anti-Semitism in Europe, and succeeded in forging a bond of Jew-hatred between Nazi-Germany and the surrounding countries.

These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist "statesmen" lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

The Zionist "statesmen" have incited and continue to incite an embittered Jewish youth to futile wars against world powers like England, and against masses of hundreds of millions of Arabs.

AND THESE SAME ZIONIST "STATESMEN" HEEDLESSLY PUSH THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF ANOTHER TOTAL WAR - REVOLVING ENTIRELY AROUND THE HOLY LAND.

What may befall the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, of the Arab crescent, Europe, or the USA; is of no concern to these Zionist leaders. The rising anti-Semitism in the Western World is the product of their "statesmanship".

Under the guise of "love of Israel", the Zionist "statesmen" seduced many Jews to replace devotion to the Torah and its Sages with devotion to the scoundrel who founded Zionism. It is of no little significance that Herzl originally sought conversion of the Jews as a solution to the problems of the Diaspora. When he realized that this was not acceptable to the Jewish masses, he contrived Zionism as a satisfactory alternative!

A look into history reveals that this very same type of "statesmen" opposed the call of Jeremiah the prophet to yield to the minions of Nebuchadnezzar at the destruction of the first Temple. Five centuries later, Rabbi Yochonon Ben Zakai appealed to the people to surrender to Titus the Roman to avoid bloodshed. The "statesmen" rejected this appeal, and the second Temple was destroyed by the Romans. --- And now for the past fifty years, the Zionist "statesmen" rebuff the leadership of our Sages; and continue in their policy of fomenting anti-Semitism. When will they stop?? Must every Jew in America also suffer?? - Even the Nazi monsters had more sense, and gave up their war before all Germany was destroyed. The Zionist "statesmen" ridicule the sacred oath which the Creator placed upon the Jews in the Diaspora. Our Torah, in Tractate Ksubos, folio 111, specifies that the Creator, blessed be He, swore the Jews not to occupy the Holy Land by force, even if it appears that they have the force to do so; and not rebel against the Nations. And the Creator warned that if His oath be desecrated, Jewish flesh would be "open property", like the animals in the forest!! These are words of our Torah; and these concepts have been cited in Maimonides' "Igeres Teimon", "Be'er HaGola", "Ahavas Yehonosson", and in "Toras Moshe" of the Chasam Sofer.

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.

Yidden - merciful sons of merciful fathers - how much longer must holy Jewish blood continue to be shed??

The only solution is:

The Jewish people must reject, outright, a "Jewish State".

The Jewish people should accept the US compromise.

We must depose the atheist-Zionist "statesmen" from their role as Jewish leaders, and return to the faithful leadership of our sages.

We beseech the Nations to open all doors to immigration - not only the doors of Palestine.

Peaceful, non-Zionist religious personalities in Palestine, (particularly from the native population) and their counterparts in the Diaspora, should engage in responsible, face-to face negotiations on behalf of the Jewish people, with the British and the Arabs; with an aim of amicable settlement of the Palestine issue.

Every Jew is obliged to pray to the Blessed creator, for in Him lies all our strength. Let us bear in mind that our prayers be forthright. One should not entreat the Creator to provide a banquet on Yom Kippur, and one can not perform a ritual ablution with a dead bug in his hand. Similarly, we should avoid the untenable position of the robber who prays for Divine help in carrying out his crime. We should pray that Zionism and its fruits vanish from the Earth, and that we be redeemed by the Messiah with dispatch.

A prisoner is released only when he has served his time, or if he is pardoned by the President for good behavior. If he attempts escape and is apprehended, his term is lengthened, besides the beating he receives when he is caught.

Faithful Jews- for over three and one-half thousand years, in all parts of the world, through all trials, our grandfathers and grandmothers marched through seas of blood and tears in order to keep the Faith of the Torah unswervingly. If we have compassion for ourselves, for our women and children, and for the Jewish people, we will maintain our golden legacy today. We have been sentenced to exile by the King of Kings because of our sins. The eternal blessed be He, has decreed that we accept the exile with humble gratitude until the time comes, or until we merit His pardon through repentance if we seek to end the exile with force, G-d will catch us, as our sages have forewarned, and our sentence becomes longer and more difficult.

Many times in the past have segments of our people been defrauded by false messiahs - but none of the false messiahs has been as fallacious and delusory as the lie of Zionism. With our historical experience as our guide, no retribution has been or will be greater than the retribution for giving credence to Zionism. If we wish our exile-sentence commuted, we must appeal through repentance; and through total physical and spiritual observance of the Sabbath, laws of family purity, and study of Torah.

Let it be clearly understood that never in Jewish history (even in the time of Jeroboam or Achav) have such hostile atheists stood at the helm of he Jewish people as today.

How can we plead to the Almighty for mercy while we tolerate these vile, "wicked" leaders as spokesmen! Beloved brothers - let us cleanse our ranks and cleanse our midst; let us entreat the Almighty through prayer, repentance, and fulfillment of mitzvos that He alone redeem us, immediately.
READ EXCERPT FROM RABBI WEISSMANDL'S BOOK Sefer Min Hametzar

from

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Empirical Proof That The Founding Fathers Would Endorse Ron Paul

Constitutional law as defined by Wikipedia, is the study of foundational or basic laws of nation states and other political organizations. Constitutions are the framework for government and may limit or define the authority and procedure of political bodies to execute new laws and regulations.

As we all know, the United States is governed by a Constitution as well but have we lost sight of this? Has our government set aside the rights of its individuals?

It is apparent from watching the Republican and Democratic debates that the Constitution has become a very important talking point but what has caused this?

Let's start answering some of the questions.

According to many, politicians are averting the rights of its citizens with laws like the Patriot Act, rendition, and the loss of habeas corpus. Not to mention the legality of the Iraq invasion. Ron Paul's success stems from the fact that he preaches a return to Constitutional principles. But when all of the other candidates start preaching the same thing it becomes muddled as to which politician is true to the Constitution and which politician says it merely for personal gain.

First, I would like to mention that it is because of Ron Paul that the candidates have begun to preach the importance of the Constitution. I know this because I have parsed the transcripts of the Republican presidential debates and here is what I found with regards to the number of instances in which the candidates spoke about the Constitution.

Keep in mind that there have been many references to Constitutional amendments that would either ban abortion or gay marriage. Those instances were not counted as they do not reflect a desire to return to Constitutional principles but rather change it to fit their needs. We also excluded mentions of state constitutions for obvious reasons.

Debate Total Number of Instances Ron Paul's Instances % Spoken by Ron Paul
May 15. South Carolina 4 2 50%
June 5. New Hampshire 5 4 80%
August 5. Iowa 3 2 67%
September 5. New Hampshire 5 1 20%
September 17. Florida 20 12 60%
October 9. Michigan 4 3 75%
October 21. Florida 10 7 70%
TOTAL 51 31 61%

On September 17th, Ron Paul was given more time to speak and as a result took the opportunity to preach his messages of a Constitutional government. It is apparent that the more time Ron Paul has to speak, the more time he will spend preaching the importance of the Constitution. Ron Paul accounts for about 60% of all references to the Constitution according to the debate transcripts that we had access to.

Here are snippets from the debates in which Ron Paul used the Constitution.

The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end.


I’m Ron Paul. I’m a congressman from Texas, serving in my 10th term. I am the champion of the Constitution.

The state should determine so many of these things that we just don’t need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level.

That’s what the Constitution tells us. We don’t need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don’t have perfect knowledge. And that’s the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic.


I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars.

We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars.

The only mistake I made and continue to make is I don’t speak forcefully enough for the cause of liberty and the cause of the Constitution. I’m working on it all the time.

No! I’m saying -- -- I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.

The most important promise a president makes is his promise to obey the Constitution. In realizing this, we know that the Constitution was written in order to restrain the government, to restrain the federal government, but was meant to retain the rights and privileges and obligations to the states and to the people. Today, we have drifted a long way from that, and now we have jurisdictional fights over what we ought to do.

I think the best thing the president can do is set a good example, and I would start with having been married fifty years, and proud of it. I believe, also, that I do not see any need for another constitutional amendment. I think we have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage. We're on the defensive, defining marriage. Why don't you just tell them to look it up in the dictionary, to find out what a marriage says?

For federal legal purposes, the Defense of Marriage Act is proper. It takes care of all the problems. If you have to have rules and regulations, put it at the state level, like the Constitution says. But you know, marriage only came about and getting licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons. It has nothing to do with it.

If the states were allowed to pass this, immediately it would go into effect. Instead of waiting years, and years, and years for an amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of looking for massive new laws, let's just use what we have, and pass this type of legislation.

. We should have had more respect for private property, the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment, and we wouldn't have had to face the crisis on 9/11 nearly as bad.

So, indeed, it is a problem, but the answer can be found in the Constitution, I can guarantee you.

I believe that if we had followed the Constitution on trade and on war, if we would have only had declared the war, we would have the debate the war instead of afterwards, after we've lost 5,000 men in the military. We ought to follow the rules of the law and the Constitution.

This violates the principle on the importance of the individual, and confuses us about the importance of individual rights, which is the purpose of the Constitution. Defend our individual rights.

But, the inference here about marriage, and prostitution, and drugs — they never addressed it. There's no federal authority, no federal government authority, no constitutional authority, to deal with those problems. There's no prohibitions for the states to do it, so that is perfectly all right.

We should look to the Constitution. We should make sure that we get rid of our central bank, the Federal Reserve, and have only gold and silver as legal tender. This is the reason our government gets so big, because we give them license to steal, license to inflate, license to tax, and license to borrow, and politicians will always do it.

This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

This is -- this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

If we don't recognize that, we don't have a chance because we need to get back to the basics, believe in the Constitution, believe in the rule of law, and not allow our government to spend endlessly and bankrupt this country.

And that is why you have to cut spending. That's why we need a new foreign policy. We need to tie it to people over here in this country, the people who are dependent, but we need to let the people get out, whether it's Social Security or medical care or education. The Constitution doesn't advise that we do any of that anyway.

I think in many ways they haven't followed our platform and they don't follow the Constitution. So they're really not following (inaudible). I think in many ways we have become big spenders. Republicans are the big spenders. Our big-government conservatives, they're part of the neo-conservative movement. They've lost their traditions about traditional conservatism and the Constitution.

And that's why we lost last year. And if we don't go back to our traditions and believe in the Constitution, limited government, personal liberties, and a foreign policy that's noninterventionist, that won't bankrupt us, so that we can defend this country -- we can't even defend our own cities while we're prancing around the entire world.

Although there may not be correlation between the number of references to the Constitution a nd actually being a man of the Constitution, all of the statements provided were correct. They are true and accurate.

War: The President should not hold the power to start wars. If a war is a just war then it should be so deemed by the Congress of the United States. Ron Paul is not oppossed to war, he is just oppossed to wars that can be started by one individual. It is the only way to protect ourselves from tyranny.

Economy: The powers not vested to the federal government shall be left to the states because we do not want the federal government to do too much. Once it does, it would then be forced to print more money and cause the inflationary tax Ron Paul speaks about.

State's Rights: Ron Paul believes the states should have more rights for a reason. This is because the federal government is incapable of making a one-size fits all rule for the whole country. For example, mandating the use of seat belts on the national level could put a farmer out of business. Mandating the states to educate every child may overburden those states that have an illegal immigration problem.

The Constitution was drafted to protect ourselves from tyranny, bankruptcy, and laws that make no sense. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking out. For this reason, Ron Paul would be endorsed by the Founding Fathers. America became the greatest country on Earth because of the Founding Fathers and a Ron Paul presidency can ensure it stay that way.

And I am willing to take to court any individual that dares to challenge me.

I know I put my credibility on the line when I say this but Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate from either party worth backing. We do not know what the future has in store for us but in my lifetime, Ron Paul is the only that can save America and its Constitution so I say "Vote Ron Paul" despite the negative ramifications such an endorsement could cause me. I don't care. Because if I can even convert just one individual into voting for and donating to Ron Paul, American will be closer to the way it was given to us by the Founding Fathers.

I suggest all you folks to donate to Ron Paul on December 16, 2007 in celebration of the Boston Tea Party.

I also suggest all of you to go to BloggersChoiceAwards.com and rate Ron Paul's blog as the #1 Political Blog on the Planet Earth. The reason I am suggesting this is for the increased exposure winning will get.

Here are other sites I recommend that spread the truth about Ron Paul that I recommend you all vote for as well in the Bloggers Choice Awards:

from

Thursday, December 13, 2007

New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are

(updated below - Update II)

A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions: (1) right-wing neocons (the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews; (2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East -- including both in Iraq and against Iran.

It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove of the way the U.S. is handling its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31); overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (67-27); believe that things are going "somewhat badly" or "very badly" in Iraq (76-23); and believe that the "surge" has either made things worse or has had no impact (68-30).

When asked whether they would support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran, a large majority -- 57-35% -- say they would oppose such action, even if it were being undertaken "to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons." While Jews hold views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are quite pessimistic about the prospects for Israel's ability to achieve a lasting peace with its "Arab neighbors," even there, a plurality (46-43) supports the establishment of a Palestinian state.

In the realm of U.S. domestic politics, it is even clearer that right-wing neoconservatives are a fringe segment of American Jewish public opinion. By a large margin, American Jews identify as some shade of liberal rather than conservative (43-25), and overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans (58-15). And, most strikingly, by a 3-1 margin (61-21), they believe that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are "more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq," and by a similarly lopsided margin (53-30), believe that Democrats are "more likely to make the right decision when it comes to dealing with terrorism." They have overwhelmingly favorable views of the top 3 Democratic presidential candidates, and overwhelmingly negative views of 3 out of the top 4 GOP candidates (Giuliani being the sole exception, where opinion is split).

Contrary to the bottomless obssession which most neocon pundits and office-holders have with All Matters Israel, the principal political concerns of most American Jews have nothing to do with the Middle East. Thus, they identify "economy/jobs" (22) and "health care" (19) -- not Terrorism -- as "the most important problem facing the U.S. today." Still, most American Jews agree that "[c]aring about Israel is a very important part of [their] being a Jew" -- a common, innocuous and indisputable attribute that typically triggers noxious charges of anti-Semitism if pointed out by those who oppose the neoconservative agenda.

One of the defining traits of war-loving neoconservatives is that their unrelenting and exclusive fixation on the Middle East places them loudly at the center of any foreign policy debates. That tenacity -- combined with their reckless exploitation of "anti-Israel" and anti-Semitism accusations as instruments in their political rhetoric and their corresponding, deceitful equation of their own views with being "pro-Israel" -- often casts the appearance that they are some sort of spokespeople for the "pro-Israel" agenda or the Jewish viewpoint.

Manifestly, they are nothing of the sort. Even among American Jews, they comprise only a small minority, and their generally discredited militarism is widely rejected by most Jews as well. It is always worth underscoring these points, which are so frequently (and deliberately) obscured, and this comprehensive poll provides potent -- actually quite conclusive -- evidence for doing so.

UPDATE: Speaking of unrepresentative, fringe, war-loving right-wing neocons, here is the latest installment -- titled "Jeepers Creepers" -- in the perversely riveting and revealing melodrama chronicled in yesterday's updates

UPDATE: The drama concludes just as predictably and lamely as they all do: War cheerleader beats chest ("Give War a Chance"). War cheerleader panics and cries for help over a "threat" compelling great "security" to protect him from scary things. Threat is exposed as completely non-existent, a by-product of the neurosis and paralyzing fear of the war cheerleader. Repeat endlessly.

-- Glenn Greenwald

from

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Why the Council on Foreign Relations Hates Putin

Why Murdoch's Journal Loves Kasparov

By MIKE WHITNEY

On Sunday, Putin's party, United Russia, stormed to victory in the country's parliamentary elections with 63 per cent of the vote. It was a romp. United Russia now controls 306 of the 450 seats in the Duma, an overwhelming majority. The balloting was a referendum on Putin's leadership and it passed in a landslide. Now it's certain, that even if Putin steps down as president next year as expected, he will be the dominant player in Russian politics for the foreseeable future.

Vladamir Putin is arguably the most popular leader in Russian history, although you'd never know it by reading the western media. According to a recent survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal, Putin's personal approval rating in November 2007 was 85 per cent, making him the most popular head of state in the world today. Putin's popularity derives from many factors. He is personally clever and charismatic. He is fiercely nationalistic and has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of ordinary Russians and restore the country to its former greatness. He has raised over 20 million Russians out of grinding poverty, improved education, health care and the pension system, (partially) nationalized critical industries, lowered unemployment, increased manufacturing and exports, invigorated Russian markets, strengthened the ruble, raised the overall standard of living, reduced government corruption, jailed or exiled the venal oligarchs, and amassed capital reserves of $450 billion.

Russia is no longer up for grabs like it was after the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin put an end to all of that. He reasserted control over the country's vast resources and he's using them to improve the lives of his own people. This is a real departure from the 1990s, when the drunken Yeltsin steered Russia into economic disaster by following Washington's neoliberal edicts and by selling Russia's Crown Jewels to the vulturous oligarchs. Putin put Russia's house back in order; stabilized the ruble, strengthened economic/military alliances in the region, and removed the corporate gangsters who had stolen Russia's national assets for pennies on the dollar. The oligarchs are now all either in jail or have fled the country. Russia is no longer for sale.

Russia is, once again, a major world power and a vital source of hydrocarbons. It's star is steadily rising just as America's has begun to wane. This may explain why Putin is loathed by the West. Freud might call it petroleum envy, but it's deeper than that. Putin has charted a course for social change that conflicts with basic tenets of neoliberalism, which are the principles which govern US foreign policy. He is not a member of the corporate-banking brotherhood which believes the wealth of the world should be divided among themselves regardless of the suffering or destruction it may cause. Putin's primary focus is Russia; Russia's welfare, Russia's sovereignty and Russia's place in the world. He is not a globalist.

That is why the Bush administration has encircled Russia with military bases, toppled neighboring regimes with its color-coded revolutions, (which were organized by US NGOs and intelligence services) intervened in Russian elections, and threatened to deploy an (allegedly defensive) nuclear weapons system in Eastern Europe. Russia is seen as a potential rival to US imperial ambitions and must be contained or subverted.

In the early years of his presidency, it was believed that Putin would comply with western demands and accept a subordinate role in the US-EU-Israel centric system. But that hasn't happened. Putin has stubbornly defended Russian independence and resisted integration into the prevailing system. .

The triumphalism which swept through Washington after the fall of the Berlin Wall has been replaced with a palpable fear that Russia's power will grow as oil prices continue to soar. The tectonic plates of geopolitical power are gradually shifting eastward. That's why the US has joined in The Great Game and is trying to put down roots in Eurasia. Still, it's easy to imagine a scenario in which America's access to the last great oil and natural gas reserves on the planet--the three trillion barrels of oil and natural gas located in the Caspian Basin---could be completely blocked by a resurgent Russian superpower.

The most powerful of the Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations, recognized this problem early on and decided that US policy towards Russia had to be reworked entirely.

* * *

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is "rolling back democracy" began. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction", Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is no longer possible. They claim that the government has become increasingly authoritarian and that the society is growing less "open and pluralistic".

Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign against Putin has been built. And it is quite an impressive campaign. A Google News search shows roughly 1,400 articles from the various news services on Putin. Virtually all of them contain exactly the same rhetoric, the same buzzwords, the same spurious claims, the same slanders. It is impossible to find even one article out of 1,400 that diverges the slightest bit from the talking points which originated at the Council on foreign Relations.

It's interesting to see to what extent the media has become a propaganda bullhorn for the national security state. Putin's personal approval ratings confirm his enormous popularity, and yet, the media continues to treat him like he's a tyrant. It is utterly incongruous.

In most articles, Putin is disparaged as "anti democratic"; a charge that is never leveled at the Saudi Royal family even though women are forbidden to drive, they must be fully-covered at all times, and can be stoned to death if they are found to be unfaithful. Also, in Saudi Arabia, beheading is still the punishment of choice for capital crimes.

When Saudi King Abdullah visits the US, he is not heaped with scorn for his regimes' repressive treatment of his people. Instead he's rewarded with flattering photos of he and George Bush strolling arm-n-arm through the Crawford sage.

Why is Putin blasted for "rolling back democracy" when American client, Mikhail Saakashvili, arbitrarily declares martial law and deploys his truncheon-wielding Robo-cops to beat protesters senseless before dragging them off to the Georgia gulag? The pictures of Saakashvili's bloody crackdown appeared in the foreign press, but not in the US. Rather, the media had all its cameras focused on Garry Kasparov (contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal and right-wing loony) as he was led off to the Moscow hoosegow in handcuffs for protesting without a permit.

* * *

Putin's real crime is that he serves Russia's national interests rather than the interests of global Capital. He also rejects Washington's "unipolar" world model. As he said in Munich:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

"What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization."

He added:

"We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law....We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force -- military force -- in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security."

Well said, Vladimir.

Putin's no saint, but he doesn't deserve the thrashing he gets from the western media.

And a final word on Garry Kasparov

On Sunday, while Putin's party "United Russia" was screeching to a landslide victory, Reuters News was busy taking mug-shots of the stony-faced Kasparov holding up Florida-style ballots claiming the voting was rigged. "They are not just rigging the vote," Kasparov moaned, "They are raping the whole electoral system. These elections are a reminder of Soviet elections when there was no choice.....Putin is going to have a hard time trying to rule like Stalin."

Stalin? So now Putin is Stalin? First of all, when did Reuters begin to take such a keen interest in voting irregularities? It must be a recent development, becuase they were nowhere to be found in the 2000 presidential election. And when did they start to pay attention to "political dissent"? They certainly never wasted any video-footage on the antiwar rallies in the US. Are we to believe that they are more interested in democracy in Russia than America?

And why is Reuters so eager to provide valuable column-space to a washed-up chessmaster who's only interested in making a nuisance of himself by bellyaching about voter fraud? That's not news; it's propaganda.

As for Kasparov and his silly accusations; he should be glad that he lives in Putin's Russia rather than Stalin's or he'd be in leg-irons right now boarding a northbound train to the Siberian outback.

What is Kasparov doing in Moscow anyway? And why is this little man --with virtually no political base -- such a big part of the western media narrative? Is he only there to discredit the election and throw a little more muck on Putin or is there more to it than that?

Garry Kasparov should give up politics and do what he does best; stand-up comedy. Watching Kasparov traipse around Moscow with his basket of sour grapes and his entourage of western media-stooges is like watching "Mr. Bean's Excellent Kremlin Adventure", a particularly lame performance in a dismal B-rated burlesque. It's painful to watch.

Kasparov's party, the "Other Russia" couldn't manage even a 2 per cent rating in the polls. The party is a complete dud. In fact, Reuters even (reluctantly) admits as much in its article.

Here's the clip. Reuters: "Kasparov and his "Other Russia" dissident movement are not standing in Sunday's parliamentary election because they could not get registered as a party. THEY ENJOY LITTLE PUBLIC SUPPORT AMONG RUSSIANS BUT HAVE A BIG FOLLOWING IN THE WEST." (Reuters) "Big following in the West"? Why doesn't that surprise me?

So, in other words, Kasparov has no base of support in Russia, and yet he gets his own camera crew and media team to follow him around recording every silly he says. That's just great. Who do they think he is; Nelson Mandela?

Kasparov is a contributing editor of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; so he already has a regular platform for launching his tirades on the "tyrannical" Mr. Putin. Normally, one doesn't get a spot on the op-ed page of the WSJ unless their politics are somewhere to the right of Augusto Pinochet. That's probably the case with Kasparov, too. In Saturday's edition of the WSJ, Kasparov delivered his latest absurd soliloquy disparaging Putin and recounting his agonizing 5 day ordeal in the Moscow poky.

Although Kasparov has garnered little public support in Russia, he appears to have a loyal following among the Washington elite. According to Wikipedia: "In 1991, Kasparov received the Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy (a US think tank), for anti-Communist resistance and the propagation of democracy. Kasparov was an exceptional recipient since the award is given to "individuals for devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world". Hmmmm...."For devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world"? Isn't that a definition of an American agent?

Again, according to Wikipedia: In April, 2007 it was asserted that Kasparov was a board member of the National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security". Kasparov confirmed this and added that he was removed shortly after he became aware of it. He noted that HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP and suggested he was included in the board by an accident because he received the 1991 Keeper of the Flame award from this organization. But Kasparov maintained his association with the neoconservative leadership by giving speeches at think tanks such as the Hoover Institute."

Here's a list of some of the other fellow travelers who've been given the "Keeper of the Flame Award": 2007-Senator Joe Lieberman. 2004-General Peter Pace. 2003- Paul Wolfowitz. 2002- General Richard Meyers. 1998-Donald Rumsfeld. 1996-Newt Gingrich. 1995-Ronald Reagan. 1990-Casper Weinberger.

Is Kasparov an anomaly or does he fit right in with this coven of far-right loonies? And who are some of the prominent members of the Center for Security Policy? Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, James Roche and Laura Ingraham. Oh, boy. The whole front office of the neocon's cuckoo's nest. Now tell me, dear reader, with friends like that; what should we really think about Kasparov's performance in Moscow? Is he really interested in "democracy promotion" as he claims or is their acting out a script that was prepared in Washington?

In the US, Kasparov has become the focal point of the Russian elections - the primary source of "unbiased" analysis. NPR reiterates his spurious claims every half hour. The other news agencies are no better. He has become the distorted lens through which Americans view Russian democracy. This says a lot more about the choke-hold the neocons still have on the media rather than anything objective about Russia. The Kasparov fiasco gives us a chance to see the inner-workings of the establishment media. It's nothing more than a propaganda bullhorn for far-right organizations executing their bloody imperial strategy. Fidel Castro summed it up best just days ago when he said: "It is the most sophisticated media ever developed by technology, employed to kill human beings and to subjugate or exterminate peoples".

Amen to that, Fidel.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

from

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job

Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.

Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.

Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

(Article continues below)

Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.TV CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.

"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

from

Monday, December 3, 2007

Rothschilds & Rockefellers - Trillionaires Of The World

Learn your history before it repeats on you.
By New World Order
12-3-7

"Money is Power", or shall we say, "The Monopoly to Create Credit Money and charge interest is Absolute Power". (Alex James)

Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838:

"Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".

Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing their banking method into America: "The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."

Nathan Rothschild said to the Commons Secret Committee on the question early in 1819: "In what line of business are you? - Mostly in the foreign banking line. "Have the goodness to state to the Committee in detail, what you conceive would be the consequence of an obligation imposed upon the Bank [of England, which he owned] to resume cash payments at the expiration of a year from the present time? - I do not think it can be done without very great distress to this country; it would do a great deal of mischief; we may not actually know ourselves what mischief it might cause. "Have the goodness to explain the nature of the mischief, and in what way it would be produced? - Money will be so very scarce, every article in this country will fall to such an enormous extent, that many persons will be ruined."

The director of the Prussian Treasury wrote on a visit to London that Nathan Rothschild had as early as 1817: ".., incredible influence upon all financial affairs here in London. It is widely stated.., that he entirely regulates the rate of exchange in the City. His power as a banker is enormous".

Austrian Prince Mettemich's secretary wrote of the Rothschilds, as early as 1818, that: "... they are the richest people in Europe."

Referring to James Rothschild, the poet Heinrich Heine said: "Money is the god of our times, and Rothschild is his prophet."

James Rothschild built his fabulous mansion, called Ferrilres, 19 miles north-east of Paris. Wilhelm I, on first seeing it, exclaimed: "Kings couldn't afford this. It could only belong to a Rothschild!"

Author Frederic Morton wrote that the Rothschilds had: "conquered the World more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before..."

As Napoleon pointed out: "Terrorism, War & Bankruptcy are caused by the privatization of money, issued as a debt and compounded by interest "- he cancelled debt and interest in France - hence the Battle of Waterloo.

Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild "warned that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the bank's charter were not renewed." (do you see the similarities here? If you don't play the game an economic disaster will fall on you and you will be destroyed.)

"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild." 19th century French commentator.

Lord Rothschild (Rockefellers and Rothschilds' relatives) in his book The Shadow of a Great Man quotes a letter sent from Davidson on June 24, 1814 to Nathan Rothschild, "As long as a house is like yours, and as long as you work together with your brothers, not a house in the world will be able to compete with you, to cause you harm or to take advantage of you, for together you can undertake and perform more than any house in the world." The closeness of the Rothschild brothers is seen in a letter from Soloman (Salmon) Rothschild to his brother Nathan on Feb. 28, 1815, "We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential." (2) This closeness is further seen in that of the 18 marriages made by Mayer Amschel Rothschild's grandchildren - 16 were contracted between first cousins.

"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." The Communist Manifesto. In the case of the Bolshevik revolution, Rothschilds/ Rockefellers' Chase Bank owned the state. In the US, the FED owners "own" the state.

Rothschilds' favorite saying who along with the Rockefellers are the major Illuminati Banking Dynasties: "Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!"

Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836): "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

Rockefeller is reported to have said: "Competition is a sin". "Own nothing. Control everything". Because he wants to centralize control of everything and enslave us all, i.e. the modern Nimrod or Pharaoh.

The Rothschild were behind the colonization and occupations of India and the Rothschild owned British Petroleum was granted unlimited rights to all offshore Indian oil, which is still valid till this day.

"Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws." The famous boastful statement of Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild, speaking to a group of international bankers, 1912: "The few who could understand the system (cheque, money, credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." The boastful statement by Rothschild Bros. of London.

These people are the top masterminds and conspired for the creation of illegal FEDERAL RESERVE BANK in 1913: Theodore Roosevelt, Paul Warburg - Representative Of Rothschild, Woodrow Wilson - U.S. President Signed FED Into Act, Nelson W. Aldrich - Representative Of Rockefeller, Benjamin Strong - Representative Of Rockefeller, Frank A. Vanderlip - Representative Of Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller - Rockefeller Himself, Henry Davison - Representative Of J. P. Morgan, Charles Norton - Representative Of J. P. Morgan.

In the last century, members of the British Fabian Society dynastic banking families in the City of London financed the Communist takeover of Russia. Trotsky in his biography refers to some of the loans from these British financiers going back as far as 1907. By 1917 the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution were co-ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner. [no doubt using money from Cecil Rhodes' South African gold and diamond legacy - Ed] The Communist system in Russia was a "British experiment" designed ultimately to become the Fabian Socialist model for the British takeover of the World through the UN and EU. The British plan to takeover the World and bring in a "New World Order" began with the teachings of John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University. Rhodes in one of his wills in 1877 left his vast fortune to Lord Nathan Rothschild as trustee to set up the Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford to indoctrinate promising young graduates for the purpose, and also establish a secret society [Royal Institute of International Affairs RIIA, which branched into the Round Table, the Bilderbergers, the CFR, the Trilateral, etc -- Ed] for leading business and banking leaders around the World who would work for the City to bring in their Socialist World government.

Rothschild appointed Lord Alfred Milner to implement the plan.

Benjamin Freedman (Friedman) said this in 1961, Washington (he was a millionaire insider in international Zionist organizations, friend to 4 US presidents, and was also part of the 117-man strong Zionist delegation at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 where Germany was forced into bankruptcy to the Zionist BankLords and social chaos): "Two years into WW1, Germany, which was then winning the war, offered Britain and France a negotiated peace deal, but German Zionist groups seeing the opportunity made a deal with Britain to get the United States into the war if Britain promised to give the Zionists Palestine."

In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." They made that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers and mass communications media here were controlled by the Zionist bankers who owned the major commercial banks and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks (the original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller' s, JP Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, all with roots in Germany's Zionists like the British Royal family, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, Bush, Rumsfeld, Clintons, the Nazis that were brought into the CIA, etc. http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml ) and they were pro-German because they wanted to use Germany to destroy the Czar of Russia and let the Communists whom they funded take over. The German Zionist bankers -- Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" They poured money into Germany, fighting with Germany against Russia, to lick the Czarist regime. The newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, then after making the deal with the British for Palestine, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good. The Zionists in London sent cables to the US, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the US into the war." And that did happen. Shortly after President Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany.

The power of the Rothschild family was evidenced on 24 Sept 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, - touted as the second richest man in the World but really a lower ranking player- and Arnold Schwarzenegger (the gropinator), at that time a candidate for the Governorship of California. Also in attendance at this two day meeting of the World's most powerful businessmen and financiers hosted by Jacob Rothschild were James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, chairman of De Beers. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later. That he was initiated into the ruling class in the Rothschilds' English country manor suggests that the centre of gravity of the three hundred trillion dollar cartel is in the U.K. and Europe not the U.S.

A recent article in the London Financial Times indicates why it is impossible to gain an accurate estimate of the wealth of the trillionaire bankers. Discussing the sale of Evelyn Rothschild's stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, it states: ...[this] requires agreement on the valuation of privately held assets whose value has never been tested in a public market. Most of these assets are held in a complex network of tax-efficient structures around the World.

Queen Elizabeth II's shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. The Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002 ... "the reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments. This is because her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike the members of the Commons and now the Lords, the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests..." In fact, the Queen even has an extra mechanism to ensure that her investments remain secret - a nominee company called the Bank of England Nominees. It has been available for decades to the entire World's current heads of state to allow them anonymity when buying shares. Therefore, when a company publishes a share register and the Bank of England Nominees is listed, it is not possible to gauge whether the Queen, President Bush or even Saddam Hussein is the true shareholder.

By this method, the trillionaire masters of the universe remain hidden whilst Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion. However something of an insider's knowledge of the hidden wealth of the elite is contained in the article, "Will the Dollar and America Fall Down on August 19?.." on page 1 of the 12th July 2001 issue of Russian newspaper Pravda. The newspaper interviewed Tatyana Koryagina, a senior research fellow in the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development (Minekonom) on the subject of a recent conference concerning the fate of the U.S. economy:

Koryagina: The known history of civilization is merely the visible part of the iceberg. There is a shadow economy, shadow politics and also a shadow history, known to conspirologists. There are [unseen] forces acting in the World, unstoppable for [most powerful] countries and even continents.

Ashley Mote (EU): "Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild. This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services." "I have previously asked about the alleged involvement of the European Union's own intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts, and I still await a reply. To that question I now add another: what are the European Union's connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions? "Recently, Ashley Mote of the European Union (EU) asked this volatile question in a public EU meeting, a question never answered, as Mr. Mote, merely by asking this question, was immediately scratched from the White House Christmas card list and placed on its top ten hit list. The Illuminati's cash cow, grazing freely on the World wide pasture of greenbacks, isn't called "Elsie" but instead is called the Global Security Fund, a name actually meaning in the secret cult's language Global Terrorist Fund. In simple terms, it's a gigantic illegal trust fund, estimated by undercover overseas financial investigators at 65 trillion dollars, set-up for "Illuminati rainy days" and established when it is desperately needed in a pinch for bribery, assassinations and sponsoring World wide terrorist activities to divert attention from their banking mafia. Although the fund is cloaked in secrecy and made possible by the Western civilization' s Federal Reserve banking system, investigators trying to pry into the Illuminati's secret treasure trove have uncovered some interesting facts.

from

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Bankers Extended WWI By Three Years

cavell.jpg

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

December 1, 2007

(Revised & Reposted Dec. 1, 2007)

"World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen...most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings." Denis Healey, former British Defence Minister

On Oct 12, 1915, Edith Cavell, 50, a British nurse and head of a teaching hospital in Belgium, was shot by a German firing squad. Her death inflamed anti-German feeling in the US and caused enlistment in England to double.

She had helped some British POW's escape. Normally her crime was punished by three months imprisonment. Why was she killed?

According to Eustace Mullins, Edith Cavell had stumbled upon some damaging information. On April 15, 1915, The Nursing Mirror in London published her letter revealing that the Allied "Belgian Relief Commission" (charged with feeding Belgium) was in fact channelling thousands of tons of supplies to Germany.

Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence and a partner in the bankers Kuhn Loeb, demanded the Germans execute Cavell as a spy. Wiseman believed that "the continuance of the war was at stake." The Germans reluctantly agreed, thus creating "one of the principal martyrs of the First World War." (The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, pp. 72-73)

Pretty cynical you say? No more cynical than demolishing the World Trade Center, murdering over 3000 Americans to start a "War on Terror."

This example of cooperation between belligerents was accomplished because Wiseman worked closely with the head of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg . Warburg's brother Max was Chief of German Intelligence and a close friend of Kaiser Wilhelm.

The London-based central bankers use wars to weaken nations and colonize the world (incl. UK, US Israel etc.). The difficulty executing WWI was that they had already bankrupted the European states by selling them battleships and other armaments. Europe couldn't afford a war!

The introduction of the US Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Act in 1913 solved this problem. US government loans financed World War One. The American people were on the hook for both sides of the conflict.

This is how it works: The banksters created money from thin air based on the credit of the US government. Every dollar they "loaned" the US government was a new dollar in their pocket.

No nation is free if it cannot control its own credit, i.e. print its own currency at will. We are not free. The central banking cartel controls us by threatening to withdraw our credit i.e. currency causing economic turmoil.

HOW THEY PROPPED UP GERMANY

Another obstacle to war was Germany and her allies did not have the resources to fight for more than a year.

As Edith Cavell's discovery suggests, the banksters solved this problem by trading with "neutral" states: Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Thus the banksters allowed essential resources from England, the US and the British Empire to reach Germany indirectly.

The whole thing is documented in a book entitled, "The Triumph of Unarmed Forces 1914-1918" (1923) by Rear Admiral M.W.W.P. Consett, who was British Naval Attache in Scandinavia. His job was to keep track of the movement of supplies ("unarmed forces") necessary for the continuation of the conflict.

For example, Scandinavia was completely dependent on British coal. So the Swedish iron ore that became German submarines that sank Allied shipping reached Germany on vessels powered by British coal.

Germany needed glycerin (animal fat) for the manufacture of explosives. England had no trouble securing this substance because it controlled the seas. After the war began, the demand for these products from neutral countries "exploded." The British continued to fill these orders. They could have restricted them.

The same applies to copper, zinc, nickel, tin, and many other essential products. Consett believes that had they been embargoed, the war would have been over by 1915.

The trade of tea, coffee and cocoa to neutral countries also increased dramatically but these products often weren't available there. They all went to Germany for huge profit.

Consett's protests fell on deaf ears. The Minister of Blockade was Robert Cecil, a member of the Round Table (i.e. central banker) cabal.

Similarly, the central bankers financed the German side through their Scandinavian banks to the tune of 45 million pound sterling. (p. 146.)

The Allied nations became the banksters' debt slaves: "Despite the huge revenues raised from taxation, the British national debt rose tenfold. The government failed to use its bargaining power as the only really massive borrower in wartime to get money at low rates of interest. The French national debt rose from 28 billion to 151 billion francs ..." (Davies, The History of Money ) The US debt soared from one billion to $25 billion.

According to "The Merchants of Death" World War I was waged by 27 nations; it mobilized 66,103,164 men of whom 37,494,186 became casualties (about 7 million dead.) Its direct costs are estimated at $208,000,000,000, its indirect costs at $151,000,000,000. And these figures do not include the additional billions in interest payments, veterans' care and pensions, and similar expenses..."

Can there be any doubt that mankind is in the pernicious thrall of Satan-worshippers??

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

As mysteriously as it began, the war ended. In Dec. 1918, the German Empire suddenly "collapsed." You can guess what happened. The banksters had achieved their aims and shut off the spigot. (Hence, the natural sense of betrayal felt in Germany, exacerbated by the onerous reparations dictated by the banksters at Versailles.)

What were the banksters' aims? The Old Order was destroyed. Four empires (Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman) lay in ruins.

The banksters had set up their Bolshevik go-fers in Russia. (They sponsor many "revolutionary" movements as a way to eventually control all property themselves.) They ensured that Palestine would become a "Jewish" state under their control. Israel would be a perennial source of new conflict.

But more important, thanks to bloodbaths such as Verdun (800,000 dead), the optimistic spirit of Christian Western Civilization, Faith in Man and God, were dealt a mortal blow. The flower of the new generation was slaughtered. (See "The Testament of Youth" by Vera Brittain for a moving first-hand account.)

After a grueling economic deflation and another World War, mankind was sufficiently demoralized to accept the banker-run "world government" dictatorship. Can anyone question that the bankster philosophy is satanic?

The broad sweep of history reveals the pattern. The murder of the Austrian heir Arch Duke Ferdinand by the Masonic "Black Hand" group (which began WWI) was a staged event, an "excuse" i.e. the equivalent of Sept. 11, 2001.

The banksters also supported the Nazis in World War Two as Charles Higham documents in his remarkable book, "Trading with the Enemy" (1983). For example, Rockefeller's Standard Oil supplied petroleum to the Nazis.

CONCLUSION

Modern history is the account of how the central banking cartel converts its monopoly of credit into a monopoly of power. This entails destroying our connection with nation, religion (God), race and family. It means substituting objective truth (God, nature) with their Dictat (political correctness, etc.)

It takes courage and clarity to understand we are mice in their lab experiment. We have been sold out by our "leaders", dumbed down by our media and education and spoiled stupid by the welfare state. (Everyone can be bought.) We can't even recognize what is happening, let alone act.

For now, we have prosperity and think we are free. As Aldous Huxley said:

"A really effi­cient totalitarian state would be one in which the all powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves WHO DO NOT HAVE TO BE COERCED, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." [Brave New World, Bantam Books, 1967, p. xii. Caps added.]

On the bright side, the knowledge that our society is a fraud is strangely liberating. No longer do we genuflect to its plastic gods. "The truth does make you free!"

-----

Thanks to Edward for drawing my attention to this information.

-----

"Secrets of the Federal Reserve " by Eustace Mullins (online, scroll down)

Related my "Bankers Engineered American WWII Intervention"

and "Rothschilds Conduct 'Red Symphony' "

from

Saturday, December 1, 2007

End Of Free Speech - Hate

By Rev. Ted Pike
11-29-7

The Conference-approved version of the National Defense Appropriations Bill, H.R. 1585, with hate bill attached, could be passed by the U.S. House and Senate when Congress reconvenes on Monday. There is an increasing chance the President, desperate for military funding, may approve these two incongruous bills. However, if rejected by increasingly dissatisfied Democrats and Republicans in Congress, it would guarantee that Sen. Kennedy's hate crimes bill would have to be voted on again. The hate bill could be defeated.

If a new arms bill were created, Democratic leaders would probably include the hate bill in the arms bill, not as an amendment but as part of its language. Since this would constitute new legislation, it would be subject to amendment from Republicans who oppose it. They could demand the hate bill be stripped from the new arms bill. If removed, the hate bill would have to be resubmitted, either as an amendment to another bill or as stand-alone legislation.

There is mounting opposition in Congress to voting more money for war in Iraq. Allegedly, as many as 20 House Democrats and 180 Republicans vow not to vote for the arms bill, for widely divergent reasons.
(See,
We Can Still Kill the Hate Bill) Also, the Senate recently repulsed Pres. Bush's request for $50 billion in extra military aid. Influential Democrats say they will not even consider another request for arms bill passage before the first of the year. Yet, we would be unwise to wait that long before pressuring members of Congress to vote against H.R. 1585. Here's why:

The Zionist/ADL lobby dominating Congress wants the hate bill desperately -- so they can outlaw, as anti-semitism, criticism of Israel and Zionist control. Their hate bill, approved by both House and Senate, is designed to ultimately empower such censorship. They don't want to take any chances of losing their hard-won congressional victories.

There may exist a rebellion among some Democrats against passage of H.R. 1585, but the Zionist masters of Congress could squelch it-because it jeopardizes their hate bill. Instead, they may continue their same devious agenda. Through the Democratic leadership which Zionists control, they have for the past four months delayed passage of the vitally needed war funding, provided by H.R. 1585. The purpose of this delay is to wear out the President's patience and force him to go back on his promise to veto the hate bill. Democrats now threaten months of future delays for war funding. But now they may feel the brief session of Congress next week is a perfect time to call for a House and Senate vote on the final conference version of H.R. 1585. Pres. Bush, wearied over the prospect of months of emerging contention over the arms/hate bill, may just capitulate.

It is a relatively small concession for the Democrats to give Bush all the money he needs for Iraq. After 9/11, they voted war funding that launched us into war in the Middle East. They made no real protest last summer to the possibility of more funding for war with Iran. In reality, Democrats may posture as anti-war, but they are really nothing more than lackeys of Zionist Jews who control and fund the Democratic Party. Such Jews emphatically want America in the Middle East, making the region safe for Israel.

The powers that be know that war in the Middle East will go forward very nicely, even with Democrats (including Jews in Congress) militantly opposing it. Far from being motivated by conscience, the main purpose of liberal chameleons in opposing the war is to create dissatisfaction with Republican leadership; dissatisfaction that could propel a Democrat into the White House.

Be prepared then for the possibility of a vote by House and Senate on the arms/hate bill next week. Call your House and Senate members NOW, both liberal and conservative, saying: Please don't vote for the National Defense Appropriations Act, H.R. 1585. Don't vote for any hate crimes legislation.

Also call the President at 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 saying: Please veto the federal hate crimes bill H.R. 1585.

In war, those who survive do not wait for attack but take action to prevent it!

from

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

The bill states:

‘...ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs...

Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:

• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency

You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.

If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs...")

If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political beliefs...")

If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")

The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal act.

Must-see video: Naomi Wolf's lecture on 10 steps to fascism

There's a video lecture you simply MUST watch. It's by Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America. She covers this topic with great elegance and a deep understanding of history. See her video on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

Click here to see her book on Amazon.com.

In her lecture and book, Naomi reveals the ten steps to fascist, then reveals how the United States of America is pursuing all ten! This S.1959 legislation, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, represents one of the ten steps to achieve a fascist state!

It is designed to squash all opposition to the State's ongoing march towards blatant fascism, where secret police and secret prisons dominate the law enforcement landscape, stripping U.S. citizens of all civil liberties and Constitutional protections.

Thoughtcrimes are about to become a reality in the United States of America, and Congress is pushing this through as quickly as possible so that each individual member of Congress can claim that he or she is "against terrorism." But this bill doesn't merely target terrorism: It targets anyone who speaks or even thinks thoughts against the U.S. federal government.

With this bill, the U.S. government is officially labeling the People of the United States as criminals. It is drawing a line in the sand and stating that from now on, it's the Government vs. the People.

If we don't stop this bill from becoming law, we are lost as a nation.

There is no turning back from tyranny once the government turns its own citizens into criminals, enforcing only the thoughts, ideas, words and speeches that it approves or tolerates. Everything is at stake here!

Take action now, or lose your freedoms forever

If you live in the U.S., it is urgent that you call your senators right now and voice your strong opposition against this extremely dangerous law.

Here are the phone numbers for the U.S. Senate switchboard:

1-877-851-6437
1-800-833-6354
1-888-355-3588
1-866-220-0044
1-866-808-0065
1-877-762-8762
1-866-340-9281
1-800-862-5530

How to do this:

1) Make sure you know the names of your Senators.
2) Call the U.S. Senate switchboard using one of the numbers above.
3) Ask to speak to the offices of your Senators.
4) Tell them you are strongly opposed to S. 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5) Ask for their fax number.
6) Follow up your phone call with a written, signed letter that you fax to your Senators.

Stopping this bill from becoming law is the single most important thing all Americans can do right now. If this becomes law, all free speech about health freedom, the crimes of the FDA, the crimes of the Bush Administration, America's role in global warming and any other topics could all be criminalized. YOU could be labeled a terrorist, kidnapped by government thugs, taken from your home, thrown in a secret prison, denied access to legal representation, denied due process and essentially "disappeared" into a system of such corruption and evil that it now begins to blatantly mirror Nazi Germany.

Think it couldn't happen here? It's happening right now! This is exactly how it happened in Nazi Germany. First, burn the Reichstag and blame it on the "enemy." Pass new police state laws. Disarm the people. Spread fear. Erect secret prisons and secret police. Call anyone who disagrees with you a "traitor." Control the mainstream media. Sound familiar? This is all happening right now in the United States of Amerika, and if we don't work to stop it, this nation will rapidly devolve into a fascist police state where no one is truly free.

We are but a few small steps away from it right now. All it would take is one dirty bomb in a major U.S. city. Bush would declare Martial Law and take over the National Guard. Troops on the streets. Anyone who writes a blog against the government would be arrested. Authors of "alternative" books would be kidnapped and have their books burned on the street. It could all happen at the stroke of a pen. The infrastructure for tyranny is in place right now, just waiting to be invoked.

Our best weapons: Non-violent protest and speaking the truth

How can we fight back against this onslaught of tyranny? We must use what remaining free speech freedoms we have right now to alert our fellow citizens to what's happening. We must rise up and tell the truth while urging our representatives in Washington to resist the temptation to vote for more "anti-terrorism" legislation that only works to enslave the American people.

We must use our phones, faxes, emails and blogs to rally our friends, family members and anyone who will listen to oppose these police state laws, and we must organize mass (peaceful) protests against this government that is attempting to marginalize the rights and freedoms of our People.

We must not be lulled into a sense of false security by the purveyors of hatred and fear -- the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the world. Instead, we must listen to the voices of freedom. In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win: www.RonPaul2008.com

All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created? That's the danger of all laws that centralize power in Washington: It's not necessarily what today's President will do with them, but what some future President will do with them.

That's why it's never good enough to say, "Well, we intend to only apply these laws to terrorists and not to U.S. citizens at home." That may be the intention right NOW, but virtually all such laws creep into areas of enforcement for which they were never intended. Just look at the application of RICO laws which were originally designed to fight organized crime operations but are now applied to virtually anyone (and yet they are never applied to Big Pharma, which operates almost exactly like organized crime!). All these anti-terrorism laws run the danger of expanding in enforcement to the point where they are applied against the People of this country. At first, it's only illegal for "terrorists" to think thought crimes, but before long, it's illegal for anyone to think those same thoughts. That when the domestic arrests of authors, journalists, bloggers and thought leaders will kick off, and the country will plunge itself into outright tyrannical fascism.

Again, we're on the track right now. This is happening, folks. You're LIVING through an amazing chapter of history right now. You're actually witnessing the downfall of a free nation and the rise of a superpower fascist state. You're actually part of it.

When it's all over, will you look back and realize you did nothing? Or will you now take a stand against tyranny and oppose these dangerous laws and lawmakers who threaten the Constitutional freedoms of you and your children?

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

from