Dr. John MacArthur cited a recent CDC report on causes of COVID-19 deaths (Here is the CDC report in question). Only 6% of people with COVID-19 died from COVID-19! The rest died with COVID-19 and from other underlining health conditions.
Click on the image to play it.
https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/MacarthurPandemic.mp4
I received a question from a visitor on my other website:
I don’t believe in a pretrib rapture. But, what about the verse that tells us that one would be taken and the other left?
Hallelujah! I am rejoicing because this question has helped me get a better understanding of that Scripture based on its context with another Scripture in the same chapter!!
Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be TAKEN, and the other left. — Matthew 24:40
Just look at the verse immediately before it!
And knew not until the flood came, and TOOK them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. –Matthew 24:39
The popular interpretation of “taken” in Matthew 24:40 is based on speculation, not what the Word actually says. It is not talking about the Rapture, but about a person being killed by the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. The “took” of verse 39 is clearly referring to those who were destroyed in the great flood. And it’s interesting the word “flood” is also used metaphorically in Daniel’s prophecy of the same event.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (Jerusalem and the Temple), and the end thereof shall be with a FLOOD, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. — Daniel 9:26
Isn’t it amazing that the Lord used the word flood to describe the destruction of the wicked in 70 A.D.? The wicked were also destroyed by a flood in Noah’s time. Everyone who was not on the Ark, which is also symbolic of Christ, perished in the flood.
God’s Word explains itself! I mean, how clearer can it get than that? The only reason it took me decades to understand these verses correctly is because I was misled by popular eschatological teaching on the subject which said those verses are talking about the Rapture.
The “left” is talking about those who were not killed by the Romans, those who survived the Great Persecution. Who was left after the Great Flood? Only Noah, his wife, his three sons, and his son’s wives, eight people.
…so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
I believe this is referring to
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days (70 A.D.) shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
This is not talking about the end of time. Jesus appeared in the sky during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and those who had Him crucified 40 years before that saw Him! How do I know that? Because Jesus told the High Priest he would see Jesus again coming in power!
Mark 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
This interpretation of “taken” and “left” is confirmed by John Gill, (November 23, 1697 – October 14, 1771) an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and Bible commentator.
Then shall two be in the field
About their proper business, of husbandry, ploughing, or sowing, or any other rural employment: the one shall be taken;
not by the preaching of the Gospel, into the kingdom of God, or Gospel dispensation; though such a distinction God makes, by the ministry of the word, accompanied by his Spirit and power; nor by angels, to meet Christ in the air, and to be introduced into his kingdom and glory; but by the eagles, the Roman army, and either killed or carried captive by them: and the other left;
not in a state of nature and unregeneracy, as many are, to whom the Gospel is preached; nor with devils at the last day, to be thrust down by them into the infernal regions; but by the Romans, being by some remarkable providence, or another, delivered out of their hands; which was the case of some few, and these of the meaner sort; and therefore persons of a rural life and occupation are instanced in.
Dr. Carrie Madej, DO is an Internal Medicine Specialist in McDonough, GA and has over 19 years of experience in the medical field. She graduated from Kansas City Univ Of Medicine Bioscience College Of Osteopathic Medicine medical school in 2001. She is affiliated with Southern Regional Medical Center. (Reference: https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-carrie-madej-y7thx )
This article is all about the dangers of a new experimental vaccine for COVID-19 from a company called Moderna. Even if Youtube bans this video, the text will remain! And if the video is banned, if you tell me about it, I’ll post it directly on my own server.
So what do you think about going from Human 1.0 to Human 2.0? And what does that mean? Well, going from humans as we now know ourselves to human 2.0 has something to do with transhumanism. If you’re not familiar with that term, it’s about taking humans as we know ourselves and melding with artificial intelligence. It’s kind of like being in the matrix if you’ve ever seen that movie. And that may seem kind of cool to you. We might have some superhuman abilities, maybe be able to think of something and it happens, maybe have some physical abilities that would be almost super human-like. That’s the idea, that’s what you see in sci-fi movies.
And for myself, thinking about this topic I’m like, well I have some time I think that’s many years in the future. However, this question, this idea is now right at this moment. We need to make a decision. And I found out that we need to make a decision about this because I investigated the proposed COVID-19 vaccine. And this is my alarm call to the world.
I looked at the pros and cons and it frightens me. And I want you to know about this. You need to be very well informed because this new vaccine is not like your normal flu vaccine. This is something very different. This is something brand new. This is something completely experimental on the human race. And it’s not just about being a different vaccine there are technologies that are being introduced with this vaccine that can change the way we live, who we are, and what we are, and very quickly.
I think that you know some people that you might know these names Elon Musk who is the founder of SpaceX and Tesla automotive, as well as Ray Kurzweil who is one of the bigwigs of Google. These are self-proclaimed transhumanists. They believe that we should go to Human 2.0 and they are very big proponents of this. There’s a lot of other people that you might know their names, they’re also involved with this so you should look that up.
I think the easiest way to explain this to you is to go with one of the front runners for the vaccine and go into a little bit of the history and tell you how they want to make the vaccine, and I think that will speak volumes. So for instance Moderna is one of the front runners for the COVID-19 vaccine. You should know that Moderna was founded by a person from Harvard, Derrek Rossi, and this researcher actually was successful in taking some modified RNA and being able to reprogram a stem cell in the body and change the function of the stem cell. He actually made it genetically modified, okay? So you can – he proved – that you can genetically modify something by using modified RNA. So they founded the company Moderna on this concept. It’s kind of a new kid on the block, okay, it’s not been around that long. In fact, it hasn’t even made any vaccine for a human before. It’s made no medicine for a human before. This will be their first run.
You must know that Moderna was in the news recently because it really fast-tracked, it’s like the other companies, it’s fast-tracking the vaccine. It’s going from phase one to phase two very very quickly. In fact, it’s gone from phase one to phase three and its experiments from March of this year until currently. I mean that is unbelievable! It usually takes five or six years! How are they able to do this with the safety and efficacy data that we need?
And I want you to know that in phase 2 we only use between, they’re only using between 30 and 45 humans. In Moderna’s test study they only used 45 humans. And with the high dose vaccine group, they got 100 percent of those people got systemic side effects, 100! That’s only in the short side effect profile. In the low dose vaccine, 80 percent got systemic side effects. Now we don’t even know the long-term side effects from that. We would need a lot longer time, right? Maybe years. But we do know based on previous animal studies of using this technology that you can expect possibly increased cancer rates, increase mutant genes, mutagenesis, also increased autoimmune reactions. For instance, in some of the ferret studies they saw that when the ferret was introduced to the virus that they were trying to protect the ferret from after the ferret got the vaccine they actually had an exaggerated immune response, it actually hurt the ferret. They had more lung inflammation, more lung fluid, even some problems with their liver. It actually hurt them. They had a poorer response.
Okay, so this those are longer-term reactions and that could be seen with this vaccine, but we don’t know the data yet. So it’s not without risk. And how are they doing this? Well, they’re actually suggesting to use a platform, let me just explain how they would administer the vaccine. So the vaccine there’s an idea called micro-needle platform, okay, this was developed by MIT, and they said it could be very easily produced, okay, and mass-produced. This is why they’re proposing this technology, and many millions of vaccines could be made quickly. They could also be administered by yourself. So the idea is to get a band-aid, it looks like a band-aid that you buy in the drugstore, it’s shipped to you through Amazon or UPS or some other shipping service. You take it out of the package, you put it on your hand like this, and then you take the sticker off, and voila you’ve been vaccinated.
So how is that possible? Well in this band-aid, it has little tiny spicules little tiny needles. And this was designed after a snake viper fang bite, okay, or snake viper bangs, little snake bites. Anyway, in these tiny little spicules, they claim you won’t really feel it that much, there’s their little Hydrogel, it’s a material called Hydrogel. Inside the Hydrogel would be a Luciferase enzyme as well as the vaccine itself.
So what is all that? So first of all, you’re getting the vaccine. It’s modified RNA or modified DNA. Let’s take Moderna, modified RNA. So in that modified RNA, the idea is that the micro-needles would puncture into your cell membrane, and this synthetic piece of an RNA, it’s a code for the part of the virus, where they could use a synthetic DNA to code for the part of the virus would go into your nucleus. Your body would start transcribing it, would start reading it, and making more of that part of the virus. Well, why would we want to make more of the virus or part of the virus? The idea is your body would get used to seeing it, would know how to make antibodies, and would have an improved T-cell response. And the idea is then when you saw it in the future your body would already know how to fight it and it would be a better response, that’s the idea.
The problem with that is they’re using a process called transfection. And transfection is a way that we make genetically modified organisms. I think you know about those fruits and vegetables. They’re not as healthy as the normal wild type fruit and vegetables. So possibly you could extrapolate that to a human. If we become genetically modified, we would not be as healthy. We don’t have long-term studies on this anyway, this is unbelievable. And you know, the vaccine manufacturers have made the statement this will not alter our DNA, our genome. I say that is not true, because if we use this process to make a genetically modified organism, why would it not do the same thing to a human? I don’t know why they’re saying that.
Now if you look at the definition of transfection, it’ll tell you that it can be a temporary change in the cell, and I think that’s what the vaccine manufacturers are banking on, it’s temporary. Or, it’s a possibility for it to become stable, to be taken up into the genome, and so stable that it will start replicating when the genome replicates meaning, it is now a permanent part of your genome. That’s a chance that we’re taking. So it could be temporary, or it could be permanent. And we would never know that for years down the road, honestly.
So, here we go, we’ve got something that can alter our genome. It’s a possibility. And another thing on that, if they’re altering the genome, what would be the effects? I told you previously some of the side effects, but also we need to know that this is a synthetic piece of DNA or RNA, and if it becomes taken up into the genome of a human, it’s synthetic, it’s not from nature. And if you look at the Supreme Court justice ruling on synthetic DNA or genes, it can be patented. And patents have owners.
So what does that mean for us? What if this gets into our genome? Does that mean Moderna or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Department of Defence, all of these people who are involved in the patents, are they somehow going to own part of our genome? It’s a possibility. You need to know that.
So that’s one part of this delivery system, just one. Now let me go to the next. The next part of the delivery system is a Luciferase enzyme. They named it, they patented it Luciferase. I don’t like that name Luciferase, because it has bioluminescent qualities which means it can produce a light or has a light source. And all of this would be under your skin and you cannot see it. Now the Luciferase is an idea because they want to make sure that you’re vaccinated. They don’t trust medical records, they don’t trust you saying that you got vaccinated, they want to make sure, they want to make sure it was successful, a successful transfection, a successful gene modification. So when you get the Luciferase enzyme if you have an iPhone or special app on the iPhone, you can scan over that area and it will give a digital code, a digital imprint, a digital pattern, something that will identify that you were vaccinated. It holds your vaccination record. It also gives you an ID, a number, a bar code, a branding, whatever you want to call it, a tattoo, it’s all the same thing. You now become like a product.
So we have that. Now the third thing I mentioned was Hydrogel. So Hydrogel is actually an invention from DARPA, the Department of Advanced Research Projects Agency. This is kind of a sci-fi kind of a group from the Department of Defense, Pentagon, of the US government. They make these fantastic inventions. So one of them is Hydrogel.
Hydrogel, you can look on Youtube, look at PROFUSA, it is one of the companies, DARPA, as well as Hydrogel, and you’ll find some little two-minute clips that they describe. So Hydrogel’s nanotechnology: microscopic little robots, and these little robots, actually I know it sounds crazy, it’s still crazy to me, but it’s possible, they can disassemble, reassemble, assemble, into and make different things. So with this Hydrogel, it’s really nano technology, so that’s something you know robotic or something that’s artificial intelligence, it has the ability to connect with artificial intelligence.
So this means that a human can now connect to directly and gather information from our bodies, and gather it and connect with your Smartphone, with the cloud, with some other smart device. And once this is done, this is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Think about that. think about how immediately that could change our privacy, immediately can change our autonomy, immediately change our freedoms. That can gather data like your blood sugar, your oxygen, your blood pressure, those sound great, but it also can gather many other things. It can gather they say your emotions, or your menstrual cycle, your activity, if you’ve fallen, your nutrients in your body, if you took medicines. It’s a potential to see if you took illicit drugs, it’s got a potential to see almost anything that goes on in your body. And all of this information is going where? That has not been addressed. Who’s protecting this information? What are they using it for? This is really serious stuff, guys! This is all being proposed to being unveiled in the next vaccine.
The other thing to know is with this nanotechnology, Hydrogel, artificial intelligence, you know, hook up just like your cell phone. You can send a text message you can send an email but also you can receive them back. So that means we could receive information. What information would be coming back into us? Would it affect our mood? Our behavior? Would it affect how we think or our memories? If you haven’t watched the movie Matrix, I think you should. I think there’s some truth in that movie. I see so many wrong things with this vaccine. And I see that we are not talking about it in the major media. And I see that I feel that these companies are outright lying to us when they say they cannot affect our DNA, because by all definitions that they are using, this can affect our DNA.
So guys I wanted to make this video short because I wanted to get the point across. I wanted you to really do your own research. So know that there are many risks that we’re seeing here and there is some we really need to know if we really want to go from human 1.0 to human 2.0.
And let me also tell you that there are some major names behind these vaccines. You’re always going to see like the Department of Defense from the US government, sometimes DARPA like I told you. Why is the military involved with our vaccines? You see the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation everywhere with this. If you look you’ll find that name almost always.
And let’s go back to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I want you to look up, what, let’s look at the track record, let’s look at what that man stands for. His family comes from a family of eugenics. What does eugenics mean? Population control, meaning there are too many people on the planet. It’s important to know. He’s been on video stating that he thinks with a very good new vaccine we could get the earth’s population to be decreased by 10 to 15 percent. Well, who’s going to stay and who’s going to go? And who is he to decide? He doesn’t have a medical background, no epidemiology background, no science background. He’s not a doctor. A software tech that’s what he is.
I’d also like you to realize I always look at who has a vested interest. What are their motivations? What is his motivation? Right? We already know his family background. Well, what’s great concerning to me is that DARPA, this military agency, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is very interested in something called gene drive research or technology, or gene extinction technology. And it’s exactly what it sounds like. By using genetic mutations, by use of transfection, for instance, you can exterminate an entire species from the planet. They are proposing to use this for mosquitoes, for instance, in Africa. But guys, our world is a delicate ecosystem. Who is saying one species goes? You destroy one species, you could affect an entire ecosystem. So when you exterminate an entire species you will affect an entire ecosystem. It’s a very delicate balance. And who is to say who’s going to stay and who’s going to go? Who’s got that knowledge? Why aren’t we talking about this? And guys, if we can do it to an insect, we can do it to an animal, we can do it to a human. I bring this up because if these agencies that are behind the vaccine also stand for that, do you trust them with your health? Do you trust them with your family? Do you trust them with our children?
The other thing is we’re rushing this to production. What is the motivation behind that? We need to really think about this.
I’ve also stated in the past that we need to know that there are at least in the United States there are mandates passed that make the vaccine manufacturers have no liability, zero liability for any harm done to any human. If people are killed, if they’re hurt, if they’re paralyzed, if they’re maimed for life, it doesn’t matter. You have no recourse. And they still make all their profit. So there’s no incentive for them to make it safe anyway.
I also want you to know that one of the mandates the emergency preparedness act that’s that says they can force a vaccine on us. They cannot force a vaccine if there is a viable treatment for the COVID-19. And I want you to know that doctors around the world are being censored about treatment options for COVID-19 or prevention for COVID-19. Because if there’s a true treatment or prevention then they can’t force this vaccine on us. I want to bring that up because what in the world is the motivation of doing this? Is it really in the health of all of us? As a doctor, I can’t see how this is in the true health of the entire world. I think there’s another motive, another agenda going on. The more I look at this the more that comes up.
So I’ll leave you with this. I want to make this short and sweet, sweet so that you can digest this and think about it. Do you really want to go to Human 2.0? I don’t think it’s the fantasy you see in the movies. We need to come together, and we need to unify our voices because people in positions of power taking care of our health are not in our best interests. But together we have power. Together united our voice is strong. So I encourage you to do critical thinking. Do your own research. Join groups in your State. Go to your state legislature and you tell them no, no to these experiments on humans, no to an invasion of privacy, no to censorship. We are sovereign human souls and we need to take our rights back.
Thank you for listening. And you know, I always say my videos with the greatest of love and the greatest of peace. Thank you.
The Digital Freedom Platform by London Real exclusively livestreamed what might be the most important documentary you will ever see: PLANDEMIC – INDOCTRINATION.
Created by the team behind the game-changing Plandemic video segment from Mikki Willis featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits that went viral and was banned on every major social media platform for exposing the truth about Covid-19, this new FEATURE LENGTH PIECE which is the most revelatory film on what is driving the vaccine agenda, the various roles of the WHO, Bill Gates, Tedros Adhanom, Anthony Fauci and more.
Going deep into what is really happening with mainstream media, Silicon Valley tech giants, big pharma, and our health protection agencies, Mikki’s new film finally connects the dots…
… And we are excited to be able to share this with you…
We believe that this film will fundamentally shift the discourse around Coronavirus, the lockdown, and the vested interests involved. (Quoted from https://freedomplatform.tv/plandemic-indoctornation-world-premiere/ )
https://www.jamesjpn.net/wp-content/uploads/PlandemicIndoctornation-165-mp4audiocodec.mp4
Matthew Henry (18 October 1662 – 22 June 1714) was a nonconformist minister and author, born in Wales but spent much of his life in England. He is best known for the six-volume biblical commentary Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. (Quoted from Wikipedia)
Are the Two Witnesses of the Book of Revelation two literal people? Or can the passages about them be interpreted figuratively? Here is what Matthew Henry has to say:
In this time of treading down (of Jerusalem by the Gentiles), God has reserved to himself his faithful witnesses, who will not fail to attest the truth of his word and worship, and the excellency of his ways. Here observe,
I. The number of these witnesses: it is but a small number and yet it is sufficient. 1. It is but small. Many will own and acknowledge Christ in times of prosperity who will desert and deny him in times of persecution; one witness, when the cause is upon trial, is worth many at other times. 2. It is a sufficient number; for in the mouth of two witnesses every cause shall be established. Christ sent out his disciples two by two, to preach the gospel. Some think these two witnesses are Enoch and Elias, who are to return to the earth for a time: others, the church of the believing Jews and that of the Gentiles: it should rather seem that they are God’s eminent faithful ministers, who shall not only continue to profess the Christian religion, but to preach it, in the worst of times.
II. The time of their prophesying, or bearing their testimony for Christ. A thousand two hundred and threescore days; that is (as many think), to the period of the reign of antichrist; and, if the beginning of that interval could be ascertained, this number of prophetic days, taking a day for a year, would give us a prospect when the end shall be.
III. Their habit, and posture: they prophesy in sackcloth, as those that are deeply affected with the low and distressed state of the churches and interest of Christ in the world.
IV. How they were supported and supplied during the discharge of their great and hard work: they stood before the God of the whole earth, and he gave them power to prophesy. He made them to be like Zerubbabel and Joshua, the two olive-trees and candlestick in the vision of Zechariah, ch. 4:2, etc. God gave them the oil of holy zeal, and courage, and strength, and comfort; he made them olive-trees, and their lamps of profession were kept burning by the oil of inward gracious principles, which they received from God. They had oil not only in their lamps, but in their vessels-habits of spiritual life, light, and zeal.
V. Their security and defence during the time of their prophesying: If any attempted to hurt them, fire proceeded out of their mouths, and devoured them, v. 5. Some think this alludes to Elias’s calling for the fire from heaven, to consume the captains and their companies that came to seize him, 2 Ki. 1:12. God promised the prophet Jeremiah (ch. 5:14), Behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people shall be wood, and it shall devour them. By their praying and preaching, and courage in suffering, they shall gall and wound the very hearts and consciences of many of their persecutors, who shall go away self-condemned, and be even terrors to themselves; like Pashur, at the words of the prophet Jeremiah, ch. 20:4. They shall have that free access to God, and that interest in him, that, at their prayers, God will inflict plagues and judgments upon their enemies, as he did on Pharaoh, turning their rivers into blood, and restraining the dews of heaven, shutting heaven up, that no rain shall fall for many days, as he did at the prayers of Elias, 1 Ki. 17:1. God has ordained his arrows for the persecutors, and is often plaguing them while they are persecuting his people; they find it hard work to kick against the pricks.
VI. The slaying of the witnesses. To make their testimony more strong, they must seal it with their blood. Here observe, 1. The time when they should be killed: When they have finished their testimony. They are immortal, they are invulnerable, till their work be done. Some think it ought to be rendered, when they were about to finish their testimony. When they had prophesied in sackcloth the greatest part of the 1260 years, then they should feel the last effect of antichristian malice. 2. The enemy that should overcome and slay them—the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit. Antichrist, the great instrument of the devil, should make war against them, not only with the arms of subtle and sophistical learning, but chiefly with open force and violence; and God would permit his enemies to prevail against his witnesses for a time. 3. The barbarous usage of these slain witnesses; the malice of their enemies was not satiated with their blood and death, but pursued even their dead bodies. (1.) They would not allow them a quiet grave; their bodies were cast out in the open street, the high street of Babylon, or in the high road leading to the city. This city is spiritually called Sodom for monstrous wickedness, and Egypt for idolatry and tyranny; and here Christ in his mystical body has suffered more than in any place in the world. (2.) Their dead bodies were insulted by the inhabitants of the earth, and their death was a matter of mirth and joy to the antichristian world, v. 10. They were glad to be rid of these witnesses, who by their doctrine and example had teased, terrified, and tormented the consciences of their enemies; these spiritual weapons cut wicked men to the heart, and fill them with the greatest rage and malice against the faithful.
VII. The resurrection of these witnesses, and the consequences thereof. Observe, 1. The time of their rising again; after they had lain dead three days and a half (v. 11), a short time in comparison of that in which they had prophesied. Here may be a reference to the resurrection of Christ, who is the resurrection and the life. Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Or there may be a reference to the resurrection of Lazarus on the fourth day, when they thought it impossible. God’s witnesses may be slain, but they shall rise again: not in their persons, till the general resurrection, but in their successors. God will revive his work, when it seems to be dead in the world. 2. The power by which they were raised: The spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet. God put not only life, but courage into them. God can make the dry bones to life; it is the Spirit of life from God that quickens dead souls, and shall quicken the dead bodies of his people, and his dying interest in the world. 3. The effect of their resurrection upon their enemies: Great fear fell upon them. The reviving of God’s work and witnesses will strike terror into the souls of his enemies. Where there is guilt, there is fear; and a persecuting spirit, though cruel, is not a courageous, but a cowardly spirit. Herod feared John the Baptist.
VIII. The ascension of the witnesses into heaven and the consequences thereof, v. 12, 13. Observe, 1. Their ascension. By heaven we may understand either some more eminent station in the church, the kingdom of grace in this world, or a high place in the kingdom of glory above. The former seems to be the meaning: They ascended to heaven in a cloud (in a figurative, not in a literal sense) and their enemies saw them. It will be no small part of the punishment of persecutors, both in this world and at the great day, that they shall see the faithful servants of God greatly honoured and advanced. To this honour they did not attempt to ascend, till God called them, and said, Come up hither. The Lord’s witnesses must wait for their advancement, both in the church and in heaven, till God calls them; they must not be weary of suffering and service, nor too hastily grasp at the reward; but stay till their Master calls them, and then they may gladly ascend to him. 2. The consequences of their ascension—a mighty shock and convulsion in the antichristian empire and the fall of a tenth part of the city. Some refer this to the beginning of the reformation from popery, when many princes and states fell off from their subjection to Rome. This great work met with great opposition; all the western world felt a great concussion, and the antichristian interest received a great blow, and lost a great deal of ground and interest, (1.) By the sword of war, which was then drawn; and many of those who fought under the banner of antichrist were slain by it. (2.) By the sword of the Spirit: The fear of God fell upon many. They were convinced of their errors, superstition, and idolatry; and by true repentance, and embracing the truth, they gave glory to the God of heaven. Thus, when God’s work and witnesses revive, the devil’s work and witnesses fall before him.
This talk by Celeste Bishop Solum about Wicked Problems is confirmed by a Wikipedia article entitled, Wicked Problems. The text was transcribed from her YouTube. Someday Celeste’s YouTube may be taken down, but as long as I am around, this text will remain online.
The bold emphasis in the text is mine. I added some clarifications to the text that you won’t find in the video, such as links to external resources.
Celeste Bishop Solum
Hi, this is Celeste and this is the Celestial Report for July 23rd, 2020. And we are going to discuss something that I learned about maybe 10 years ago, and I haven’t talked a lot about it, but I think these are the days, and it’s called “wicked problems”.
So why are we witnessing wickedness across the globe? So I am going to humbly present to you that it is a social tool called “wicked problems”. And they have been loosed upon the earth to prepare for the evil global tyrant.
So in planning and policy, a wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because it is either incomplete, it’s contradictory and it changes requirements, and it’s often very difficult to recognize. It refers to an idea or a problem that cannot be fixed and that there is no single solution to the problem. And it being wicked denotes resistance to the resolution such as the masks, rather than being an evil. I would propose to you that it is an evil, but that’s what the social engineers say that there is resistance to the various solutions that they are proposing.
So another definition of it is that it is a problem whose social complexity means that it has no stopping point. That’s interesting. Moreover, because of the complex interdependencies, for instance, the one health agenda which is multi-discipline, the effort to solve one aspect of the wicked problem may reveal or create other problems. So let’s take for instance the current pathogen. If you treat it one way it may actually cause a plethora of other health problems. And so that is an example of a wicked problem.
So the phrase was originally used in social planning, and it was introduced by a C. West Churchman, how ironic, in 1967, in management science. And it was in relation to operations research. And remember, we’re operationalizing everything to inform the manager in what respect our solutions have failed to tame his wicked problem. And in 1973 there was a wicked problem, a treatise, and they were trying to tame it and solve problems such as mathematics, chess, and puzzle-solving. They were using those types of things to try and solve these wicked problems, but it didn’t work.
So what are the characteristics of a wicked problem? So there is no definitive formulation for a wicked problem. So wicked problems they don’t have any stopping rules, so they can go on for in perpetuity forever. The solutions to wicked problems are not true and false but only better or worse.
So think of our election system right now. We have to choose between the lesser of two evils, not really absolutes. Absolutes such as true and false are disappearing from our culture and from the world. There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. And every solution to a wicked problem is a one-shot operation because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error because every attempt counts significantly. That’s because it’s all metric out, and you either get it right the first time or you’re out.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable or exhaustive describability or a set of potential solutions. There is not a well-described set of permissible operations that could be incorporated into the plan. Think of it as like a cake and you’re making a cake mix and it calls for water and eggs and that type of stuff and then you beat it. There’s nothing like that for a wicked problem. Wicked problems are essentially unique. And we hear that term being used over and over again, unique, unique, unique, especially with global governance. Every wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem, so that’s the interdependencies that we were just talking about.
And then there is a discrepancy representing the wicked problem that can be explained in numerous ways. And that choice of an explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution. So say for instance, if climate change, if you’re on one side of the debate, you would explain it one way, if you’re on the other side of the climate debate, you would explain it a different way. And a social planner has no right to be wrong. They are liable for the consequences of the actions that they generate. And with this great call for social and civil activism right now, what the young people especially, and people that are heeding the call to action, is they don’t realize that there are consequences for the actions that they generate. So later Conklin (Conklin, Jeffrey (2006). Dialogue mapping : building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, England: Wiley Publishing. ISBN 978-0-470-01768-5) generalized some other concepts of the wickedness in their planning and their policies.
So it’s not well understood until after the solution or formulation of the solution. So they’re basically putting the cart before the horse. And once again it doesn’t have a stopping rule, it is not right or wrong, it is novel and unique. So whenever you hear the words novel and unique you know you are dealing with a wicked problem.
Every solution for the wicked problem is a one-shot operation, and stakeholders have different worldviews and different frames for understanding the problem. And the constraints of that problem are subject to the resources needed to solve the problem over time. And the problem is never solved definitively. It always a living document, it is always changing.
So what are some examples of wicked problems that you’re probably seeing in the headlines today? They can be economic, they can be environmental, they can be political, they can even be religious. There are also climate change, natural hazards, health care system, (interesting!) aids, epidemic, the novel coronavirus, international drug trafficking, nuclear weapons, waste, and also social justice. Those are all wicked problems. And so they are identified and worked out in knowledge management, business strategies, and even space debris.
So biblically speaking what does wicked mean when we encounter it in the bible? So basically wicked in the Strongs (concordance) is Strong 7563 which is arussia which means wicked, criminal, evil, evil men, offender, ungodly, arisha which means wickedness, evildoer, the guilty. And then from Ezekiel 3: 18 and 19 we learn a few additional things, that if Ezekiel fails to give the warning to the wicked, and this is the Lord speaking:
Ezekiel 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
And this, my friends, is why we need to be telling people about the Quantum Dot, and the Hydrogel the potential link with the Mark (of the Beast) the deeper spiritual implications. And we cannot be shy. We must be bold, we must be courageous, because otherwise if we do not warn of this wickedness especially to the ones that are perishing, their blood is gonna be on our hand. So therefore as watch men and women we must warn the wicked. Because you were wicked you will die physically by divine judgment if you do not repent. God does not speak directly to the wicked, but He speaks to the wicked through you and I. You receive the word from God that such and such a wicked man or city or nation is going to die physically as a result of divine judgment, and if you fail to warn him or the city or whatever so that they have an opportunity to repent from their wicked way, that wicked one will die physically because of their sin, and the verse goes on, but his blood I will require at your hand. And this means that your life would also be forfeit.
This does not mean that you will lose your salvation. Salvation is not based upon works. The issue here is your physical life. And so warning the wicked was not in order that he might attain salvation, but to save his physical life. And then there is a change in verse 19.
Ezekiel 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
So basically that you will live physically but the wicked person shall die in his iniquity. On the other hand, if you warn the wicked one and he does not repent, he will die physically as a result of the Divine judgment. The wicked one will die whether he is warned or not. The distinction is not how warning affects the wicked one who does not repent, the distinction is strictly on how warning a wicked one affects you, and as basically a prophet of Jesus Christ, because you, the revelation of Jesus Christ is prophecy, you deliver your soul.
We can find wickedness in,
Isaiah 57:21 There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.
,
Psalms 92:7 ¶When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:
,
Isaiah 57:20 But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.
,
Psalm 37:38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.
,
Proverbs 21:12 The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked: but God overthroweth the wicked for their wickedness.
,
Psalms 94:3 LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
,
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
Psalm 119:53, and Job 21:7. So there’s a lot of different places that we can find wickedness. So the term is often in a general sense of wrong, and specifically to evil, and it’s always or more often used in its active form as in mischief. So some other things to just keep in mind about wickedness are that it denotes a perversity of the mind which by the natural man surrenders himself to evil impulses. And this comes to us from Proverbs 15:26, Romans 1:29, and Psalms 10:1-11. Wickedness has its seat in the heart Jeremiah 17:9 and Mark 7:21-23, and we need to think that the heart is like a throne that we’re studying in the book of Esther, and also we saw Pharaoh on his throne, and the antichrist coming will sit on the throne.
And so wickedness is in the seat of your heart. It is inspired by Satan, Matthew 13:19, and First John 3:12. It is progressive, Genesis 6:5. Get this one, wicked news is contagious in its manifestation! First Samuel
24:13. All these people are concerned about the contagion of this pathogen, but not concerned about the contagiousness of wickedness, imagine that!
In the Psalms, we learned that the contrast of the richest righteous and the wicked raises the question of the prosperity of the wicked, and we see this in the Psalms like Psalm 37. There is a punishment for all who are wicked, and we see this in Psalm 9:17, Jeremiah 16:4, and Matthew 13:49. And it is never applied to believers in First Corinthians 5:13. Wicked works of unbelievers who are alienated from God. And we find this in Colossians 1:21. And those who are progressing in their faith have overcome the wicked one, First John 2:13. And that is a really good and encouraging verse. And it is the shield of faith, a sure defense against his attack. And we find that in Ephesians 6:16.
Wicked people are conceptualized as chaff, and being wicked is conceptualized as being dead physically and spiritually. So there’s in the physical realm and the policymakers, there’s no prescribed way to move forward. We are stuck in the muck of wicked problem management, and therefore we need this global government to take care of us.
So some of the world’s strategies to cope with wicked problems are an authoritative government that seeks to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems into the hands of a few people or the elite. It is competitive. The strategies attempt to solve the wicked problems by pitting opposing points of view against each other. And I would propose to you that this is creeping into the church. So we need to be especially careful that it’s not creeping into our life.
It is collaborative. These strategies aim to engage all stakeholders, pagans, and Christians alike in order to find the best solution for all stakeholders. And I can tell you it’s not going to be for your benefit. It’s a process, and there’s something, a technique called dialogue mapping which is not what we just learned about on Tuesday night, which is miracle mapping, which is a good thing, but dialogue mapping is a collaboration approach to mapping out wicked problems.
If you want to learn more about wicked problems, there was a paper written by Robert Knapp called the Wholesome Design for Wicked Problems. And basically he said, that you first shift the goal of action on the significant problems from the solution to an intervention. And this is where we see these legal interventions of the ICD 10 codes for our execution, and but they don’t tell you that upfront, and people are getting paid to make wicked problems governable is the goal of what they want to do with their wicked problem structuring method. And they actually have something called in their operations research collaboration consensus negotiations of soft system methodology called SODA. So that’s a heck of a mess of a soda! And they actually call wicked problems a social mess of interrelated problems and other messes. It is the complexity or the system of systems, think the internet of things, is among the factors that make social messes so resistant to analysis and more importantly to resolution. And the reason it can’t be resolved is because it doesn’t have the living God in there to bring resolution.
So I’ll just wrap up about the social mess. There are some other characteristics about it. There is no correct view of the problem. That’s why everybody can have … it’s free for all. Different views of the problem can be contradictory. Most problems are connected with other problems. It’s like that old thing, like trying to find the end of a ball of yarn. I’ve been there, done that. Most problems, there’s data uncertain or missing, there are multiple value conflicts, there are ideological and cultural constraints because of course, they purge God out of it, there are political constraints, there are economic constraints, there is a logical and an illogical and a multi-value thinking. And if that’s not where we are folks, I don’t know where we are. There’s numerous possible interventions — think execution — and the consequences are very difficult to imagine. And that my friends is why everybody’s having such a struggle trying to come to grips with this pathogen. It is uncertain and there’s lots of ambiguity which we’re seeing with the pathogen and there is great resistance to change.
And so there is one last thing and I’m gonna wrap it up for today, there are also super wicked problems. And a super wicked problem first surfaced in 2007 in a conference paper and it was followed up in a 2012 journal in policy science. And they definitely use climate change as a super wicked problem. And it has four characteristics,
that time is running out,
there is no perceived central authority,
and those seeking the problem are causing it,
and policies discount the future irrationally.
So you know there’s no rationality to the whole thing at all. So anyway I just wanted to bring this to you so that as you’re perusing the news you’re looking at your bible be aware that wickedness is afoot and it is in the form of wicked problems.
See you next time on the Celestial Report.
The best commentator of Scripture is other Scripture! It’s been my observation that the reason much of Matthew 24, also known as the Olivet Discourse, is thought of as an Endtime event is that it’s not compared with the other two accounts of it in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the two other synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of Luke especially uses different words to describe the events, and when compared verse by verse to Matthew 24, add light and a better understanding of the prophecy.
On one website I found:
Matthew 24 and Luke 21 aren’t really talking about the same event. It starts off the same, but then the passages take a turn in the other direction. Matthew’s account is speaking of the abomination of desolation that’s yet future, while Luke’s account is describing the destruction of the temple in 70AD. It’s clearer when we use Matthew 24:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 as an event marker.
Both passages start off pretty much with “For many shall come in my name…” and ends with “earthquakes in divers places…” in once you get to Matthew 24:9 and Luke 21:12 it takes a turn in the other direction.
You will see from this study that the statement above is false! When Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are compared verse by verse, you will see they are indeed the same event! Both Gospels add detail to each other.
In the right column, I am mainly quoting from a famous Bible commentator, John Gill, a Baptist pastor who lived from November 23, 1697, to October 14, 1771.
When I didn’t find a verse in either Matthew or Luke that corresponds to the other Gospel, I left it blank. I hope you will see that the two synoptic Gospels are still close enough to be talking about the same event. Mark 13 is also the same event. Maybe later I will add Mark 13 to this article.
| Matthew 24 | Luke 21 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| 1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. |
5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. | John Gill: The Jews give very great encomiums of the second temple, as repaired by Herod; and it was undoubtedly a very fine structure. They say that he built the house of the sanctuary, “an exceeding beautiful building”; and that he repaired the temple, in beauty “greatly exceeding” that of Solomon’s. |
| 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? | 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? | What things? The destruction of the Temple. Notice Luke doesn’t say “end of the world” as Matthew days. Jesus was talking about the end of the Jewish age at 70 AD. God gave the Jews 40 more years to repent. |
| 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. | 8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. | John Gill: Take heed that no man deceive you: by pretending to come from God with a new revelation, setting himself up for the Messiah, after my departure; suggesting himself to be the person designed by God to be the deliverer of Israel, and to be sent by him, to set up a temporal kingdom, in great worldly splendour and glory; promising great names, and high places of honour and trust in it; things which Christ knew his disciples were fond of, and were in danger of being ensnared by; and therefore gives them this suitable and seasonable advice, and caution. |
| 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. | 9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. | |
| 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. | 10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: 11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. | |
| 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. | 12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. 13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony. 14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: 15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. 16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. | This is the point that the two narratives are supposed to go in different directions. But do they really? As you can see, Luke adds more details to Matthew 24 8-9. Luke says “delivering you up to the synagogues” which shows Jesus was talking to His Jewish disciples, not to us today! |
| 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. | John Gill: And many false prophets shall rise Out of, from among the churches of Christ; at least under the name of Christians; for false teachers are here meant, men of heretical principles, pretending to a spirit of prophecy, and to new revelations, and a better understanding of the Scriptures; such as Simon Magus, Ebion, and Cerinthus, who denied the proper deity, and real humanity of Christ; Carpocrates, and the Gnostics his followers, the Nicolaitans, Hymcneus, Philetus, and others: and shall deceive many: |
|
| 18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish. 19 In your patience possess ye your souls. | Jesus was referring to His believing disciples who heeded His warning to flee Jerusalem and Judea when they saw the Roman army advancing. Every Jewish Christian was saved from death by the hands of the Romans! | |
| 15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) | 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. | Luke explains Daniel 9:27, “the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate” John Gill: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, “From signs, Christ proceeds to the immediate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem; which was, “the abomination of desolation”, or the desolating abomination; or that abominable thing, which threatened and brought desolation upon the city, temple, and nation: by which is meant, not any statue placed in the temple by the Romans, or their order; not the golden eagle which Herod set upon the temple gate, for that was before Christ said these words; nor the image of Tiberius Caesar, which Pilate is said to bring into the temple; for this, if true, must be about this time; whereas Christ cannot be thought to refer to anything so near at hand; much less the statue of Adrian, set in the most holy place, which was an hundred and thirty years and upwards, after the destruction of the city and temple; nor the statue of Titus, who destroyed both, which does not appear: ever to be set up, or attempted; nor of Caligula, which, though ordered, was prevented being placed there: but the Roman army is designed; see ( Luke 21:20 ) which was the (Mmvm Myuwqv Pnk) , “the wing”, or “army of abominations making desolate”, ( Daniel 9:27 ) . Armies are called wings, ( Isaiah 8:8 ) and the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews, and to whom they were an abomination; not only because they consisted of Heathen men, and uncircumcised persons, but chiefly because of the images of their gods, which were upon their ensigns: for images and idols were always an abomination to them; so the “filthiness” which Hezekiah ordered to be carried out of the holy place, ( 2 Chronicles 29:5 ) is by the Targum called, ((aqwxyr) , “an abomination”; and this, by the Jewish writers F23, is said to be an idol, which Ahaz had placed upon the altar; and such was the abomination of desolation, which Antiochus caused to be set upon the altar:
And so the Talmudic writers, by the abomination that makes desolate, in ( Daniel 12:11 ) ( 9:27 ) to which Christ here refers, understand an image, which they say F24 one Apostomus, a Grecian general, who burnt their law, set up in the temple. Now our Lord observes, that when they should see the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem, with their ensigns flying, and these abominations on them, they might conclude its desolation was near at hand; and he does not so much mean his apostles, who would be most of them dead, or in other countries, when this would come to pass; but any of his disciples and followers, or any persons whatever, by whom should be seen this desolating abomination, spoken of by Daniel the prophet: standing in the holy place; whoso readeth, let him understand: |
| 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. | 21 Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. | Luke clearly defines the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24 as “days of vengeance” and “great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people — the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
John Gill: Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains; |
| 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. | ||
| 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. | John Gill: And except those days should be shortened That is, those days of tribulation which commenced at the siege of Jerusalem; and therefore cannot refer to the times before it, and the shortening of them by it, which were very dreadful and deplorable through the murders and robberies of the cut-throats and zealots; but to those after the siege began, which were very distressing to those that were within; and which, if they had not been shortened, or if the siege had been lengthened out further, there should no flesh be saved; not one Jew in the city of Jerusalem would have been saved; they must everyone have perished by famine, or pestilence, or sword, or by the intestine wars and murders among themselves: nor indeed, if the siege had continued, would it have fared better with the inhabitants of the other parts of the country, among whom also many of the same calamities prevailed and spread themselves; so that, in all likelihood, if these days had been continued a little longer, there had not been a Jew left in all the land. But for the elect’s sake; those who were chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world, to believe in him, and to be saved by him with an everlasting salvation; both those that were in the city, or, at least, who were to spring from some that were there, as their immediate offspring, or in future ages, and therefore they, and their posterity, must not be cut off; and also those chosen ones, and real believers, who were at Pella, and in the mountains, and other places, for the sake of these, and that they might be delivered from these pressing calamities, those days shall be shortened: for otherwise, if God had not preserved a seed, a remnant, according to the election of grace, that should be saved, they had been as Sodom and as Gomorrha, not one would have escaped. The shortening of those days is not to be understood literally, as if the natural days, in which this tribulation was, were to be shorter than usual. The Jews indeed often speak of the shortening of days in this sense, as miraculously done by God: so they say, that “five miracles were wrought for our father Jacob, when he went from Beersheba to go to Haran. The first miracle was, that, “the hours of the day were shortened for him”, and the sun set before its time, because his word desired to speak with him.” They also say, “that the day in which Ahaz died, was shortened ten hours, that they might not mourn for him; and which afterwards rose up, and in the day that Hezekiah was healed, ten hours were added to it.” But the meaning here is, that the siege of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it, should be sooner ended: not than God had determined, but than the sin of the Jews deserved, and the justice of God might have required in strict severity, and might be reasonably expected, considering the aggravated circumstances of their iniquities. A like manner of speech is used by the Karaite Jews, who say, “if we walk in our law, why is our captivity prolonged, and there is not found balm for our wounds? and why are not, “the days” of the golden and silver kingdom “lessened”, for the righteousness of the righteous, which were in their days?” |
|
| 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. | 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. | John Gill: Immediately after the tribulation of those days That is, immediately after the distress the Jews would be in through the siege of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it; just upon the destruction of that city, and the temple in it, with the whole nation of the Jews, shall the following things come to pass; and therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment, or what should befall the church, or world, a little before that time, or should be accomplished in the whole intermediate time, between the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last judgment: for all that is said to account for such a sense, as that it was usual with the prophets to speak of judgments afar off as near; and that the apostles often speak of the coming of Christ, the last judgment, and the end of the world, as just at hand; and that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, will not answer to the word “immediately”, or show that that should be understood of two thousand years after: besides, all the following things were to be fulfilled before that present generation, in which Christ lived, passed away, (Matthew 24:34) and therefore must be understood of things that should directly, and immediately take place upon, or at the destruction of the city and temple. Shall the sun be darkened: not in a literal but in a figurative sense; and is to be understood not of the religion of the Jewish church; nor of the knowledge of the law among them, and the decrease of it; nor of the Gospel being obscured by heretics and false teachers; nor of the temple of Jerusalem, senses which are given into by one or another; but of the Shekinah, or the divine presence in the temple. The glory of God, who is a sun and a shield, filled the tabernacle, when it was reared up; and so it did the temple, when it was built and dedicated; in the most holy place, Jehovah took up his residence; here was the symbol of his presence, the mercy seat, and the two cherubim over it: and though God had for some time departed from this people, and a voice was heard in the temple before its destruction, saying, “let us go hence”; yet the token of the divine presence remained till the utter destruction of it; and then this sun was wholly darkened, and there was not so much as the outward symbol of it: and the moon shall not give her light; which also is to be explained in a figurative and metaphorical sense; and refers not to the Roman empire, which quickly began to diminish; nor to the city of Jerusalem; nor to the civil polity of the nation; but to the ceremonial law, the moon, the church is said to have under her feet, ( Revelation 12:1 ) so called because the observance of new moons was one part of it, and the Jewish festivals were regulated by the moon; and especially, because like the moon, it was variable and changeable. Now, though this, in right, was abolished at the death of Christ, and ceased to give any true light, when he, the substance, was come; yet was kept up by the Jews, as long as their temple was standing; but when that was destroyed, the daily sacrifice, in fact, ceased, and so it has ever since; the Jews esteeming it unlawful to offer sacrifice in a strange land, or upon any other altar than that of Jerusalem; and are to this day without a sacrifice, and without an ephod: and the stars shall fall from heaven; which phrase, as it elsewhere intends the doctors of the church, and preachers falling off from purity of doctrine and conversation; so here it designs the Jewish Rabbins and doctors, who departed from the word of God, and set up their traditions above it, fell into vain and senseless interpretations of it, and into debates about things contained in their Talmud; the foundation of which began to be laid immediately upon their dispersion into other countries: and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken; meaning all the ordinances of the legal dispensation; which shaking, and even removing of them, were foretold by ( Haggai 2:6 ) and explained by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 12:26 Hebrews 12:27 ) whereby room and way were made for Gospel ordinances to take place, and be established; which shall not be shaken, so as to be removed, but remain till the second coming of Christ. The Jews themselves are sensible, and make heavy complaints of the great declensions and alterations among them, since the destruction of the temple; for after having taken notice of the death of several of their doctors, who died a little before, or after that; and that upon their death ceased the honour of the law, the splendour of wisdom, and the glory of the priesthood, they add;
that is, of the wise men there were no scholars, or very few that studied in the law. |
| 32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. | 29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. | “This generation” is what generation? The generation of Baby Boomers of the 20th century who were born just before or just after Israel was established as a State by the United Nations in 1948? No! Not at all! Jesus was talking to the generation of His disciples who lived 40 more years and witnessed the fufillment of His prophecy first hand! |
| 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. | 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. | John Gill: Heaven and earth shall pass away This is either an assertion, which will be true at the end of time; not as to the substance of the heavens and earth, which will always remain, but as to the qualities of them, which will be altered: they will be renewed and refined, but not destroyed; the bad qualities, or evil circumstances, which attend them through the sin of man, will be removed and pass away, but they themselves will continue in being: or is a comparative expression, and the sense is, that the heavens and the earth, and the ordinances thereof, than which nothing can be more firm and strong, being fixed and supported by God himself, shall sooner pass away, than anything asserted and predicted by Christ shall: but my words shall not pass away; be vain and empty, and unaccomplished; which is true of anything, and everything spoken by Christ; and especially here regards all that he had said concerning the calamities that should befall the Jews, before, at, or upon the destruction of their nation, city, and temple; and the design of the expression, is to show the certainty, unalterableness, and sure accomplishment of these things. |
| 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. | John Gill: But of that day and hour knoweth no man Which is to be understood, not of the second coming of Christ, the end of the world, and the last judgment; but of the coming of the son of man, to take vengeance on the Jews, and of their destruction; for the words manifestly regard the date of the several things going before, which only can be applied to that catastrophe, and dreadful desolation: now, though the destruction itself was spoken of by Moses and the prophets, was foretold by Christ, and the believing Jews had some discerning of its near approach; see ( Hebrews 10:25 ) yet the exact and precise time was not known: |
|
| 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. | 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. | |
| 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. | John Gill: Then shall two be in the field About their proper business, of husbandry, ploughing, or sowing, or any other rural employment: the one shall be taken; not by the preaching of the Gospel, into the kingdom of God, or Gospel dispensation; though such a distinction God makes, by the ministry of the word, accompanied by his Spirit and power; nor by angels, to meet Christ in the air, and to be introduced into his kingdom and glory; but by the eagles, the Roman army, and either killed or carried captive by them: and the other left; not in a state of nature and unregeneracy, as many are, to whom the Gospel is preached; nor with devils at the last day, to be thrust down by them into the infernal regions; but by the Romans, being by some remarkable providence, or another, delivered out of their hands; which was the case of some few, and these of the meaner sort; and therefore persons of a rural life and occupation are instanced in. |
|
| 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. 45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. | 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. |
The text below is from Philip Mauro‘s book, THE SEVENTY WEEKS AND THE GREAT TRIBULATION.
The first four verses of Daniel 12 should not be disconnected from Chapter 11, for they are an integral part of the prophecy, there being no break at all at the place where the chapter division has been made. These concluding verses of the prophecy read as follows:
“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people, and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise (lit. cause to be wise) shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even to the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”
These are the last words of the long prophecy, and they bring it to an appropriate climax. They tell what will happen “at that time,” emphasizing this by repetition. This expression connects the passage directly with verse 40 of the preceding Chapter, where the words “at the time of the end” occur. The same words are repeated in verse 4 of Chapter 12, just quoted. There is, therefore, no room to doubt that the events here foretold were to occur during the very last stage of “the latter days” of Jewish history. Moreover, the statement of verse 7, that when the power of the holy people should be scattered, then all these things should be finished, absolutely confines the fulfillment of the entire prophecy to the period anterior to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus. We specially ask attention to the great oath recorded in this verse, and trust that our readers will not miss the meaning of it.
Four things are specified in the passage last quoted. They are:
1. The standing up of Michael, the great prince who stands for the children of Daniel’s people.
2. A time of trouble such as never was at which time those found written in the book were to escape.
3. Many to awake from the dust of the earth, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, in which connection is given a great promise to those who cause to be wise, and who turn many to righteousness.
4. Many to run to and fro, and knowledge to be increased.
Many able and sound expositors hold that Michael is one of the names of the Lord Jesus Christ and hence that this part of the prophecy was fulfilled by His first coming. But the reasons that have been advanced in support of this view do not seem to us sufficient to establish it. This prophecy makes several references to great angelic beings, which are deeply interesting. Thereby it appears that national destinies are in some way presided over, and shaped, by mighty angels; and that Michael is specially charged to care for the interests of the people of God.
Jude speaks of “Michael the archangel” as contending with the devil about the body of Moses (Jude 9); and in (Revelation 12:7), Michael is again seen in conflict with the devil. Paul mentions the archangel (without naming him) as having to do with the resurrection of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
In Daniel there are three references to Michael, all in this prophecy given by the angel who appeared to Daniel on the banks of the Tigris. The first reference is in (Daniel 10:13,) where the angel says that the prince of the kingdom of Persia had withstood him, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to his aid. Again in the same chapter (Daniel 10:20–21) are the words: “And now I will return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come … And there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”
From these words it appears that the political destinies of the great heathen nations of earth are presided over by mighty beings, who are rebels against the authority of God, high potentates in the Kingdom of Satan. None of those angelic beings stands for God “in these things” i.e., the affairs of the world except Michael, the archangel. This is in accord with the words of the Lord Jesus who speaks of the devil as “the prince of this world” (John 14:30, etc.).
Commenting upon Daniel 10:20–21, Dr. Taylor says:
“Then resuming his former theme, the heavenly revealer indicated that he had to return to fight again with the Persian evil angel, and that while he was going forth for (or continuing) that conflict, the prince of Greece would come, and a new battle would begin with him, in which the representative of God’s people would be left to his own resources, with the single exception of the assistance of Michael.
“This description of the conflicts in the spirit world between the rival angels foreshadows the opposition encountered by Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah and their compatriots during the reigns of the Persian kings Darius Hystaspes, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and also that which, at a later time, the descendants of the restorers of Jerusalem met with at the hands of the Syrian representatives of the Greek Empire. It prepares the way, therefore, for the literal statements which follow (Chapter 11) and from which we learn that, while the Persian kingdom lasted, the enmity of the World power to the people of God would be largely restrained, and the monarchs would be either positively favourable to them, or at least indisposed to harm them. But with the Grecian Empire, especially in one of the four divisions into which it was to be broken up, a different course would be pursued, and the descendants of Israel would be reduced by it, for a season, to the most terrible extremities.”
There is no revelation of the precise part taken by Michael, the great prince, in the affairs of God’s people in the critical days to which this part of the prophecy relates, that is to say, the beginning of New Testament times; for Michael is not mentioned by name in the Gospels or Acts. But it was a time of manifest angelic activity; and we may be sure that Michael had a leading part in the events which were connected with the coming of Christ into the World. Moreover, we read that “the angel of the Lord” appeared several times to Joseph; that “the angel of the Lord” came to the shepherds on Bethlehem’s plain, announcing the birth of the Savior; that “the angel of the Lord” opened the prison doors, setting the apostles free (Acts 5:9), and again released Peter from the prison, into which he had been cast by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:7); that the same “angel of the Lord” smote that king upon his throne when, upon a great public occasion, he gave not glory to God (Acts 12:23); and the same angel came to Paul at the time of the great shipwreck with God’s message of deliverance (Acts 27:23). If this “angel of the Lord” was Michael, then we have many instances of his “standing up,” in behalf of the people of God “at that time.” But especially at the great crisis of danger the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies, which was particularly and definitely revealed to Daniel would there be need of intervention by those celestial beings who “excel in strength,” and no doubt Michael then “stood up” for the deliverance of Daniel’s people, even on behalf of “as many as were found written in the book.”
It should be stated, in this connection, that the expression “written in the book” had been known since the days of Moses (Exodus 32:32) as a figurative description of those whom the Lord acknowledges as His own.
The prediction of “a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time,” is the last thing in the chain of national events revealed in this prophecy; and in perfect agreement with it is the well known fact that the Jewish nation came to its end with a time of tribulation, distress and sufferings, of a severity beyond anything that was ever heard since the world began. Of this period of unparalleled tribulation Josephus says, in the introduction of his Wars of the Jews:
“It had come to pass that our city Jerusalem had arrived at a higher degree of felicity than any other city under the Roman government, and yet at last fell into the sorest of calamities again. Accordingly it appears to me that the misfortunes of all men from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to those of the Jews, are not so considerable as they were.”
The sufferings of the Jews had this peculiar characteristic, namely, that they were mostly inflicted upon themselves by the warring factions within the city, concerning whom Joseph says in another place:
“It is impossible to go distinctly over every instance of these men’s iniquity. I shall, therefore, speak my mind here at once briefly: That neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world” (Wars V. 10:5).
This “great tribulation” is commonly in our day assigned to the future; and this view was held by the present writer himself until he made a personal study of the question. Our observations on this point, however, belong to the second division of our subject, the Lord’s Prophecy on Mount Olivet (Matthew 24), so we will only say at present that so conclusive to our mind is the proof that the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21 was the then approaching siege of Jerusalem, that we are bound to believe that competent teachers who relegate it to the future have never examined and weighed the evidence.
Mr. Farquharson on this point says as follows:
“Our Savior certainly referred to the tribulations attendant on the fearful destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jewish people by the Roman arms under Titus; and when we understand Daniel’s time of trouble as belonging to the same events … then the whole of his prophecy in Chapter 12 can be easily demonstrated to have received a signal and complete fulfillment in the Advent of Christ, in the deliverance wrought by Him … in the awakening of men from the death of sin … in the prophecy itself not being understood until explained by Christ (and then not understood by the unbelieving Jews, but understood by the Christian converts), in the continued impenitence and increasing wickedness of the unbelieving Jews, in the judgments at last sent upon them in the Roman war, in the duration of that war, and in the immediate abatement of the sufferings attending it upon Titus getting unexpected possession of the last strongholds of Jerusalem.”
In the last clause of the above quotation the author had in mind the words of Christ “and except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved” (Matthew 24:22), upon all of which deeply interesting matters we hope to comment in the second part of our work.
The words “and many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,” etc. are commonly taken as referring to the bodily resurrection of the dead, and this is one reason why the entire passage is frequently relegated to the future. But there is nothing said here about either death or resurrection. On the other hand, it can be abundantly shown that the words “sleep” and “awake” are common figurative expressions for the condition of those who are at first oblivious to the truth of God, but who are aroused by a message from Him out of that condition. Isaiah describes the people of Israel as being under the influence of “the spirit of deep sleep” (Isaiah 29:10); and again he says, “the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined” (Isaiah 9:2), which words are declared by the evangelist to have been fulfilled by the personal ministry of Christ in Israel (Matthew 4:14–16). Paul paraphrases another word of Isaiah (Isaiah 60:1) as having the meaning, “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light” (Ephesians 5:14). And the Lord Himself declared that the era of this spiritual awakening had come, when He said, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live” (John 5:25). In both these last two passages the reference is to those who were spiritually dead, as all would agree.
The whole nation of Israel was “awakened” out of a sleep of centuries through the ministry of John the Baptist, followed by that of the Lord Himself, and lastly by that of the apostles and evangelists, who “preached the gospel unto them with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” It will be observed that the prophecy does not indicate that those who are “awakened” shall all be saved. On the contrary, it says that for some the awakening would be “to everlasting life” and for others “to shame and everlasting contempt.” In agreement with this is the fact which the Gospels so clearly set forth that, although multitudes came to John’s baptism, and “all men mused in their hearts concerning him,” and while multitudes also followed Christ because of the miracles done by Him, and for the sake of the loaves and fishes, yet the outcome was that Israel was divided into two classes, those who “received Him,” and those who “received Him not.” Thus “there was a division because of Him.” His own words distinguish the two classes: “He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God” (John3:18). The former class awoke to “everlasting life” (John 3:16), and the latter “to shame and everlasting contempt” (John 3:36).
To the same effect the apostle John writes: “Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the praise of men, more than the praise of God” (John 12:42–43). These, though awakened, refused to meet Christ’s simple conditions of salvation by confessing Him (Matthew 10:32); therefore they awoke unto “shame,” even as He Himself declared, when He said: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me, and of My words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26).
The next verse of the prophecy strongly confirms the view we are now presenting; for there we have mention of the reward of those who “cause to be wise,” and who “turn many to righteousness.” What class of persons could possibly be meant but those who spread the truth of the gospel? There are none others, and never will be others, who cause their fellows to be “wise” unto salvation, and “who turn many” from sin “to righteousness.” Seeing, therefore, that we have the awakening foretold in verse 2 connected closely with a clear reference to those who preach the gospel of Christ, we have good reason to conclude that the passage had its fulfillment in that great and wonderful era of Jewish national existence, “the time of the end” thereof, during which Christ was announced and manifested, was rejected and crucified, was raised up and glorified, and finally was preached to the whole nation in the power of the Holy Ghost.
The nature of the reward promised to those “who cause to be wise” and “who turn many to righteousness” helps also to illustrate the meaning of the passage. These are to shine as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars forever and ever. This reminds us that the people of God are to let their light shine before men, and that they are “the light of the world.” In holding forth the word of life they “shine as lights in the world.” Once they were darkness, but now are they “light in the Lord;” and their reward shall be to shine as the stars for ever and ever; for as “one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).
Various meanings have been assigned to the words “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” These words bring the prophecy to an end; and it is not difficult to see the resemblance they bear to the final words of the first Gospel, “Go ye, teach (or make disciples of) all nations.” Another Gospel records their obedience to this command; for it is written that “They went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them” (Mark 16:20).
The word “run” in Daniel 12:4 is not the usual word for the action of running. Strong’s Concordance says it means primarily to push, hence to travel or go about. What helps fix the meaning is that, in nearly all its occurrences in the Bible, it is joined, as here, with the words “to and fro,” which signify a complete covering of the ground. Thus, the prophet said to King Asa, “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth” (2 Chronicles 16:9). Jeremiah says, “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek,” etc. (Jeremiah 5:1); and again, “Lament, and run to and fro by the hedges” (Jeremiah 49:3). Amos says, “They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it” (Amos 8:12), this being just the reverse of the Word of the Lord seeking after them. Zechariah also has the expression, “They are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth” (Zechariah 4:10), signifying His discerning presence in every place.
By these scriptures, therefore, it appears that the words we are considering are most appropriate to describe that worldwide activity in spreading the truth of the gospel which the Lord specially pressed upon His disciples, and to which the apostle Paul refers in the words, “How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things” (Romans 10:14–5, quoting Isaiah 52:7). The gospel messenger is frequently figured as one who runs, because of the urgency of the tidings he bears (Habakkuk 2:2–3).
And what was the purpose, and what the result of this going forth of the disciples to every part of the world with the gospel? It was the increase of knowledge; and certainly, in such a prophecy, it is the knowledge of the true God that is spoken of (John 17:4; 1 Corinthians 15:34; Colossians 1:10). The world lay in the darkness of ignorance. Paul describes those times as “the times of this ignorance,” wherein even the cultivated Athenians erected an altar to “the Unknown God” (Acts 17:23–30); and God Himself had said, even of the Jews, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). Thus we see the direct relation of the two clauses, “Many shall run to and fro,” and “knowledge shall be increased,” and how both are clearly fulfilled in the activities of the first gospel preachers.
As to this Mr. Farquharson remarks:
“The Divine ‘knowledge,’ which the apostles and first Christians ran to and fro to communicate to all nations, maintains, and ever will maintain, a lofty and unapproachable superiority over all the knowledge that man can discover for himself … In this way then the prediction of Daniel was literally fulfilled. The day spring of true knowledge from on high waited upon the footsteps of the apostles of Christ, as they traversed the Gentile world, dispelling darkness, and doubt and fear, and diffusing light, and confidence and joy over every condition of human life.”
Thus understood, the words “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased,” bring the prophecy to a most appropriate conclusion, and one that is strictly in keeping with its announced purpose, and with its purport as a whole; whereas, to make those words refer to the multiplication of rapidly moving conveyances, as rail road trains, automobiles, etc., and to the spread of “education” by means of schools, colleges, and books, is to introduce into the prophecy an element that is incongruous, almost to the point of absurdity.
With Chapter 12:4, the long prophecy, which had proceeded without interruption and without passing over any important event in the history of “the latter days” of the Jewish people, comes to an end. But a remarkable incident follows, and it affords help to the understanding of this part of the prophecy. At this point Daniel looked and beheld two others besides the one clothed in linen, which two were standing the one on the one side, and the other on the other side of the bank of the river (the Tigris). And thereupon one of these two put to the man who was clothed in linen a question, to which evidently it was desired that special attention be paid. Furthermore, the reply was given by the man in linen in the most solemn and impressive manner; for in replying he held up both hands to heaven, and sware by Him Who liveth forever. This further goes to show that we have here a matter of exceptional importance. Let us then give special heed to it.
The question was, “How long the end of these wonders?” In quoting it thus we have omitted the words, “shall it be to,” which the translators have supplied, and which materially change the sense. We have seen that the expression “the time of the end” means, not the actual termination, but the period of time at the very end, the last stage of the entire era of the renewed national life of Israel. Evidently it is the duration of that “time of trouble,” spoken of in verse 1, and concerning which the Lord Himself when on earth was so deeply distressed and grieved, as we shall point out more particularly hereafter. It is the same period as that to which He was referring when He said, “these be the days of vengeance that all things that are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22); and again, “And except those days be shortened there should no flesh be saved, but for the elects’ sake those days shall be shortened” (Matthew 24:22). So it is concerning the duration of those days of unparalleled distress for Israel that the question was asked.
Let us then note carefully the reply of the one clothed in linen, which was in these words, “that it shall be for a time, times, and a half (or apart, margin); and when He shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished” (verse 7).
Here we have information, very clearly stated, which, if we give heed thereto, will make perfectly plain to us the time when this entire prophecy was to be fulfilled. For the celestial messenger, in answering the question, made known first what would be the duration of the closing period of “trouble such as never was,” and second what was to be the end of the whole series of events, “all these things,” predicted in the entire prophecy. The words are clear and precise. They tell us that the last act of all was to be the scattering of the power of the holy people, and that when God had accomplished that, and then would “all these things be finished.” To the same effect are the words of Christ, Who, in telling His disciples what the very end of those “days of vengeance” would be, said that “they shall be led away captive into all nations” (Luke 21:24).
This makes it certain that the entire prophecy spoken to Daniel by the one clothed in linen, including the time of trouble such as never was, and the awakening of many from the dust of the earth, was fulfilled at and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the scattering of the power of the holy people by the Romans in A.D. 70. It also affords substantial help in understanding the Lord’s discourse on Mount Olivet, to which we will shortly come.
But before the scattering of the holy people a judgment which Moses had predicted (see Deuteronomy 28:49–68, and particularly the words, “And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even to the other,” verse 64) a certain period of extreme distress, “the days of vengeance,” was to run. This is given by the angel as “a time, times, and a part,” which is understood by nearly all expositors to be three full years and a part (not necessarily the half) of a fourth. But no event was mentioned from which this era of three years and a fraction was to run. So Daniel says, “I heard, but I understood not;” and therefore he asks, “What shall be the end of these things?” (Daniel 12:6)
In replying to this question the one clothed in linen gave information additional to that asked for; but we will notice first what he said in direct reply to Daniel’s question. This is found in Daniel 12:11–12) where we read: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth (i.e., survives, or endures) and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.”
It is to be noted that the two measures of time here given, 1290 days and 1335 days, both fall within the period of three years and a part, given in verse 7 as the full measure of the time of the end. This tends still further to confirm the view that by “a time, times, and a part” is meant three full rounds of the annual feasts of the Jews, and part of a fourth.
It will further be seen from this answer that Daniel’s question had reference to the very last epoch of Jewish history; for it was in that very last stage of their national existence that the daily sacrifice was caused to cease, which was by them regarded (when it came to pass in the days of the siege of Jerusalem, as we shall presently show) the harbinger of some dire calamity.
We take the marginal reading (which is the more literal) as giving the sense, the words of the margin being “and to set up the abomination,” etc. This reading would make the 1290 days the measure of time between the two specified events. But we have lately seen an interpretation, based on the text of the A.V., which makes the taking away of the daily sacrifice, and the setting up of the abomination that maketh desolate, simultaneous events, both governed by the preposition “from.” But this obviously leaves the verse without meaning; for it gives a measure of time from two specified events, without stating to what that measure brings us.
The “daily sacrifice” was the sacrifice of a lamb every morning and evening. This was to be kept up by the children of Israel throughout all their generations, and a special promise was given upon condition that this offering be continued (Exodus 29:38–45). (It should be observed that the causing of the sacrifice and oblation to cease, as foretold in Daniel 9:27, is a very different thing.)
Now, as a matter of historic fact, the daily sacrifice was taken away during the siege of Jerusalem; and this was counted by the Jews an event of such importance, and such a portent of approaching disaster, that Josephus has recorded the very date on which it occurred, saying:
“And now Titus gave orders to his soldiers that were with him to dig up the foundations of the tower of Antonia, and make a ready passage for his army to come up, while he himself had Josephus brought to him; for he had been informed that, on that very day, which was the seventeenth day of Panemus, the sacrifice called ‘the daily sacrifice’ had failed, and had not been offered to God for want of men to offer it; and that the people were grievously troubled at it” (Wars, VI. 2.1.).
The Roman army, which, by comparison of the Lord’s words in (Matthew 24:15–16 Luke 21: 20–21,) is clearly seen to be “the abomination which maketh desolate,” encompassed Jerusalem before the failure of the daily sacrifice; whereas it might appear from the wording of the prophecy that those events occurred in the reverse order. But Mr. Farquharson shows that “there is nothing whatever in the verbs of the sentence to indicate which of the events should precede the other; the interval of time between them only is expressed.”
The first approach of the Roman armies under Cestius is described by Josephus in his book of Wars, II17, 10. This was in the month corresponding to our November, A.D. 66. The taking away of the daily sacrifice was in the month Panemus, corresponding to the Hebrew Tammuz, and our July, A.D. 70 (Hartwell Horne’s Chronological Table). Thus the measure of time between the two events was three years, and part of a fourth.
But more than this: the measure 1290 days is exactly 43 great months (30 days each, according to the Hebrew method of reckoning), and inasmuch as their practice was to reckon by even weeks, months, and years the fulfillment of this part of the prophecy is seen in the fact that it is just 43 even months between the two events, ignoring the parts of the two months in which the events severally occurred.
In verse 12 those are pronounced “blessed,” or happy, who survive a further period of 45 days, and thus come to the 1335 days. In correspondence with this is the recorded fact that, about a month and a half after the daily sacrifice failed, the siege was ended by Titus’ getting sudden and unexpected possession of the upper city, the last stronghold of the besieged. This last action took place, according to Josephus, the seventh day of the Hebrew month Elul, answering to our September; so that the further duration of the siege after the failure of the daily sacrifice was approximately one month and a half (Wars, VI 8, 4, 5).
That those days were “shortened” (as the Lord had promised) by some Divine interference, is indicated by the abrupt and unexpected manner in which the last stronghold fell. Josephus tells how the “tyrants” (the dominant faction in the city):
“Did now wholly deprive themselves of the security they had in their own power, and came down from those very towers of their own accord, wherein they could never have been taken by force. … They left those towers of themselves; or rather they were ejected out of them by God Himself … The Romans, when they had gotten on the last wall without any bloodshed, could hardly believe what they found to be true” (ibid).
As regards the promised blessing of verse 12 (Daniel 12:12), it may be observed that Titus immediately extended clemency to the survivors and he set free those who had been bound by the tyrants (Wars, VI, 9, 1).
But we agree with Farquharson that blessing of a higher sort is here intended. For we would recall words of like import spoken by the Lord when, referring to the same period of unequaled distress, He said, “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew 24:13). As to this Mr. Farquharson says:
“Unquestionably this is His promise to the faithful and persevering and obedient in all ages of His Church; but, as being comprehended in His prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, it has special reference to those who should endure under the trials peculiar to the last great war, in which that city was to be trodden down. Those trials, He intimated, would be very severe. He said, ‘There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.’”
But to those who should endure all those trials there was the assurance of special blessing.
In concluding our comments under this heading we would observe that, in Daniel’s deep concern regarding this time of “the end,” as to which he inquired with such anxiety, we see a further and a convincing reason for the view that the period in question was that of the unparalleled calamities which were to accompany the extinction of his nation and the destruction of the beloved city, as foretold also in the preceding prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. It is most unlikely that Daniel would have evinced such concern regarding the end of some far off Gentile dispensation characterized by the wide diffusion of secular knowledge, and by the many automobiles and other swiftly moving conveyances of this present time. Daniel had the spirit of the Lord Himself in showing acute sorrow because of the unequaled distresses which were to befall his people and their holy city and temple.
In commenting upon the period of three and a half years, and upon the various theories to which it has given rise, Dr. Taylor says:
“We cannot pass this note of number without remarking on the singular coincidences presented by its frequent occurrence both in history and prophecy. The drought in the days of Elijah lasted three years and six months. The little horn which appeared on the head of the fourth beast was to have the saints given into his hands ‘until a time, and times, and the dividing of time.’ The public ministry of the Messiah was to continue for half a week (or heptad) of years; that is, for three years and a half. His Gospel was to be preached to the Jews after His ascension for another half heptad before it was proclaimed to the Gentiles. Then, in the Book of Revelation, it is said that the woman shall be nourished in the wilderness ‘for a time and times and a half a time,’ and that the holy city should be trodden under foot forty and two months, which are three and a half years.1 “Now all these are marvelous coincidences, and they point to the existence of some hidden harmony which has not yet been discovered. I might add that three and a half is the half of the number seven, which (found in the week) has been recognized as the symbol of completeness. The sacred lamp has seven branches; the seventh was the Sabbatic year; and at the end of seven sevens came the Jubilee. So also the seventy years of the captivity were made the basis of the seven seventies of years which were to run their course from the time when the edict to rebuild Jerusalem went forth until the appearance of the Messiah upon the earth. I do not know what to make of all this. I frankly acknowledge that it baffles me to find a reason for it. I merely state the fact, and leave you to ponder it for yourselves, that you may learn how much there is, not only in prophecy, but also in history, which lies beyond our ken …
“If any choose to regard all this as being not only applicable to Antiochus, but also through him, as typical of the New Testament Antichrist, and should take the days of the history of the one for years in the history of the other, I have only to say that I find nothing, either here or in the New Testament, to sanction such a procedure. For me, the interpretation which I have endeavored to give is sufficient. They who go further leave the domain of certainty for that of speculation, and the very number of their conflicting opinions is a warning to every expositor not to venture beyond his depth into these dark waters. For myself, I am content to stand upon the shore and wait, like him to whom were first addressed these reassuring words, ‘Go thy way; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.’”
1 Also God’s two witnesses (Revelation 11:3) are to prophecy a thousand two hundred and threescore days (the same period stated in terms of days): and of the ten-horned Beast it is said that power would be given unto him to continue forty and two months. (Revelation 13:5.)
For decades I used to believe the last half of Daniel chapter 11 from verse 21 is talking about the end-time Antichrist. This is what I was taught by my pastor whom I loved. Why should I question my pastor? Decades later I learned my pastor taught me Bible prophecy from the school of interpretation known as Futurism. I came to reject Futurism when I learned John Nelson Darby first taught it in opposition to the Protestant school of interpretation of prophecy known as Historicism.
The text below is from Philip Mauro‘s book, THE SEVENTY WEEKS AND THE GREAT TRIBULATION.
Verse 21 foretells the rising up of a “vile person.” Nearly all expositors of repute are agreed that this “vile person” (an expression signifying one greatly abhorred and detested) was Antiochus Epiphanes successor to Antiochus the Great as king of Syria. This odious person occupies a very large place in the prophecy; for verses 21–35 are taken up with the foretelling of his abominable actions toward the Jews. In I Maccabees 1:10 he is described as “a wicked root.” His deeds of cruelty and sacrilege far surpassed anything the Jews had suffered under previous rulers. Many pages in Maccabees and Josephus are devoted to the history of this tyrannical king, and his ill-treatment of the Jews.
In the prophecy (Daniel 11:21, 23) it was foretold that, “he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries .., and after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully.” This was fulfilled quite literally, for Josephus relates that the king (Antiochus), having determined to make war on the king of Egypt, “came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, got possession of the city by treachery” (Bk. II, 5,4). The Cambridge edition of the Bible cites II Maccabees 4:7, 10, 23–31 in connection with the foregoing verses.
Again, according to the prophecy (Daniel 11:24), this “vile person”, after entering peaceably upon the fattest (i.e., the richest) places of the province, would do “that which his fathers had not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches,” etc. In agreement with this is the fact that none of the predecessors of Antiochus had ever interfered in the slightest degree with the worship, laws, or religious observances of the Jews; nor had they ever violated the temple in any way. Thus, in plundering and profaning the temple, and in his acts of cruelty and sacrilege (to which we will refer below), Antiochus Epiphanes did “that which his fathers had not done, nor his fathers’ fathers.”
Verse 25 of the prophecy foretells this ruler’s military expedition against Egypt (II Mac. 5:1). The histories give a full account of this campaign. In fact, the Cambridge edition of the Bible, and some others, have in the margin a note on this verse which reads, “Fulfilled B.C. 170.”
Verses 28–30 tell of his return in a second expedition against Egypt, and of its failure: “For the ships of Chittim shall come against him. Therefore he shall be grieved (disappointed or made despondent) and return and have indignation against the holy covenant,” etc. (Daniel 11:28–30). The record of this unsuccessful expedition against Egypt, and of the fury of Antiochus which he proceeded to vent upon the Jews, is given in Maccabees and Josephus. Anstey thus condenses their account:
“B.C. 168. Popillius met Antiochus Epiphanes four miles from Alexandria, drew a circle round him in the sand, and forced him to cease his war in Egypt. Whereupon Antiochus began his savage persecution of the Jews, which led to the rise of Mattathias and the Maccabees.”
In the Cambridge Bible verse 28 has a note, “Fulfilled B.C. 169”; and verse 30 a note, “Fulfilled B.C. 168”. At verse 31 it cites I Mac. 1:59; II Mac. 6:2. At verse 32 it cites I Mac. 1:62, II Mac. 6:19, 7:1. At verse 34 it cites I Mac. 3:17; 4:8; II Mac. 2:21. And at verse 35 it cites I Mac. 6:12.
This brings us to the climax of the wicked deeds of Antiochus, which the prophecy foretells distinctly, and which the histories record with great detail. We refer to his gross impiety and sacrilege in respect to the temple, the sacrifices, and the religious customs of the Jews. Verse 30 speaks of his coming to an understanding “with them that forsake the holy covenant.” For many of the Jews apostatized at that time, forsaking God, and turning against all their religious customs. Thus in I Maccabees 1:41–43, 52 we read:
“Moreover, King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, and everyone should leave his laws. So all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the Sabbath … Then many of the people were gathered unto them, to wit, everyone that forsook the law; and so they committed evils in the land.”
The fulfillment again is most exact. Verse 31 of Daniel 11 foretold that “Arms shall stand on his part” or more literally, “arms from him shall stand.” This was fulfilled by Antiochus’ sending an army into Judea (I Mac. 1:29 et seq.).
They also “polluted” at this time the sanctuary of strength and caused the daily sacrifice to be taken away; for it is recorded in I Maccabees 1:44 et seq. that Antiochus sent letters commanding them to follow strange laws, and forbidding “burnt offering and sacrifice, and drink offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbath and festival days; and pollute the sanctuary of the holy people.”
We quote here from Dr. Taylor’s well written account of the deeds of this atrocious character:
“When he was informed of the satisfaction with which the news of his reported death was received by the Jews, and especially of the attempt made by the rightful high priest to regain his position, he chose to believe that the entire Jewish nation had revolted; and, marching with all haste, he laid siege to Jerusalem and took it, slaying in three days more than forty thousand persons, and taking as many more captives to be sold as slaves. Not content with this, he forced his way into the Temple, entered the very Holy of Holies itself, and caused a great sow to be offered in sacrifice upon the altar of burnt offering, while broth, made from the same unclean flesh, was sprinkled by his order over the sacred precincts for the purpose of defiling them. On his departure he took with him the altar of incense, the golden candlestick, the table of shew bread, and other sacred vessels, to the value of eighteen hundred talents of gold … Two years after the commission of these enormities, returning from another invasion of Egypt, where he had been checkmated by the Romans, he vented his disappointment upon the Jews, and detailed his army, twenty two thousand men, under Apollonius, with orders to destroy Jerusalem. On his arrival at the holy city Apollonius conducted himself peaceably, concealing his purpose till the Sabbath; but on that day, when the people were assembled in their synagogues, he let loose his soldiers upon them, and commanded them to slay all the men, but to take captive all the women and children. These orders were only too faithfully obeyed, so that the streets were filled with blood … Thus the sad description in the seventy ninth Psalm was verified, ‘O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps. The dead bodies of Thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of heaven, the flesh of Thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them. We are become a reproach to our neighbors, a scorn and derision to them that are round about us.”
The words “and shall place the abomination which maketh desolate” (Daniel 11:31) call for special examination, because of their recurrence in (Daniel 12:11), and of their use by the Lord Jesus Christ, in (Matthew 24; Mark 13). We have already shown, and expect to refer to the matter again, that the expression “the abomination which maketh desolate” means an armed heathen force. Such a force was placed by Antiochus in the city of David (I Mac. 1:34–35).
Verse 32 of the prophecy speaks of two classes of Jews, (1) “such as do wickedly against the covenant;” and (2) those “that do know their God.” Of the former it is said that they shall be corrupted “by flatteries;” and of the latter that they “shall be strong, and do exploits.”
Concerning the first class it is recorded in I Mac. 1:11 et seq. that “In those days there went out of Israel wicked men who persuaded many, saying: Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen, that are round about us … Then certain of the people were so forward herein that they went to the king, who gave them license to do after the ordinances of the heathen.” Many Jews, including even Jason, the brother of Onias the high priest, were corrupted and won over to Antiochus by flattery and self-interest (II Mac. 4:7–14).
The second class of persons spoken of in verse 32 of Daniel 11, “those that do know their God,” is easily and completely identified in Mattathias, the godly and patriotic priest, and his five sons, who led a successful revolt against Antiochus, and in those of his family who ruled Israel as governors and priests for 130 years. These were indeed made “strong” through “knowing their God,” and performed “exploits” of greatest valor particularly Judas, who was surnamed Maccabeus, that is the Hammer of God. This nickname of Judas has been applied to the whole family, but they are properly the Asmonean Princes.
There is no need to speak of the heroic “exploits” of Judas and his brothers, Jonathan and Simon, who succeeded him, for they are well known. But the terms of verses 33–35 call for some explanation. (Daniel 11:33–35)
Verse 33 reads: “And they that understand among the people shall instruct many.” Upon good authority we can say that the tense of the Hebrew verb used calls for the rendering “they that cause to understand.” Likewise in Chapter 12:3 the literal rendering would be “they that cause to be wise.” These terms aptly designate those who have the Word of God and who teach others therein those who impart to others the knowledge of the ways of God, and who cause them to be “wise unto salvation.”
This description, therefore, applies particularly to Mattathias and his family, who not only were priests by their birthright, and thus the divinely ordained teachers of Israel, but were true priests, faithfully performing their duty to God and to His people.
Further verse 33 says: “Yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity and by spoil (many) days.” This was most literally fulfilled in the history of the Asmoneans. Judas himself, and a great part of his army, were slain by the sword (I Mac. 9:17–18). Jonathan also was slain with a thousand men (I Mac. 12:48). The chief tax collector set Jerusalem on fire (I Mac. 1:31; see also II Mac. 7). Forty thousand captives were carried away by Antiochus (II Mac. 5:14).
Verse 34 says: “Now when they fall they shall be holpen by a little help” (or better, by the help of a few); “but many shall cleave to them by flatteries.”
To be “helped” in Scripture means to be helped effectually; and what is here pointed out is that the Maccabees should accomplish their great victories with the “help” of a small number; and this was wonderfully fulfilled in that Judas, time and again, defeated, with very small forces, large armies of Syrians, Idumeans, and others (I Mac. 2:28; 3:9–11) etc. But later on, many did cleave to them by flatteries, professing friendship to them, etc. (I Mac. 10). Thus Alexander Bala, successor to Antiochus Epiphanes, made with Jonathan a league of mutual assistance and friendship (I Mac. 10:65).
Daniel 11:35 foretells that some of them of understanding, or that cause to be wise that is to say the teachers of God’s people shall fall, to try them, and to purge them, and to make them white, unto the time of the end. The family of Mattathias continued for several generations to serve the people of Israel in the capacity of priests and teachers (I Mac. 10:21; 14:35; 10:24; and Josephus Ant. XIII 8, 1). Of these “some” fell by violent deaths and by captivity (I Mac. 6:46; 9:18; 9:36,42; 12:41–48; Ant. XIV 4, 5; XIV13,10; XV 6,2). And this continued to the very “end” of the Asmonean era; for the last of the family, Aristobulus, who held for a short time the high priesthood, was murdered at the command of Herod (Ant. XV 3, 3).
The words “unto the end” would most naturally be taken to mean the end of the Asmonean era, which had a very definite beginning and an equally definite end; for it is in connection with the history of that family that the term is used. But if it be taken that verse 35 describes a state of things which was to continue to the time of the end (the final era) of this period of Jewish national existence, it would be true in that sense also. For to this final era verse 35 brings us.
We come now to a remarkable personality, one who fills a large and prominent place in the prophecy, and who is introduced in these words:
“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods and shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished” (Daniel 11:36).
Here we reach that part of the prophecy in regard to which there is the greatest difference of opinion among expositors; and yet, if we be not greatly mistaken (as to which our readers must judge) it is an easy matter, in the light of history, both sacred and profane, to identify that “king” whose character and doings are set forth in such striking words in our prophecy. Because, however, of the disagreement referred to, it behooves us, at this point, to exercise special diligence and care in examining and applying the proofs; and we ask the reader, on his part, to give close attention to the exposition of these verses; for one’s understanding of the word of prophecy as a whole will depend very largely upon the view he may take of them.
We will first point out some of the current explanations of this part of the prophetic narrative of Daniel 11.
According to one view (that presented by Smith’s Bible Dictionary and other reputable authorities such as Taylor) this portion of the prophecy (Daniel 11:36 to end) has still to do with Antiochus Epiphanes, and that tyrant is “the king” of verse 36. That view of the passage is necessitated by the general scheme of interpretation adopted in the work referred to, which makes the first coming of Christ and the Kingdom He then established, to be the “stone,” which strikes the great image of Gentile dominion upon its feet (Daniel 2:34–35). Now, inasmuch as it is a matter of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened it, this scheme of interpretation is compelled to ignore the Roman empire, and to make up the four world powers by counting Media as one and Persia as another. This makes Greece the fourth, instead of the third, and compels the idea that the entire Chapter 11 has to do with the Greek era.
But this whole scheme is shattered by contact with the undisputed facts. For first, Scripture declares plainly that Media and Persia formed one kingdom, not two. Even during the short time that “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 11:1) was on the throne it speaks expressly of “the laws of the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 5:26; 6:8), which shows that, from the very first, the two constituted one government. The Scripture also says plainly, “The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia, and the rough goat is the king of Greece” (Daniel 8:20–21). The meaning of this is unmistakable. It shows that the two “horns” (or powers) were united to form one kingdom; and that it was this united kingdom (and not that of Persia alone) which was overthrown by Alexander the Great.
Secondly, it was the power of Rome, not that of Christ’s Kingdom, which brought the Greek dominion to an end. This happened at the battle of Actium, a quarter of a century before Christ was born. Therefore, the view stated above must be dismissed as directly contrary, to the plainest facts. It may be added, moreover, that there are certain definite statements made concerning this “king” which cannot possibly be made to apply to Antiochus, as for instance that he should “prosper until the indignation be accomplished.” We therefore concur with the large number of expositors who hold that this part of the prophecy cannot be taken as applying to Antiochus Epiphanes.
According to another view (one that is widely held at the present day) there is a complete break in the prophecy at the end of verse 34 (or as some say at the end of verse 35), all the rest of the Chapter being assigned to the days of Antichrist, which were then in the far distant future. The supposition, however, that an abrupt break occurs at this point, and an unmentioned interval of many years, where the text has the form of a continuous historical narrative, is a very radical one; and it certainly ought not to be accepted without convincing proof. The strongest magnifying glass would fail to reveal the slightest indication of any such “break,” but on the contrary every item of the subject matter of verses 34–36 is connected with the one which precedes it by the conjunction “and.” On the other hand we find strong reasons for the view that the prophecy is just what it appears to be, namely, an outline, in continuous historical form, of the main events of “the latter days,” that is to say, the second term of Jewish national existence. The view we hold requires that the last three of the four prophesied world powers should come into view within the period of this chapter. At the time it begins the Babylonian empire was already a thing of the past. Hence the continuance of the prophecy should bring us successively to the eras of Persia, Greece, and Rome. That it conducts us to the era of Persia and then to that of Greece is agreed to by all. Why then imagine that, when we come to the Roman era, which is far the most important of all, the prophecy (without giving the faintest intimation of such a thing) takes a sudden leap of many centuries into the future? The only reason why that strange idea has been entertained by any is that they have not known of any historical personage who answers to what is stated in these verses. Yet there is such a personage, and he stands forth very conspicuously in both Bible history and secular history, as we shall now proceed to show. But first we ask our readers to bear in mind that the presumption is strongly against there being any “break” in the prophecy, as is assumed by those who hold the theory we are now considering. This presumption stands upon the following grounds:
1. The form in which the prophecy is given, that of a straightforward narrative, in continuous historical order, omitting no happening of any importance, precludes the idea of there being any break, such as is supposed.
2. The prophecy has expressly for its subject the events of “the latter days” of Jewish history, and the text itself shows this to be the designation of the second term of national life for Israel, which began under Cyrus. This forbids the cutting off of the last (and most important) part of the prophecy and the application of it to a remote age.
3. After verses 36–39, which speak of the character and doings of “the king,” we find the words, “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at (or with) him; and the king of the north shall come,” etc. (Daniel 11:40). This and succeeding verses (where mention is made of Edom, Moab, and the children of Ammon, peoples which have now long ago ceased to exist) afford clear proof that the prophecy is still occupied with the era of the wars between Syria and Egypt, which continued till the battle of Actium, B.C. 30. Fourth. Finally a conclusive reason for the view we are now presenting is found in the words of the angel recorded in (Daniel 12:7). It will be observed that the prophecy continues without interruption to Chapter 12:4, where it reaches its end. But then Daniel asked a question concerning “the end of these wonders” which the angel had been foretelling. To this question the angel gives a reply which makes it perfectly certain that the prophecy extends to the dispersion of the Jews at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and no further. For he said, “And when He (God) shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” We do not see how it can be contended, in the face of these clear words, that the prophecy has to do with events subsequent to the scattering of the national power of the Jewish people; and it is not open to dispute that that took place in A.D. 70. We shall refer to this at greater length later on.
We have seen that verses 32–35 have to do (as is generally agreed) with the Asmoneans or Maccabees, verse 35 telling what was to befall them to the time of the end. What, therefore, we would be led to expect next is a reference to that order of things in Israel which followed immediately after the era of the Asmonean princes. And that is exactly what we do find. For there is no need (and no ground) either for the attempt to make the next succeeding verses apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, or to make a sudden and gigantic leap into the far distant future, in order to find a person whose career might conceivably answer to this part of the prophecy. For history, both sacred and profane, sets before us a most notable character, one who appears upon the scene and occupies the center of the stage in Israel just at “the end” of the Asmonean era, and one who answers to every item of the prophetic description. We have reference to that strange, despotic, ungovernable and unspeakably cruel personage, whom the evangelists designate emphatically as
that remarkable character, who was a usurper upon the throne of David when Christ, the true King, was born. The proof which enables us to identify “the king” of Daniel 11:36–39 with Herod the Great and his dynasty is so convincing that we feel warranted in saying that the prophecy could not possibly mean anyone else.
It would be strange indeed if, in an outline which gives prominence to Xerxes, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Maccabees, there were no mention of that remarkable personage who exerted upon Jewish affairs and destinies an influence greater than they all, and who sat upon the throne of Israel when Christ was born.
The words, “the king,” should suffice, in the light of the context, without further description, to identify Herod to those who thoughtfully read their Bibles; for Herod alone is called by that title in the Gospels, and he alone had the rank and authority of “king” in Israel in the days after the captivity, “the latter days.” The text does not speak of a king, but of the king, the emphatic Hebrew article being used. This is in marked contrast with the terms of verse 40, where the original speaks of “a king of the north,” and “a king of the south.”
A glance at the context is enough to show that “the king” of verse 36 cannot mean either of the kings of verse 27. Moreover, these are never spoken of as “the king,” but always, both before and after verse 36, as “the king of the north,” or “the king of the south,” as the case may be. Nor does the Scripture speak of any “king” who is to arise at the time of the end of this present age, and who answers at all to the description of the prophecy. The “man of sin,” described in (2 Thessalonians 2:3–10), is supposed by some to be “the king” of Daniel 11:36. But he is not called a king, nor described as having kingly rank, but rather as one claiming divine worship in the temple of God, and backing up his pretensions by means of miracles and lying wonders. The “king” of Daniel 11:36 is a very different personage, and achieves his ends in a very different way, as will be clearly seen by all who diligently compare the two passages.
What has caused able commentators to go astray at this point, and in some instances to seek far afield for the interpretation of this passage, is the fact that they were unable to find anyone among the successors of Antiochus who answers at all to the description of “the king.” But they have overlooked two things which, had they heeded them, would have kept them from being so misled. Those things are, first, that the prophecy has not for its subject the kingdoms of Syria or Egypt, but the people of Israel, and hence the expression, “the king,” without other qualification, would mean one who was king over Daniel’s people; and second, that the verses immediately preceding (31–35) relate wholly to the affairs of the Jews under the Asmonean princes, and hence the terms of the prophecy itself lead us to look at this point for the beginning of a new order of things in Israel. And that is just what history certifies to us; for, precisely at this juncture of affairs, the Asmonean dynasty was brought to an end by violence and bloodshed, and it was replaced by that of a “king,” who answers perfectly to the description of the last part of the prophecy.
Moreover, and to this we would specially invite attention, it is said of this king that “he shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished” (or until wrath be completed), in fulfillment of which is the fact that the dynasty of Herod retained, through all the political upheavals of the times, its favour with Rome, and flourished in authority in Palestine, until the destruction of Jerusalem, which is the “wrath,” or “indignation,” or “tribulation,” to which these prophecies of Daniel so frequently refer as “the end” of Jewish nationality. For it was “Herod the king” who sought to compass the death of Christ soon after His birth, and whose successors of his own family put to death John the Baptist (this was done by Herod Antipas) and James the brother of John (by Herod Agrippa I, who also imprisoned Peter, intending to deliver him to the Jews) and finally sent Paul in chains to Rome (which was done by Herod Agrippa II, the last of the dynasty, the man who is best known to the world as he who was “almost persuaded”).
The first thing said of this king is that he should “do according to his will.” This is usually taken to mean that he would be of an exceptionally self-willed disposition, one of the sorts who act without restraint and without regard to the rights or the feelings of others. This may indeed be in part the meaning of the words; but much more than this is implied. Self-willed people are so very numerous that, if that were all that were meant, the words could not serve for purposes of identification. But not many are so placed, and have such power in their hands that they are able to “do,” that is, to achieve or accomplish what they “will” or plan to do; and this is what is meant. For the expression is used in this same prophecy of two other notable personages. The first of these is Alexander the Great, of whom it is said that he “shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will” (Daniel 11:3). The other (Daniel 11:16) has been identified as Antiochus the Great. Of him also it is said, “he shall do according to his own will;” and history shows that this monarch, too, was very successful, during the first part of his reign, in carrying out his various designs.
This is what distinguished Herod the Great in a remarkable degree. For history records nothing of this nature more notable than Herod’s success in rising up from a lowly origin to the rank and authority of king, in securing for himself despotic power and retaining it through all the political changes of the times, and in the way he used that power for the accomplishment of all his designs, however stupendous in magnitude (as the rebuilding of the temple) or atrocious in character (as condemning to death his own wife and children). For Herod contrived to secure the favor and confidence, first of Julius Caesar, then of Mark Anthony, and then of Octavius Caesar, though he had assisted Anthony and Cleopatra against him. All things considered, there is nothing more wonderful in the career of Herod than his extraordinary success in doing “according to his will.”
But, taking the expression in the other sense, we may say that it would be difficult to find in history one who so ruthlessly executed the designs of his own tyrannical and cruel heart, even upon those of his own flesh and blood, as Herod the king. His murder of his best loved wife, the beautiful Mariamne, who was a princess of the Asmonean family, is, in its special circumstances, without parallel in history. He put to death also three of his own sons (two of them by this favorite wife) because he suspected them of aspiring to his throne; and similar deeds of willfulness characterized his entire reign. Josephus gives many instances of this (see for example Ant. XII 9, 4).
Further it is said of this king that “he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods.” These words are descriptive of Herod. The words “above every god” may be taken to mean every ruler and authority in Israel, just as “God of gods” means the Supreme Authority above all authorities. Herod did successfully aspire to the lordship over every authority in the land, whether priests or rulers. He assumed to appoint whom he would to the office of high priest. He put his own brother-in-law, Aristobulus, Mariamne’s brother, in that office, and shortly after had him murdered (Ant. XV 3, 5).
Herod also uttered great things against the God of gods. This, we believe, refers specially (though not exclusively) to his decree for the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem, the express purpose of which was to get rid of Immanuel, God come in the flesh to be the Ruler of His people, and to be “Prince of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5). Herod’s way of making himself secure upon the throne was to put to death every suspected rival. For Herod, in common with the Jewish teachers in his day (and with some teachers in our own day who ought to know better) mistakenly supposed that the Christ of God was coming at that time to occupy the earthly throne upon which Herod was then seated. We shall have occasion to refer again to this prominent act in the career of Herod.
Verse 37 reads: “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.”
These words call for special comment. The first clause manifestly could not apply to any heathen king like Antiochus. For whether or not a heathen king should change his national gods is a matter of no importance whatever. But with a king of Israel it is a matter of supreme importance. Now Herod, though supposedly of Idumean (i.e. Edomite) origin, was virtually a Jew; for all the remaining Idumeans, who had come into Judea several centuries previous, had been amalgamated with the Jews. In addressing the people Herod habitually used the expression “our fathers” (Ant. Bk. XV Ch. 11, See. 1). So fully was Herod regarded as a Jew, that the Herodians even held him to be the Messiah. Therefore, in introducing the worship of Caesar, Herod conspicuously failed to “regard the God of his fathers.” Moreover, in this connection, it should not be forgotten that Esau was Jacob’s twin brother and hence that the God of the fathers of the Edomites was the same as the God of the fathers of the Jews.
The words, “nor the desire of women,” are very significant. There can scarcely be any doubt that they refer to Christ, and that Daniel would so understand them. For, of course, the “women” must be understood to be women of Israel; and the ardent “desire” of every one of them was that she might be the mother of Christ. The same word is found in (Haggai 2:7): “And the Desire of all nations shall come.” Evidently then it is Christ who is referred to as “the desire of women”; and if so, then we have a striking fulfillment of these words in Herod’s attempt to murder the infant Messiah. For the record given in (Matthew 2:1-16) makes it quite clear that Herod’s deliberate purpose was to put to death the promised Messiah of Israel. It was for the accomplishment of that purpose that he inquired of the chief priests and scribes as to where Christ should be born. The slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem was an act of atrocity almost without parallel in history. It was, moreover, an event that had been foretold by Jeremiah in the words, “A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children,” etc. (Jeremiah 31:51, quoted in Matthew 2:17–18). Each one of those murdered infants was “the desire” of his own mother; and thus Herod fulfilled Daniel 11:37 in another sense.
Verse 38 (Daniel 11:38) reads: “And in his estate,” or for his establishment, “shall he honor the god of forces,” or god of fortresses; “and (or even) a god whom his fathers knew not shall be honour, with gold and silver, and precious (or costly) stones, and with pleasant (or valuable) things.”
Herod’s career affords a most striking fulfillment of this verse. The expression, “god of forces, or fortresses,” is so unusual that it furnishes a most satisfactory means of identification; for it applies to the Caesars as to none others in history, seeing that the Roman emperors claimed for themselves divine honors, and that it was by “forces,” or “fortifications,” that they extended and maintained their power, and enforced the worship they demanded. This honor Herod paid to them, and after the most extravagant fashion; and he did it, of course, in order to make himself secure, that is to say, “for his own establishment,” as the text of verse 38 may be rendered. This honor paid by Herod, first to Julius Caesar, then to Anthony, and then to Anthony’s conqueror, Augustus, was one of the most conspicuous features of Herod’s policy. Josephus records how he sent delegations to Rome, and also to Anthony and Cleopatra in Egypt, bearing the most costly presents; also how he converted the ancient Strato’s Tower into a magnificent seaport, and named it Caesarea, in honor of Caesar, and how later he rebuilt Samaria, and renamed it Sebaste (Sebastos being the equivalent of Augustus). He built many other fortified cities and named them in honor of Caesar.
The same subject is continued in Daniel 11:39, which reads: “Thus shall he do in the most strongholds with a strange god whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain,” or “parcel out the land for hire.”
Here we have a reference to one of the most prominent acts of Herod’s long reign, namely, his rebuilding of the temple, and his making the temple area a stronghold for Caesar. He made the temple the most famous building in the world for its dimensions, its magnificence, and particularly for the size of the stones whereof it was built, to which the disciples specially directed the Lord’s attention (Mark 13:1), and which Josephus says were 25 cubits long, 12 broad, and 8 thick (Ant. XVII, 3). But, in rebuilding it, Herod took care to convert it into a fortress for his own purposes, this being the “most stronghold” of the land. As a part of this plan he constructed on the north side of the temple, and overlooking it, a strong citadel which he named the Tower of Antonia, after Mark Anthony. Josephus says:
“But for the Tower itself, when Herod the king of the Jews had fortified it more firmly than before, in order to secure and guard the temple, he gratified Antonius who was his friend and the Roman ruler by calling it the Tower of Antonia” (Ant. XV. 11:4–7).
Further this historian says that the fortified places “were two, the one belonging to the city itself, the other belonging to the temple; and those that could get them into their hands had the whole nation under their power, for without the command of them it was not possible to offer their sacrifices” (Ant. XV. 11:7–8).
It was from the stairs leading to this famous Tower, up which the apostle Paul was being taken by the soldiers to save him from the violence of the people, that he stilled them by a gesture of his hand, and gained their attention by addressing them in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:34–40).
Again Josephus says of Herod that,
“When Caesar had further bestowed upon him another additional country, he built there also a temple of white marble, hard by the fountains of Jordan;” and also “to say all at once, there was not any place in his kingdom fit for the purpose, that was permitted to be without somewhat that was for Caesar’s honour; and when he had filled his own country with temples, he poured out like plentiful marks of his esteem into his province, and built many cities which he called Caesarea” (Wars I, 21:2).
In connection with the prediction of what this king would do in the chief strongholds “with a strange god,” mention should be made of the many images, statues of Caesar, which Herod set up to be worshipped in various fortified places. He even went so far in his sacrilege as to place a huge golden eagle (the adored emblem of imperial Rome) at the very gate of the temple, thus giving rise to a tumult and insurrection among the people. In this way did he, in his estate (office), “honor the god of forces” (Caesar) whose statues he everywhere introduced as objects of worship. He fulfilled with literal exactness the words, “Thus shall he do in the most strongholds,” (which expression would apply to the citadel of the temple, where he erected the Tower of Antonia) “with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge, and increase with glory” (Daniel 11:39). The last clause finds a striking fulfillment in Herod’s extravagant pains to glorify Caesar, which, as we have shown, went beyond all bounds.
The words “dividing the land for gain” (or parceling it out for hire) were fulfilled in the practice adopted by Herod of parceling out among persons favorable to himself, the land adjacent to places which it was important for him to control in case of emergency. Josephus speaks of this (Ant. XV 8, 5).
We thus find that every item foretold of “the king” was completely fulfilled in the career of Herod, and that the record of this fulfillment has come down to us in an authentic contemporary history, which is on all hands acknowledged to be trustworthy in an unusually high degree.
Other predictions concerning this “king” are given in verses 44–45. These also were fulfilled with literal exactness, as will be shown when we come to the exposition of those verses.
In order to avoid confusion it is needful to observe that “the time of the end” may mean one period in one place, and a very different period in another. The meaning is controlled, and is also revealed, by the context. But this is quite frequently overlooked; and we have observed that even careful writers on prophecy have a disposition to take the words “the time of the end” as meaning the end of the gospel dispensation, even when the passage in which they occur does not relate to the present dispensation at all.
Particularly should it be noted that in the Book of Daniel there are two distinct sets of prophecies. The first set, found in chapters II, VII and 8, relate to the great Gentile world powers, and the prophecies of chapters II and VII carry us on to the end of the times of the Gentiles (Chapter 8 gives details of the Greek empire, thus filling in the outline given in the vision of Chapter 7). But the second series (Chapters 9–12 inclusive) have to do with the history of Daniel’s own people and his holy city. Hence the expression “time of the end,” where it occurs in these later prophecies, means the last stage of the national existence of Daniel’s people, that is to say, the era of the Herods.
The period of Jewish history occupied by Herod and his dynasty was therefore “the time of the end” in the sense required by the context; so we have a strong confirmation of the view we have been presenting in the fact that, just at this point in the prophecy, there is given us an outline of those great events (which occurred during the reign of Herod) whereby political supremacy in the world was given to the Caesars, and all was made ready for the coming of the Redeemer. This outline is found in (Daniel 11:40–43), and brings us to the subjugation of Egypt (the last of the great independent monarchies to fall under the spreading power of Rome) with the Libyans and Ethiopians. The records of history correspond so exactly to the predictions of this prophecy (as we shall presently point out) that there can be no question at all as to its fulfillment.
In reading this chapter it is to be remembered that the prophecy is not primarily concerned with Syria, Egypt, Rome or any other alien power, but that it refers to them only insofar as they come in contact with, and affect the destinies of, the Jews.
Hence these verses (Daniel 11:40–43) have a parenthetical character. They read as follows:
“And at the time of the end shall a king of the south push at him (or with him); and a king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind with chariots and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land; and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape, but he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps.”
The events foretold in this part of the prophecy took place “at the time of the end”; that is to say they were coincident with the last era of Jewish history, the era of the Herods. At that time a king of the south (Cleopatra, the last to occupy the throne of Egypt, aided by Mark Anthony) made a push with Herod, who was in league with them, against Syria, which had meanwhile become a Roman province. This was the beginning of the great Actian war.
As to the manner in which that war began, we have a very clear account in Plutarch’s “Life of Mark Anthony,” by which it appears that the fulfillment of the prophecy was marvelously exact, not only as regards the manner in which the war began, but also in respect to the sides on which the different parties were at first engaged in it, in regard also to the outcome, to the peculiar arms, “chariots and horsemen and many ships” by means of which the victories of Augustus were achieved, and finally, in regard also to the rapidity of his conquest, which was effected within the space of a single year.
Our papers on Daniel 11, in which we identified Herod as “the king” of verse 36, and showed that verses 40–43 were fulfilled in the events whereby Egypt fell under the all conquering arms of Augustus Caesar, were completed ready for the printer in the early part of 1922. Prior to August of that year we were not aware that anyone had previously pointed out that the predictions concerning “the king” were fulfilled by Herod, or that the fulfillment of the last verses of the Chapter was to be found in the stirring and world changing events of his reign.
But in August of 1922 there came into our hands in a strange way (which seemed providential) an old book, now long out of print, in which, to our great surprise and gratification, we found our conclusions as to the above matters set forth, and supported by proofs more ample than we ourselves had collected. The book was written by James Farquharson, and was printed in Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1838. It bears the following quaint and lengthy title: Daniel’s Last Vision and Prophecy, respecting which Commentators have greatly differed from each other, showing its fulfillment in events recorded in authentic history.
In our comments, which here follow, on verses 40–43, we are indebted to this volume for the quotations from Plutarch’s Life of Mark Anthony, which set the fulfillment of those verses in such a clear light.
The first move in the Actian war was made by Anthony (at the urgency of Cleopatra), in which he was assisted by Herod. Says Plutarch:
“Anthony, being informed of these things” (that is of certain disputes between Augustus and others in the Senate at Rome) “immediately sent Canidus to the seacoast with sixteen legions. In the meantime he went to Ephesus attended by Cleopatra. There he assembled his fleet, which consisted of 800 ships of burden, whereof Cleopatra furnished 200 besides 20,000 talents, and provisions for the army.”
Anthony advanced to Athens, with constantly increasing forces, Augustus being wholly unprepared to meet him; for says the historian:
“When Caesar was informed of the celerity and magnificence of Anthony’s preparations, he was afraid of being forced into war that summer. This would have been most inconvenient for him, for he was in want of almost everything … The auxiliary kings who fought under his (Anthony’s) banner were Bocchus of Africa,” etc. a list being given: “Those who did not attend in person, but sent supplies were Polemo of Pontus, Malchus of Arabia, Herod of Judea, and Amyntas of Lycaonia and Galatia.”
Thus a king of the south was the first to make a push in this war, and he pushed with Herod. As showing the accuracy of the prophecy it should be noted that, as Plutarch records, the Senate of Rome declared war with Cleopatra alone, ignoring Anthony, so that it was strictly between a king of the north, and a king of the south.
Mr. Farquharson points out that the predictions of the prophet were strictly fulfilled also in respect to the character of the forces engaged in the war. For, notwithstanding that each side assembled large numbers of infantry, and notwithstanding that such are the arms usually relied upon to decide a war, yet in this case the infantry were not engaged at all, the issue being decided (as the prophecy indicates) by chariots and horsemen, and many ships.
A strange feature of the affair is that, although Anthony’s footmen outnumbered those of Augustus, and although his generals urged him to bring the matter to an issue in a land battle, nevertheless (to quote again from Plutarch):
“Such a slave was he to the will of a woman that, to gratify her, though much superior on land, he put his whole confidence in the navy; notwithstanding that the ships had not half their complement of men.”
This brought on the great naval fight of Actium, which ended in a complete victory for Augustus; and thus did a king of the north come upon a king of the south, with the effect of a whirlwind, with many ships. A more literal and exact fulfillment of prophecy could not be found.
But that is not all. For Plutarch records that, after the disaster at Actium, Anthony’s infantry deserted him, so that the infantry were not engaged during the entire war.
“But,” says Farquharson, “when Anthony arrived in Egypt, and endeavored to defend it, to fulfill the prediction of the Prophet that the king of the north would come with chariots and horsemen, as well as with many ships there were actions with cavalry.” For Plutarch says, “When Caesar arrived he encamped near the hippodrome (at Alexandria); whereupon Antony made a brisk sally, routed the cavalry, drove them back into their trenches, and returned to the city with the complacency of a conqueror. It was the conduct of their fleets and cavalry that sealed the fate of Anthony and Cleopatra, and left them without resource in their last retreat.”
The course pursued by Augustus after his triumph over Anthony and Cleopatra follows most literally the predictions of the prophecy. For he entered into the countries, and overflowed, and passed over them, possessing himself of regions of Africa, Upper Cilicia, Paphlagonia, Thrace, Pontus, Galatia, and other provinces from Illyria to Armenia. Moreover “he entered also into the glorious land,” that is to say the land of Judea, which has already been designated (Daniel 11:16) “the glorious land.” For Augustus chose to invade Egypt by way of Palestine, at which time Herod (who had already with great prudence and foresight made his submission to Augustus, and with such skilful diplomacy that it was accepted), rendered him much assistance. Josephus says:
“Caesar went for Egypt through Syria when Herod received him with royal and rich entertainments; and then did he first of all ride along with Caesar, as he was reviewing his army about Ptolemais, and feasted him with all his friends, and then distributed among the rest of his army what was necessary to feast then withal” (Wars I, 20, 3).
The reference in verse 41 to the countries of Edom, Moab and Ammon should be enough, without anything further, to show that we must seek the fulfillment of this part of the prophecy in Bible times. Those names had a geographical significance to Daniel, and to others of his day, who would understand by them the mingled peoples of the lands adjacent to Judea on the east and south. Now it is recorded in history that those countries did escape, in a remarkable manner, out of the hand of Augustus, in strong contrast with what the next verse says concerning Egypt, “And the land of Egypt shall not escape” (Daniel 11:42).
Augustus sent an expedition into the countries referred to under Aelius Gallus, in which he was joined by five hundred of Herod’s guards (Josephus, Ant. XV 9, 3). Dean Prideaux, the well known commentator, refers to this expedition and its failure, citing Pliny, Strabo, and Dio Cassius (Prideaux’ Connections. Vol. II, pp. 605 et seq.). The Universal History, in a note added to their account of the expedition, says: “The bad success that attended Aelius in this expedition deterred both him and others from any further attempts on that country” (Ancient Universal History. Vol. XIII, page 498).
The prophecy makes special reference to the vast treasures of Egypt, saying: “But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt” (Daniel 11:43).
Here again are words which make it perfectly clear that the fulfillment of this prophecy must be sought in the days of Egypt’s greatness and wealth, and is not to be found in the squalid and poverty stricken Egypt of later times, which, according to the sure word of prophecy, was to become “the basest of the kingdoms,” and not to exalt itself any more (Ezekiel 29:15).
But in the days of Herod and Mark Anthony the treasures of Egypt were of fabulous value; and here again history furnishes us with such a marvelous fulfillment of this item of the prophecy that we can but think the records have been providentially cared for. Speaking of Cleopatra’s vast and famous treasures of gold, silver and precious stones, and other rare and costly objects, Farquharson says that “the history of the fate of her treasures is very singular, and is worthy of a more detailed reference to it.”
So he shows how this great treasure had been accumulated during the centuries of the Macedonian rulers of Egypt (the Ptolemies), being drawn from the great grain trade of the country, and from the very lucrative commerce of Alexandria “through which passed the gems, pearls, spices, and other rich produce and merchandise of India, which from earliest ages have been in high request in the western part of the world.”
Continuing his account Farquharson says:
“Augustus Caesar was very desirous of securing the treasures of the sovereign of this wealthy city; but there was, on two occasions, the utmost hazard that they should elude his grasp. For after Cleopatra fled from the battle of Actium Plutarch says, ‘she formed the design of drawing her galleys over the isthmus into the Red Sea, and purposed, with all her wealth and forces, to seek some remote country.’”
That design was abandoned; but
“When Caesar afterwards, approaching from Judea, took Pelusium and entered Egypt, the same author says, ‘Cleopatra had erected near the temple of Isis some monuments of extraordinary size and magnificence. To these she removed her treasure, her gold, silver, emeralds, pearls, ebony, ivory, and cinnamon … Caesar was under some apprehensions about this immense wealth, lest, upon some sudden emergency, she should set fire to the whole. For this reason he was continually sending messengers to her with assurances of generous and honorable treatment, while in the meantime he hastened to the city with his army.’ … Her person and the treasures in the monument were afterwards secured by a stratagem, as related by Plutarch; and thus a king of the north had power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt.”
The prophecy also says concerning this victorious king, “and the Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps” (Daniel 11:43). Commenting on these words Farquharson says:
“The conquest of Egypt and maritime Libya laid inner Libya and Ethiopia open to the steps, that is, as we may interpret the term, to the inroads of Augustus Caesar, and his officers, of which advantage was soon after taken by them.”
And this author proceeds to show the conquest of the countries named in the prophecy, by Cornelius Balbus, which was considered so great an achievement that Balbus, though not a native Roman, was, contrary to all precedent, allowed a triumph. Thus, while Augustus did not himself subdue those countries, they were “at his steps,” as the prophecy says, at the time he left Africa and returned to Rome.
Thus ancient history, which has been preserved to our day, shows to us a series of events of the highest importance in shaping the course of human affairs, which events correspond with marvelous exactitude, and in just the right sequence, to the several details of the prophecy, the entire series having taken place at precisely the era we should look for them to occur, if we take the prophecy to be what it appears to be, namely, a continuous prophetic narrative. If then this be not a fulfillment, there is nothing that can be with certainty recognized as a fulfillment of inspired prophecy.
We come now to the last two verses of Chapter 11, which read thus:
“But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end and none shall help him” (Daniel 11:44–45).
It is not at first glance apparent who is the antecedent of the pronoun “he” in these verses. But upon close attention to the text it will be seen that we have here a return to the main subject of this part of the prophecy, “the king” of verse 36, the course of the prophecy having been diverted in verses 40–43 to the subject of the conquests of Augustus Caesar. Very often, in reading the Hebrew prophets, we have to look a considerable distance backwards to find the antecedent of a pronoun. As an instance of this, Farquharson cites Bishop Horsley as saying, in commenting upon Isaiah 18, “To those to whom the prophetic style in the original is not familiar, but to those only, I think, it will appear strange that a pronoun should refer to an antecedent at so great a distance.” And Farquharson adds: “And the correctness of this view of the whole passage is confirmed by the literal manner in which the predictions in this 44th verse, and in the remaining verse of the Chapter, were fulfilled by Herod.”
Indeed we do not see how any fulfillment could be more complete and literal than that which is given us in Matthew’s Gospel of the words “But tidings out of the east shall trouble him.” For it is written that “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold there came wise men FROM THE EAST to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen His star IN THE EAST, and are come to worship Him. When Herod heard these things he was TROUBLED, and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:1–3). So here we have the exact thing prophesied, namely, “tidings out of the east” which “troubled him.”
Nothing was so well calculated to “trouble” Herod as reports that someone was aspiring to his throne. In this case it is among the most familiar of all facts that Herod, being set at nought by the wise men, from whom he sought to learn the identity of the new born babe, “was EXCEEDING WROTH, and SENT FORTH, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under” (Matthew 2:16). Thus we have almost verbal agreement with the words of the prophecy, “he shall Go FORTH, with GREAT FURY, to destroy and utterly to make away MANY.”
At about the same time, that is, in the last years of Herod’s life, “tidings out of the north” also came to “trouble” that self-tormenting monarch. For Antipater, his oldest son (a despicable character), then at Rome (which had now become the center of what is indefinitely called in this prophecy “the north”) conspired to have letters written to his father giving information that two other of his sons, whom he purposed to make his successors, had calumniated their father to Caesar. This caused Herod again to break forth with intense “fury” against his own sons, and their supposed abettors, as related by Josephus at great length (Ant. XVII 4–7; Wars 1:30–33).
In regard to these extraordinary events, Farquharson quotes a passage (which we give below) from the Universal Ancient History, saying he does so the more readily because the authors of the passage had no thought at all of recording a fulfillment of prophecy. They say:
“The reader may remember that we left Herod in the most distracted state that can well be imagined; his conscience stung with the most lively grief for the murder of his beloved and virtuous Mariamne and of her two worthy sons; his life and crown in imminent danger from the rebellious Antipater, and ungrateful Pheroras; his reign stained with rivers of innocent blood; his latter days embittered by the treacherous intrigues of a sister; his person and family hated by the whole Jewish nation; and last of all, his crown and all his glories on the eve of being obscured by the birth of a miraculous Child, who is proclaimed by heaven and earth to be the promised and long expected Messiah and Saviour of the world. To all these plagues we must add some fresh intelligences which came tumbling in upon that wretched monarch; and which by assuring him still more, not only of the treasonable designs of the unnatural Antipater, but also of the bitter complaints which his other two sons, then at the Roman court, vented against them both, rendered him more than ever completely miserable” (Universal History, Vol. X. pp. 492, 493).
Herod’s “great fury” (to use the words of the prophecy) was not confined to the babes of Bethlehem, and to members of his own family. For, says Josephus, “it was also during paroxysms of fury, that, nearly about the same time, he burned alive Matthias and forty young men with him, who had pulled down the golden image of the Roman eagle, which he had placed over the gate of the temple” (Ant. XVII 7). Furthermore Josephus relates the following characteristic action of Herod:
“He came again to Jericho, where he became so choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a madman; and though he was near death, yet he contrived the following wicked designs: He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation be called to him. Accordingly there were a great number that came, because … death was the penalty of such that should despise the epistles that were sent to call them. And now the king was in a wild rage against them all; … and when they were come, he ordered them all to be shut up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome and her husband Alexas, and spake thus to them: ‘I shall die in a little time, so great are my pains; … but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such a mourning as men usually expect at a king’s death.’” Therefore, in order to insure that the nation should be plunged into mourning, he left an order that, immediately upon his own death, all those leaders of the Jews, whom he had confined in the hippodrome, should be slain. That order, however, was not carried out.
We have already pointed out that Herod placed his royal dwelling places “in the glorious holy mountain,” he having two palaces in Jerusalem, one in the temple area, and the other in the upper city. So they were “between the seas,” that is, the Mediterranean and the Dead Seas.
The last word of the prophecy concerning him is: “Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” As to this we cannot do better than to quote Farquharson’s comment:
“This part of the prediction obviously implies that, in his last hours, the king would apply for deliverance or remedy, from some affliction or disease, but would receive none. And how literally was this fulfilled in the end of Herod the Great! History has preserved to us few such circumstantial accounts of the last days of remarkable men, as that which Josephus has transmitted to us of his; but we deem it too long for insertion here. It exhibits the most fearful picture to be found anywhere of the end of an impenitent sinner, who, having cast out of his heart all fear of God and all feeling of responsibility to Him, had equally lost all sense of duty to man; and after committing innumerable crimes and cruelties in which he spared not those connected with him by the dearest and tenderest ties, any more than others was at last seized in his old age with a painful and loathsome disease; and suffering alike from that, and from the pangs of guilty fear, yet continued in a course of extreme wickedness to his last hour, seeking no remedy for his evil passions, but exhausting all the resources of the physician’s skill to mitigate his bodily distemper and lengthen out his wretched life. We refer to Josephus for an account of the remedies and expedients to which he had recourse by the advice of his physicians; all of which failed to relieve or arrest the disease which cut him off while he was meditating new crimes of matchless cruelty.”
Thus he came to his end, and none helped him. He died a prey to horrible diseases, and to horrible remorse, just five days after he had ordered the execution of his oldest son. We have deemed the matter of sufficient importance to give to the explanation of this part of the Chapter (verses 36–45) a minute and detailed examination. For we are convinced that the theory of a “break” after verse 34 (or 35), involving the transference bodily of all the rest of the prophecy (including the part contained in Chapter 12) to a future day, deranges all that part of the prophetic Word which it is important for us to “understand” at the present time. Conversely, our belief is that, with this important passage correctly settled, other things, which have been involved in the general obscurity occasioned by the “break” theory, will be cleared up. Indeed we shall not have to go very far to find practical proof of this.
And now that we have reviewed the evidences which point to Herod the Great as the “king” foretold in this passage, our wonder is that any careful students of prophecy could have missed so plain a mark. For the passage foretells that, at a definite point in Jewish history, namely, just at the close of the Asmonean era, there should arise (what had not been in Israel for nearly five hundred years) a “king;” and the character and doings of this king (which are of a most unusual sort) are predicted in strong and clear words. In perfect agreement with this, as fully recorded in the Bible and in profane history, is the fact that, precisely at the point indicated, there did arise one who became “king” over Daniel’s people, which king had precisely the character, and did precisely the things which the prophecy had foretold of him.
Let it be noted that at verse 35 we reach the end of the Asmonean era, as nearly all commentators have clearly perceived. But the history of the renewed Jewish nation did not end there, and neither does the prophecy end there. What was next? In the history of the Jewish people the next and last stage was occupied by a king, whose character was one of the most detestable, and whose doings were among the most atrocious, of any that have been recorded in the annals of the human race, he being, moreover, the only “king” over the Jewish nation in all this long period of more than 500 years. In perfect agreement with this we find that the next section of the prophecy, which also is the last, is occupied with a description of the character and doings of one who is simply designated as “the king.” Furthermore, upon comparing the records of history with the detailed statements of the prophecy, we find an answer in each and every particular. We would not know where to look for a more complete and literal fulfillment of prophecy.
Again we would point out that, considering the nature and purpose of this prophecy, as divinely announced in Daniel 10:14 and as manifested in Daniel 11:1–35, it is simply impossible that “Herod the king” should not have a place, and a prominent place, in it. And even so in fact we find him there, just at the right place, and described with such detail and accuracy as to make it an easier matter to identify him, when we have the facts of history before us, than to identify any of the other notable characters to whom the prophecy refers.
It would seem that, in regard to this exceedingly plain matter, some sound and able teachers have been misled through having accepted the idea of a “break” in the preceding prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, to which (as we have pointed out) that of Chapter 11–12 is a supplement. That made it easy to surmise a similar “break” in Chapter 11 when they came to a personage whom, through their not having in mind the records of sacred and profane history, they failed to identify. We are confident, however, that no unbiased persons, after considering what we have presented above, will doubt that “the king” whose portrait is given in this passage is Herod the Great.
Philip Mauro
Philip Mauro (January 7, 1859 – 1952) was an American lawyer and author. Mauro was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He was a lawyer who practiced before the Supreme Court, a patent lawyer, and also a Christian writer. He prepared briefs for the Scopes Trial. He was the friend and lawyer of such men as Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, the great inventors of their day. God gives different gifts to different men, and to Philip Mauro the famous Lawyer he gave a gifted mind. Although Philip Mauro is not well known today he has left a legacy of great Christian literature. His works include The Gospel of the Kingdom (1928)’ and ‘The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (1923)’ should be required reading for anyone serious about studying God’s Word. Mauro was a creationist and authored an anti-evolution book entitled Evolution at the Bar (1922). (Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Mauro and https://www.philipmauro.net/)
“It is greatly to be regretted that those who, in our day, give themselves to the study and exposition of prophecy, seem not to be aware of the immense significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which was accompanied by the extinction of Jewish national existence, and the dispersion of the Jewish people among all the nations. The failure to recognize the significance of that event, and the vast amount of prophecy which it fulfilled, has been the cause of great confusion, for the necessary consequence of missing the past fulfillment of predicted events is to leave on our hands a mass of prophecies for which we must needs contrive fulfillments in the future. The harmful results are two fold; for first, we are thus deprived of the evidential value, and the support to the faith, of those remarkable fulfillments of prophecy which are so clearly presented to us in authentic contemporary histories; and second, our vision of things to come is greatly obscured and confused by the transference to the future of predicted events which, in fact, have already happened, and whereof complete records have been preserved for our information.”
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. It struck down many U.S. state and federal abortion laws. (Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
I heard from Pastor Chuck Baldwin that it was a majority Republican Supreme Court that legalized abortion. I thought it would make a good post to do research on each of the justices that served on the Supreme Court in 1973 to see who appointed them and see if I could confirm what Dr Baldwin said.
Justice Harry Blackmun, in office May 14, 1970 – August 3, 1994, nominated by Richard Nixon, Republican
Warren E. Burger, in office June 23, 1969 – September 26, 1986, nominated by Richard Nixon, Republican
William O. Douglas, ifn office April 17, 1939 – November 12, 1975, nominated by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat
William J. Brennan Jr., in office October 15, 1956 – July 20, 1990, nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican
Potter Stewart, in office October 14, 1958 – July 3, 1981, nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican
Thurgood Marshall, in office August 30, 1967 – October 1, 1991, nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat
Lewis Franklin Powell Jr., in office January 7, 1972 – June 26, 1987, nominated by Richard Nixon, Republican
Byron White, in office April 12, 1962 – June 28, 1993, nominated by John F. Kennedy, Democrat
William Hubbs Rehnquist, in office January 7, 1972 – September 3, 2005, nominated by Richard Nixon, Republican
Only one Republican nominated Supreme Court justice out of six Republican nominated justices voted against legalizing abortion! Only 1/3 of the Supreme Court justices, three in all, were nominated by a Democrat President, and one of them, the one nominated by President Kennedy, voted against legalizing abortion. And you tell me that the Republican party is against abortion? There is something sinister afoot.
A good book that talks about the American political system I highly encourage all to read is None Dare Call it Conspiracy.
The featured image on this post is William Hubbs Rehnquist, the only Republican nominated Supreme Court Justice who voted against passing Roe vs. Wade.
William Hubbs Rehnquist, in office January 7, 1972 – September 3, 2005, nominated by Richard Nixon, Republican
This is without a doubt the clearest explanation I have ever come across about the historical origin of Communism and Socialism, and who formulated its ideology.
To understand the Hegalian character of Jesuitical deception, (Hegalian dialectic, a very old Jesuit principle explained in the picture below) we must consider that the doctrines of Communism were designed by the Jesuits through what were known as their Reductions in Paraguay in the 17th and 18th centuries, which were a series of communes in which Jesuit priest exercised authority over the natives there. In that environment, the Jesuit Order maintained control over a group of South American Guarani Indians, who they educated and trained to work on their behalf, generating goods that were later sold in the markets of Europe. From a 1933 book titled, “The Revolutionary Movement” by J. Findlater, we read the following:
“…the Jesuits had established twenty strong Mission centres, called Reductions, with many thousands of the Guaranis enrolled as their members….The Jesuits aimed to set up there a completely communistic system, in the sense that no individual rights were recognized and there was no private property. Everything belonged to the State, and was supposed to be shared in common. But in reality much the greater part of the proceeds of goods sold was always remitted to the Camarilla (Jesuit superiors) in Europe; and the Guaranis got only the bare necessities of life in return for their toil and sweat.”
The Jesuit leaders provided the necessary food, clothing, and health care the Indians needed, while using them as “worker bees” to generate income for the order. Just as the Soviet Union would do in the 20th century, the Jesuits maintained strict control over the activities of their subjects:
“…neither would they allow any Guarani to learn Spanish, nor would they tolerate and intercourse between the Guaranis and the peoples of the surrounding Spanish Colonies–a prohibition maintained at the sword’s point.”
They perfected their system of totalitarian control, all the while telling the world that their oppression over other people was, in fact, “Utopia,” a deluded fantasy maintained by some Catholic historians to this day. Perhaps worst of all is that the Jesuit did not present any form of the Gospel or what might be called the Christian faith to these poor Indians.
“There is no evidence that any effort was ever made by the Jesuits to impart the truths, properly so called, of the Christian religion….When the Jesuits were expelled, the Guaranis, having had no moral or religious training to fit them to continue in the Christian Faith, in a few years….became as if no religious teachers had ever lived and worked among them….”
The ideas the Jesuits developed in Paraguay over a period of 158 years, were then communicated to Karl Marx in the nineteenth century:
“For five years Karl Marx went to the Jesuit school in Trier, which during the Prussian period was known as the Friederich-Wilhem Gymnasium.”
Along with Karl Marx, other leading Communists like Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro were also trained by the Jesuits. In fact, the former Jesuit General, Pedro Arrupe (1965-1983) once boasted:
“And what makes you think we are not proud of Fidel Castro?”
While it is true that the Popes are known for condemning Communism, this on their part seems to be more political manipulation than anything else, since Rome has repeatedly supported the principles of Communist thought. “The Communist Manifesto” was first published in 1848, and within less than fifty years we find the Vatican publishing declarations in agreement with it. In his book, “Ecclesiastical Megalomania,” author John W. Robbins notes the following:
“One of the Roman Church-State’s most influential statements on economic matters is the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, On the the Condition of the working Classes. In this encyclical the Roman Church-State allied herself with the proletariat, which in Marxism is the great and final enemy of the capitalist order. The encyclical’s Marxism is so blatant that one Roman Catholic writer declared that ‘much of encyclical (Rerum Novarum) appeared only to repeat in more orthodox language what Marx had said ten years before’….Indeed, there are paragraphs, if not pages, in The Communist Manifesto that might have been written by the pope…”
Then, incredibly, after about a hundred years of various Papal diatribes against Communism in all its forms, the Sunday Times of London reported that:
“Karl Marx, who famously described religion as ‘the opium of the people’, has joined Galileo, Charles Darwin and Oscar Wilde on growing list of historical figures to have undergone an unlikely reappraisal by the Roman Catholic Church.”
The article goes on to quote Georg Sans, a professor at the Vatican’s Gregorian University, who, with the utmost subtlety, speaks about Marxism in a way that seems carefully designed to undermine capitalism and promote the communist principles that Rome has always aligned herself with. Any study of the Papal influence in world governments–will prove that Capitalism, which is the promotion of free enterprise, is the very antithesis of official Roman Catholic dogma.
Because of these things, we cannot help but consider the possibility that the real purpose of the McCarthy era was to manipulate the American mentality with Hegelian tactics, intended to take the anti-Communist fury to such an extreme that it would become offensive to the American people. McCarthy’s methods were so unreasonable that the idea of condemning someone for being a Communist was collectively shunned. If we consider the growing influence of Communism today, we can only wonder if McCarthyism had been part of the Jesuits’ greater plan all along: condition the people to despise anti-Communist “witch-hunting,” then use their desire for toleration as an open door to usher in a more moderate version of it (i.e. Socialism) later on. Such tactics would be impossible to believe, except for the fact that we find Rome on both sides of the issue.
(End of article)
This article is an excerpt from my friend Walt Stickel’s website, The Grand Design, which unfortunately is not online any longer. I think dear Walt must have graduated from this earthly life.
In January 1971, thanks to the ministry of a Christian group called the Navigators, I came to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. The Navigators fed me with the milk of the Word of God. As an organization they didn’t get into eschatology. Their motto was and still is, “To know Christ and make Him known.” I think this is indeed a worthy motto to live ones life by as a Christian! I was in the U.S. Air Force at the time. My Navigator buddy and I would go door to door in the barracks and talk to young airmen about Christ. Most of them were willing to talk. Most of them were single and had a lot of time on their hands when not performing their military duties. I know that was true of me, only 21 years old then.
From 1974 after I was discharged from the Air Force, I began to fellowship with other believers, Christians who had more of an emphasis on Endtime doctrines, eschatology, the science of last things. It was then I studied the prophecies of Daniel, specifically Daniel chapter 2 and 7-12. I learned about the 70 Weeks of Daniel.
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
I was told this was a Messianic prophecy except for the final week which is about the Antichrist making a treaty with the Jews and world religions, some kind of peace pact with the Muslims, in order to rebuild the Temple of Solomon to resume animal sacrifices for the Jewish religion. I was told that the Antichrist would after three and a half years decide to break his treaty, enter the Temple, and declare himself to be god!
There are variations of this scenario. Some believe that Christians will be raptured out before the Antichrist rises, others believe we will be raptured at the midway 3.5 year point, and still others believe the rapture won’t come till the very end of the tribulation just before the Wrath of God descends. The latter is what I used to believe. This is what the pastor who I loved used to teach. Why should I doubt it? I didn’t learn a different view of the 70th Week of Daniel until 40 years later.
It was on December 13th, 2014, after 40 some years of study of eschatology, that I finally realized the 70th Week of Daniel is not part of the Endtime scenario!
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
The “he” of verse 27 has been interpreted by most fundamental Bible teachers as being the Antichrist and the “covenant” as some kind of Endtime religious agreement the Antichrist makes with the various religions of the world to ensure world peace. But a pronoun is only understood when the noun or name of the person is first identified. That name is clearly written in verses 25 and 26 as “Messiah”! It is Jesus Christ who confirmed the Covenant, and that Covenant was the Covenant God made with Abraham! This is the very same Covenant in verse 4 of the same chapter of Daniel 9!
Daniel 9:4 ¶And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul clearly says that Covenant was confirmed by Christ!
Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,…
Why would Christians today believe the 70th Week of Daniel is something that will be fulfilled in the Endtime? I’ll tell you why: It was a false doctrine planted into the Church by a Jesuit named Francisco Ribera to get the Protestants’ eyes off the Pope as being the Antichrist! It is one of the doctrines of Futurism as opposed to Historism. Allow me to paraphrase and simplify the teaching from http://www.champs-of-truth.com/books/3schools.htm
There are three methods of interpreting prophecy –the Praeterist, the Futurist and the Historical (or continuous).
The Praeterist maintains that the prophecies in Revelation (and Daniel) have already been fulfilled.
The Futurist interpreters refer to events which are yet to come.
The Historical or Continuous expositors believe the Revelation a progressive history of the church from the first century to the end of time.
So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men (who held the historicist view), that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.
Accordingly, toward the close of the century of the Reformation, two of the most learned (Jesuit) doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavoring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men’s minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the papal system. The Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the preterist method of interpretation,…and thus endeavored to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy.
“On the other hand, the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the papal power by bringing out the futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly, not to the career of the Papacy, but to some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the founder of the futurist system of modern times.
…It is a matter for deep regret that those who advocate the futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist.” Rev. Joseph Tanner, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 16, 17.
I learned about Jesuit Ribera and his Futurist view from 2 or 3 years before the final revelation on December 13, 2014, and I knew the reason he created this view was to get people’s eyes off of the Pope and the Papacy as being Antichrist, but until December 13, 2014 for some reason, I never connected it to the 70th Week of Daniel. It was thanks to my new friends, Michael Adams, Walt Stickel, and especially to David Nikao’s article, “The 70th Week Of Daniel Prince Deception” that opened my eyes to the truth!
Because Jesus fulfilled the 70th Week of Daniel, several things I’ve held as truth about the last 7 years before Jesus returns fall flat.
Wow! What a difference from my former mindset!
Christians have already had two thousand years of tribulation ever since the stoning of Stephen in Acts chapter 7! The Devil has always tried to kill God’s children from the time of Cain killing Abel!
Christians have always lived in the time of Antichrist. First John 2:18 makes that very clear.
1 John 2:18 ¶Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Update on Dec. 19th, 2014: Today I saw something for the first time in the Word that thrills me to pieces! If we compare the 3 synoptic Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke which talks about the “the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate” of Daniel 9:27, Luke clearly identifies what the Abomination of Desolation is!
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Mark 13:14 ¶But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Luke 21:20 ¶And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luke chapter 21 is talking about the exact same events as Matthew 24 and Mark 13. The abomination was the Roman army (abomination to the Jews) and the desolation was what the Roman army did to Jerusalem! God’s very Word tells us exactly what the abomination of desolation is!
I hear that it was only the Christians in Jerusalem who escaped the wrath of the Romans in 70 A.D. when the Roman Army destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. Why were the Christians the only ones who fled from Jerusalem and Judaea? Because they heeded Jesus’ warning written in Luke 21:21, and fled into the mountains! “then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:” — Luke 21:21. Notice it says “Judaea”? I never saw the meaning of this verse so clearly before!
A big thank you to David Nikao who pointed this out to me in his article The Abomination Of Desolation Deception
I now see the Endtime scenario as a world getting more and more darker in deception. It’s pretty dark now considering that evangelical Christians think the person who confirms the covenant with many for one week is the Antichrist when it’s actually Jesus Christ! Talk about delusion! And folks, it originated from a Jesuit by the name of Francesco Ribera circa 1580 a.d. See also http://amazingdiscoveries.org/RT_encyclopedia_Futurism_Jesuit_Ribera
The information on this page may be hard for a Christian to accept without knowing more background information. A really great article that encapusulates all the important information you need to know is The Evil Empire of Jesuit Futurism If that link ever gets broken, here is a text file you can download.
This meme is courtesy of David Nikao Wilcoxson 70thweekofdaniel.com
For much more articles about the 70th Week of Daniel:
Daniel 9:27 may very well be the most misinterpreted prophecy in the entire Bible. The early Protestant Reformers saw it as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ! Most modern-day evangelicals (with the notable exception of Pastor Chuck Baldwin) view it as prophecy fulfilled by the Antichrist who will come to power in the unknown future. Christians who hold this eschatological view follow a school of prophecy interpretation known as Futurism.
| Verse Segment | Modern Evangelical Interpretation | Protestant Reformers Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| And he | the Antichrist | Jesus Christ |
| shall confirm the covenant | shall make a treaty | shall confirm the Covenant of grace God made with Abraham. |
| with many for one week | with the Jews and leaders of the world’s religions for 7 years in the future | with the people of Israel for 7 years from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry which began in 27 AD to the stoning of Stephen in 34 AD which was the start of persecution of Christians by the Jews. |
| and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease | The Antichrist will stop the daily sacrifice in a rebuilt temple of Solomon. | Jesus was crucified three and a half years after the start of His ministry. Jesus, the Lamb of God, became the ultimate sacrifice for sins which meant there was no more need for daily animal sacrifices, and hence, no more need for a physical temple to do them. |
| and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, | The Antichrist will start a world wide persecution against all who refuse to worship him. | Jesus through the Roman General Titus will desolate the Temple of Solomon |
| even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. | Jesus will return, fight the Antichrist and his armies, and throw them into hell. | Jesus will cause the Roman army to destroy both the Temple and Jerusalem to put an end to the Jews’ Christ-less religion as punishment for Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. |
Wow, what a difference in interpretation! Where did the modern interpretation come from? I submit to you it came from a Jesuit priest named Francesco Ribera, circa 1585, who cooked it up for the purpose of taking Protestant Christians’ eyes off the Pope and the papacy as the biblical Man of Sin, also known as the Antichrist, to make them think the Antichrist is an Endtime figure only. The Jesuits sure did the job, didn’t they? This doctrine was initially rejected by Protestant Christians but was later promoted by John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield. As a result, it was accepted by the prestigious Dallas Theological Seminary. Furthermore, a host of other false doctrines such as pre-tribulation rapture and Christian-Zionism grew out of the false interpretation of Daniel 9:27.
This meme is courtesy of David Nikao Wilcoxson 70thweekofdaniel.com
ANTONY SUTTON
We offer no objections to their existing clan
No one disputes with them this right, we question but the plan
On which they act, – that only he who wears upon his breast
Their emblem, he for every post shall be considered best.Anonymous Yale student, 1873.
After 16 books and 25 years in basic research I thought I’d heard it all … the world was a confused mess, probably beyond understanding and certainly beyond salvation – and there was little ‘l could do about it.
Back in 1968 my Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In three substantial volumes I detailed how the West had built the Soviet Union. However, the work generated a seemingly insoluble puzzle – why have we done this? Why did we build the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler’s Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts? Why have we boosted Soviet military power? And simultaneously boosted our own?
In subsequent books, the Wall Street series, I added more questions – but no answers. I had more or less arrived at the conclusion that there was no rational answer that could be proven.
Then a year or so ago I received an eight-inch batch of documents – nothing less than the membership lists of an American secret society. Glancing through the sheets it was more than obvious – this was no ordinary group. The names spelled Power, with a capital P. As I probed each individual a pattern emerged … and a formerly fuzzy world became crystal clear.
The book you will read here is a combined version of a series reporting on this research. Each volume builds on the previous volume in a logical step-by-step process.
These volumes will explain why the West built the Soviets and Hitler; why we go to war, to lose; why Wall Street loves Marxists and Nazis; why the kids can’t read; why the Churches have become propaganda founts; why historical facts are suppressed, why politicians lie and a hundred other whys.
This series is infinitely more important than the original Western Technology series on technological transfers. If I have a magnum opus, this is it.
ANTONY C. SUTTON
Phoenix, Arizona July 30, 1983
AMERICAS SECRET ESTABLISHMENT has had an unusual publishing history.
The book began with an anonymous donation to the author of an 8-inch package of documents in the early 1980s. Nothing less than the membership list and supporting documents for a truly secret society the Yale Skull and Bones.
The late Johnny Johnson, of Phoenix Arizona was the spark that moved me to write first a four-part series and later, a jumbo volume based on this material. This volume went to several editions with several publishers, even a Russian edition of 12,000 copies. Probably in the past few years, as many copies have been sold in Russia as in the United States.
America’s Secret Establishment has had little publicity, few reviews ignored by mainline distributors yet, has sold steadily for the past 16 years at a rate of several hundred copies a month.
This activity, in turn, has generated other articles and books by other authors. But my real intent, to generate an exploration of Hegelian influence in modern America, has not been fulfilled. In great part, this can be attributed to an educational system based on a statist-Hegelian philosophy, and which has already achieved the “dumbing down” of America.
This disastrous, destructive philosophy, the source of both Naziism and Marxism, has infected and corrupted our constitutional republic. Much of the blame for this corruption is with an elitist group of Yalie “Bonesmen.” Their symbol of Skull and Bones, and their Hegelian philosophy, says it all, although with typical duplicity, they would have you believe otherwise.
Hegelianism glorifies the State, the vehicle for the dissemination of statist and materialist ideas and policies in education, science, politics and economics.
Wonder why we have a “dumbed-down” society? Look no further than the Bonesman troika who imported the Prussian education system into the U.S. in the 19`h Century. A political philosophy in direct opposition to the classical liberalism nurtured in 19`h Century British and American history. In classical liberalism, the State is always subordinate to the individual. In Hegelian Statism, as we see in Naziism and Marxism, the State is supreme, and the individual exists only to serve the State.
Our two-parry Republican-Democrat (= one Hegelian party, no one else welcome or allowed) system is a reflection of this Hegelianism. A small group – a very small group – by using Hegel, can manipulate, and to some extent, control society for its own purposes.
More than that, reflect on their pirate flag. An emblem found on poison bottles, the symbol of the Nazi Death Head Division in World War Two. Not only did Skull and Bones become a major force in drug smuggling (the Bush and Prescott families in the 1860s), but in true Hegelian fashion, generated the antithesis, the so-called “war on drugs.” This hypocritical policy maintains the price of drugs, controls supply, and puts millions in jail while the gainers, in great part, are none other than the same “Bonesmen” who pass the laws to prohibit (Bonesman Taft, 1904).
Right and Left – A Control Device
For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as “the march of God on earth.” Indeed, a State religion.
Progress in the Hegelian State is through contrived conflict: the clash of opposites makes for progress. If you can control the opposites, you dominate the nature of the outcome.
We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions – Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and so on – all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of “right” and “left.” They financed and encouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent. This was aided by the “reductionist” division in science, the opposite of historical “wholeness.” By dividing science and learning into narrower and narrower segments, it became easier to control the whole through the parts.
In education, the Dewey system was initiated and promoted by Skull and Bones members. Dewey was an ardent statist, and a believer in the Hegelian idea that the child exists to be trained to serve the State. This requires suppression of individualist tendencies and a careful spoon-feeding of approved knowledge. This “dumbing down” of American education is not easily apparent unless you have studied in both foreign and domestic U.S. universities – then the contrast becomes crystal clear.
This dumbing down is now receiving attention. Two excellent books are The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt (Conscience Press, Revenna Ohio, 2001), and The Dumbing Down of America, by John Taylor Gotta. Both books trace this process to the impact of education, and both give remarkable detail of the process. We go further, in that we trace the import of the system to three Yalies members of Skull & Bones.
For Iserbyt, in The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, the American education system begins with Rockefeller and Gates. But in fact, this statist system is a reflection of the Hegelian ideas brought to the United States by the Skull and Bones “troika” of Gilman, White and Dwight, and then financed by Rockefeller.
People Control
Today in California, one can see in real time the use of controlled conflict to achieve a desired outcome. The debate over the energy crisis is carefully contained to a debate over price caps and price control. Republicans want no caps and no controls. Most Democrats want price controls through caps.
But look at what is NOT discussed anywhere. The entire spectrum of almost free energy, based on a decade of research is carefully kept out of the discussion. Isn’t this highly relevant to an energy crisis?
In fact, the existence of free energy systems just down the road is the reason for the controlled debate. Mills Blacklight Power now has its patents and some utilities have already bought in. Bearden’s MEG energy from space, is under discussion. Working models exist. The maligned cold fusion has hundreds of successful experiments, but so far as we know, cannot be repeated with sufficient assurance. Other systems have come into the view of government agencies, and then disappear from sight.
A knowing public would ask, Why are these not included in the discussion?” – Simple. Because the utilities know they are for real, and only a few years down the road. The problem for utilities is not the price of energy today, but how to dump their fixed assets (hydro plants, transmission lines, etc.) onto the public. These “valuable” assets will have zero value down the road, because all new systems are stand-alone units which don’t need fixed plant and transmission lines. If the public is aware of the dilemma of the utilities, the ability to dump assets onto the State is heavily reduced.
The Republican-Democrat debate over “caps” is a diversion. The relevant question carefully avoided is, how long will it take to get these new systems into production?
Another example is Monsanto Corporation development of genetic engineering and predator seed, a barely-concealed effort for world domination of agriculture.
President George Bush, Jr. , a Bonesman, appoints a Monsanto vice president, Dr. Virginia Weldon, as Director of Food and Drug Administration, which has the power to block labeling of genetically-engineered foods, and pass on other corporate control efforts.
Just before this, in New Technology, we had the 1989 dramatic announcement of “cold fusion.” When this announcement was made public, President George Bush (also a Bonesman) called establishment scientist the late physicist Seagrum into his office and gave instructions.
We don’t know what was said, but we know what happened. Cold fusion, a valid process for free energy, as was subsequently revealed, was slandered and harassed by the establishment, no doubt fearful of what free energy would do to the oil industry.
What is to be Done?
If the voting public was even vaguely aware of this rampant and concealed scenario, it could, and possibly would force change. However, this is not a likely possibility. Most people are “go-along” types, with limited personal objectives and a high threshold for official misdeeds.
What has taken over a century to establish cannot be changed in a few years. The initial question is education. To eliminate the Hegelian system that stifles individual initiative and trains children to become mindless zombies, serving the State.
We need a lot less propaganda for “education” and a more individual creative search for learning. Instead of more money for education, we need to allocate a lot less. The existing system of education is little more than a conditioning mechanism. It has little to do with education in the true sense, and a lot to do with control of the individual.
It is more likely that time, rather than the voting booth, will erode the secret power of this Yale group, Nothing this outrageous can survive forever.
Antony Sutton
The reader anxious to get into the story of The Order should go directly to Memorandum Number Two. This section concerns methods, evidence and proof. Essential, but perhaps boring for most readers.
During the past one hundred years any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical Association and the major foundations with their grantmaking power has been attacked or rejected – not on the basis of any evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the argument to the so-called Eastern Liberal Establishment and its official historical line.
The Official Establishment History
There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of a conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within 9 hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation had barely begun.
Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.
Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books which embarrassed the Establishment after World War One. The reader will be interested to know that The Order we are about to investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association (most economists were then more historians than analysts) under their terms, with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White was a member of The Order and the first President of the American Historical Association.
Failure of Official History
Times have changed. The weaknesses, inconsistencies and plain untruths in official history have surfaced. In the 1980s it is rare to find a thinking reader who accepts official history. Most believe it has been more or less packaged for mass consumption by naive or greedy historians. Although an historian who will stick out his neck and buck the trend is rare, some who do are victims of an even deeper game. Conspiracy then is an accepted explanation for many events at the intelligent grass roots level, that level furthest removed from the influence of The Order. We can cite at random the Kennedy assassination where the official “lone gunman” theory was never accepted by Americans in the street; Watergate, where a “deep throat” informer and erased tapes reek of conspiracy, and Pearl Harbor, where Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Major General Walter C. Short took the rap for General George C. Marshall and President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The revisionist historian has a double burden as well as a double task. The double burden is that research likely to question the official historical line will not get financed. The double task is that research must be more than usually careful and precise.
A non-official work is not going to be judged on its merits. The work will be judged on the basis of its acceptability to a predetermined historical standard. What this standard is we shall explore later.
Hypotheses and Method
Which brings us to methodology. In this volume we will present three hypotheses. What is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is a theory, a working theory, a start point, which has to be supported by evidence. We arrived at these three hypotheses by examining certain documents which will also be described. The official history hatchet mongers will scream that our hypotheses are now being presented as proven assertions – and whatever we write here will not stop the screams. But again, these are only hypotheses at this point, they have to be supported with evidence. They are a first step in a logical research process.
Now in scientific methodology a hypothesis can be proven. It cannot be disproven. It is up to the reader to decide whether the evidence presented later supports, or does not support, the hypotheses. Obviously no one author, critic, or reader can decide either way until all the evidence has been presented.
We also intend to use two other principles of scientific research ignored by official establishment historians.
Firstly, in science the simplest explanation to a problem is always the most acceptable solution. By contrast, in establishment history, a simple answer is usually criticized as “simplistic.” What the critic implies is “The poor writer hasn’t used all the facts,” In other words, it’s a cheap “putdown” without the necessity of providing an alternate answer or additional facts.
Secondly, again in science, an answer that fits the most cases, i.e., the most general answer, is also the most acceptable answer. For example, you have 12 events to explain and a theory that fits 11 of these events. That theory is more acceptable than a theory that fits only 4 or 5 of the events.
The Devil Theory of History
Using this methodology we are going to argue and present detailed precise evidence (including names, dates and places) that the only reasonable explanation for recent history in the United States is that there exists a conspiracy to use political power for ends which are inconsistent with the Constitution.
This is known by the official historians as the “devil theory of history,” which again is a quick, cheap device for brushing facts under the rug. However, these critics ignore, for example, the Sherman Act, i.e., the anti-trust laws where conspiracy is the basic accepted theory. If there can be a conspiracy in the market place, then why not in the political arena? Are politicians any purer than businessmen? Following the antitrust laws we know that conspiracy can only be proven in a specific manner. A similar pattern of market actions is not proof of conspiracy. Just because something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and all the ducks act similarly, does not make it a duck – or a conspiracy. Under the Sherman Act a similar pattern of prices, where all prices are the same, is not proof of conspiracy. Similarity of prices can occur in a purely competitive market. Neither is similar political action necessarily a conspiracy.
Proof of conspiracy requires specific types of evidence, i.e.,:
(a) there must be secret meetings of the participants and efforts made to conceal joint actions,
(b) those meetings must jointly agree to take a course of action,
(c) and this action must be illegal.
The Council on Foreign Relations
Widely accepted explanations of recent history based on a conspiracy theory do not present evidence that fits the above criteria. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations cannot be claimed as a conspiracy even for the period since its founding in 1921. Membership in the CFR is not a secret. Membership lists are freely available for the cost of a postage stamp. There is no proof that the entire membership conspires to commit illegal acts.
What has to be proven in any conspiracy explanation of history is that the participants have secret groupings, and meet to plan illegal actions.
Members of the CFR, when accused of being involved in a conspiracy, have protested to the contrary. And by and large they are right. Most CFR members are not involved in a conspiracy and have no knowledge of any conspiracy. And some personally known to the author are about the last people on earth to get involved in an illegal conspiracy.
HOWEVER, there is a group WITHIN the Council of Foreign Relations which belongs to a secret society, sworn to secrecy, and which more or less controls the CFR. CFR meetings are used for their own purposes, i.e., to push out ideas, to weigh up people who might be useful, to use meetings as a forum for discussion.
These members are in The Order. Their membership in The Order can be proven. Their meetings can be proven. Their objectives are plainly unconstitutional. And this ORDER has existed for 150 years in the United States.
(End of article)
This is just the first chapter of the book. If you would like to read the rest, you can download and read it from the PDF file.
This is a transcript of three tapes on the “New Order of Barbarians”, referred to on the tapes simply as the “new world system.” Tapes one and two were recorded in 1988 and are the recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969 at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. The lecturer at that gathering of pediatricians (identified in tape three recorded in 1991) was a Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time Dr. Day was Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Dr. Dunegan was formerly a student of Dr. Day at the University of Pittsburgh and was well acquainted with him, though not intimately. He describes Dr. Day as an insider of the “Order” and although Dr. Dunegan’s memory was somewhat dimmed by the intervening years, he is able to provide enough details of the lecture to enable any enlightened person to discern the real purposes behind the trends of our time. This is a transcript of a loose, conversational monologue that makes for better listening than reading.
The third and final tape of the “New Order of Barbarians” is an interview by Randy Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, with Dr. Larry Dunegan was taped on Oct. 10, 1991 in Pittsburgh, Penn.
The set of audio tapes may be ordered from the Florida Pro-family Forum, P.O. Box 1059, Highland City, FL 33846-1059 ($20.00).
There has been much written, and much said, by some people who have looked at all the changes that have occurred in American society in the past 20 years or so, and who have looked retrospectively to earlier history of the United States, and indeed, of the world, and come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy of sorts which influences, indeed controls. major historical events, not only in the United States, but around the world. This conspiratorial interpretation of history is based on people making observations from the outside, gathering evidence and coming to the conclusion that from the outside they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and conclusions are based on evidence gathered in retrospect. Period. I want to now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969 which in several weeks will now be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but rather predicting changes that would be brought about in the future. The speaker was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organized power, force, group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events involving countries around the world. And he predicted, or rather expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this century. As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United States in 1969 and the few years there after, and then recall the kinds of changes which have occurred between then and now, almost 20 years later, I believe you will be impressed with the degree to which the things that were planned to be brought about have already been accomplished. Some of the things that were discussed were not intended to be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note: the year of this recording] but are intended to be accomplished before the end of this century. There is a timetable; and it was during this session that some of the elements of the timetable were brought out. Anyone who recalls early in the days of the Kennedy Presidency .. the Kennedy campaign .. when he spoke of .. progress in the decade of the 60’s”: that was kind of a cliché in those days – “the decade of the 60’s.” Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the 70’s, the decade of the 80’s, and the decade of the 90’s. So that .. I think that terminology that we are looking at .. looking at things and expressing things, probably all comes from the same source. Prior to that time I don’t remember anybody saying “the decade of the 40’s and the decade of the 50’s. So I think this overall plan and timetable had taken important shape with more predictability to those who control it, sometime in the late 50’s. That’s speculation on my part. In any event, the speaker said that his purpose was to tell us about changes which would be brought about in the next 30 years or so…so that an entirely new world-wide system would be in operation before the turn of the century. As he put it, “We plan to enter the 21st Century with a running start.” [emphasis supplied]
He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, he said, “Some of you will think I’m talking about Communism. Well, what I’m talking about is much bigger than Communism!” At that time he indicated that there is much more cooperation between East and West than most people realize. In his introductory remarks he commented that he was free to speak at this time. He would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I’m quoting here, “everything is in place and nobody can stop us now.” That’s the end of that quotation. He went on to say that most people don’t understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in governments, including our own, don’t really understand how and where decisions are made. He went on to say that .. he went on to say that people who really influence decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most of us, but he would not use individuals’ names or names of any specific organization. But. That, if he did, most of the people would be names that were recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say that they were not primarily people in public office, but people of prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations or private positions. The speaker was a doctor of medicine, a former professor at a large Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely recognized by anybody likely to hear this, and so there is no point in giving his name. The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least some people are planning for the remainder of this century … so that we, or they, would enter the 21st Century with a flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century. His purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to be brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, “they would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept,” and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.
Somewhere in the introductory remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if his .. if it became widely known what he was about to say to .. to our group .. if it became widely known that indeed he had spilled the beans, so to speak. When I heard first that, I thought maybe that was sort of an ego trip, somebody enhancing his own importance. But as the revelations unfolded, I began to understand why he might have had some concern about not having it widely known what was said, although this .. although this was a fairly public forum where he was speaking, (where the) remarks were delivered. But, nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken .. no tape recording be used: suggesting there might be some personal danger to himself if these revelations were widely publicized. Again, as the remarks began to unfold, and saw the rather outrageous things that were said .. at that time they certainly seemed outrageous .. I made it a point to try to remember as much of what he said as I could, and during the subsequent weeks and months, and years, to connect my recollections to simple events around me .. both to aid my memory for the future, in case I wanted to do what I’m doing now – record this. And also, to try to maintain a perspective on what would be developing, if indeed, it followed the predicted pattern – which it has! At this point, so that I don’t forget to include it later, I’ll just include some statements that were made from time to time throughout the presentation. .. just having a general bearing on the whole presentation. One of the statements was having to do with change. People get used .. the statement was, “People will have to get used to the idea of change, so used to change, that they’ll be expecting change. Nothing will be permanent.” This often came out in the context of a society of .. where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever known. This was sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this time where certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as reference points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked. Another comment that was made .. from time to time during the presentation .. was. “People are too trusting, people don’t ask the right questions.” Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when .. when he would say that and say, “People don’t ask the right questions,” it was almost with a sense of regret … as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.
Another comment that was repeated from time to time, .. this particularly in relation to changing laws and customs, .. and specific changes, .. he said, “Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which will make it acceptable to people and second is the real purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new system and having it,” Frequently he would say, “There is just no other way, There’s just no other way!” This seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly when .. at the conclusion of describing some particularly offensive changes. For example, the promotion of drug addiction which we’ll get into shortly.
He was very active with population control groups, the population control movement, and population control was really the entry point into specifics following the introduction. He said the population is growing too fast. Numbers of people living at any one time on the planet must be limited or we will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our food supply and we will over-populate the world with our waste.
People won’t be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, and the outstanding person or persons might be selected and allowed to have three. But most people would [be] allowed to have only two babies. That’s because the zero population growth rate] is 2.1 children per completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the word “population control primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to be born. But this remark about what people would be “allowed” and then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear “population control” that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavor of an entire .. of the entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognize how one aspect dovetails with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavors.
Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way that people won’t be having babies.
And the first consideration then here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected so closely in people’s minds with sex, that they would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex. And contraception would be made universally available. Nobody wanting contraception would be .. find that they were unavailable. Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptions .. that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. And, contraceptives would be advertised. And contraceptives would be dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!
The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active. At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started. Many, many cities in the United States by this time have already set up school-based clinics which are primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married. .. but that this certainly would not be any longer considered to be necessary for sexual activity.
No surprise then, that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade. He said, “Abortion will no longer be a crime.” Abortion will be accepted as normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won’t matter anymore.
“People will be given permission to be homosexual,” that’s the way it was stated. They won’t have to hide it. And elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. And, I remember thinking, “how arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!” But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Recall back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were very, very high and very revealing. He said, “It is not just the amount of skin that is expressed … exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive.”.. things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. “If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?” was one of the statements. There was not detail on what was meant by “provocative clothing,” but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they’re more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one’s vision to certain anatomic areas. And, this was around the time of the “burn your bra” activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.
Earlier he said .. sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much, much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don’t remember the details. How much of that technology has come to my attention since that time, I don’t remember .. I don’t remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical information.
Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common – nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being together. More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together. This would tend to make the marriage relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less willing to have babies. And, the extended families would be smaller, and more remote. Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who did have to travel would feel they could get back to their families, not that they were abruptly being made remote from their families. But one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one city to another, was to create instability in the families. If both husband and wife are working and one partner gets transferred the other one may not be easily transferred. Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!
Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And after you have had enough of them and you’re no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realize that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these – I don’t remember them all – here are a few – use of very pale printing ink on forms that people .. are necessary to fill out, so that older people wouldn’t be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns – there would be more high-speed traffic lanes .. traffic patterns that would .. that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.
A big item .. was elaborated at some length was the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one’s work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. And unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says, “Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people,” then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. And then the example was – there could be like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. And then after the party’s over they take the “demise pill.”
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation was made, “Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. That (in 1969),” he said, “is now, abundantly evident. But it’s not necessary. We have other ways to control health care.” These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don’t work or can’t work, you won’t have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually nonexistent. Costs would be forced up so that people won’t be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay.. you pay for it, you’re entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realize the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not something that was developed at that time .. I didn’t understand it at the time as an aside, the way this works, everybody’s made dependent on insurance. And if you don’t have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the insurance company does not pay $600 on your part. They pay $300 or $400. And that differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for. They get a discount that’s unavailable to you. When you see your bill you’re grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance. The whole billing is fraudulent. Anyhow, continuing on now, .. access to hospitals would be tightly controlled. Identification would be needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals would be established and gradually increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move around inside the building. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth would be “allowed” and exaggerated; reports of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the need for strict security, until people got used to it. And anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with photograph and.. telling why he was there .. employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves – until it was just accepted. This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places! It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people .. for the treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment. At that .. at that time I did not know the word “Psycho-Prison” – is in the Soviet Union, but, without trying to recall all the details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick, and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.
The image of the doctor would change. No longer would the .. he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician – and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. And he went on to say, “Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other product.” Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an audience of doctors; being addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged, corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical care .. as this gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more and more become employees rather than independent contractors. And along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not his patient. So that’s .. we’ve already seen quite a lot of that in the last 20 years. And apparently more on the horizon. The term HMO was not used at that time, but as you look at HMOs you see this is the way that medical care is being taken over since the National Health Insurance approach did not get through the Congress. A few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it, remaining in solo practice, remaining independent, which, parenthetically, is me. But they would suffer a great loss of income. They’d be able to scrape by, maybe, but never really live comfortably as would those who were willing to become employees of the system. Ultimately, there would be no room at all for the solo practitioner after the system is entrenched.
Next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable – at least for along time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, “is this was what he was talking about? Is this a case of what he was talking about?” Some years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.
Cancer. He said. “We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released. But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else.” Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, “There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination.” Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would not have to .. people would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won’t. This in the connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should then their dietary .. their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease. And he said something about diet information – about proper diet – would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, they would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can’t recall what they were. But I do remember of .. having reflections about wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated foods would be. I regret I don’t remember the details .. the rest of this .. about nutrition and hazardous nutrition. With regard to Exercise. He went on to say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You don’t need any special equipment or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it. “people will be running all over the place.” And in this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made more widely available and glamorized, particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate people to develop an interest in running and .. as part of a whole sort of public propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. Again .. well in connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase. That .. this had a connection with the family too. As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely available – things like you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed. And of course. we’ve now seen this … and some pretty good ones. But this whole different approach to eating out and to .. previously prepared meals being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be brought about – convenience foods. The convenience foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn’t deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people – and the kind you want to live longer.
Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that “we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go.” I remember this only as a general statement. I don’t recall if any details were given beyond that.
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, “Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it’s mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won’t be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don’t need it.
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word – and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word.” I don’t know if I’m making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, “the few who do notice the difference won’t be enough to matter.”
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, “Some of you probably think the Churches won’t stand for this,” and he went on to say, “the churches will help us!” There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, “the churches will help us!” In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, “no they won’t!” and remembering our Lord’s words where he said to Peter, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” So .. yes, some people in the Churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we’ve seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord’s Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Another area of discussion was Education. And one of the things; in connection with education that remember connecting with what he said about religion was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain’s writings was given as one example. But he said, the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. And, somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognize that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn’t learn anything. They’ll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people – their kids will learn more. In the better schools Iearning would be accelerated. And this is another time where he said, “We think we can push evolution.” By pushing kids to learn more he seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve .. sort of pushing evolution .. where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I’m not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer. For most people it would take longer to complete their education. To get what originally had been in a bachelor’s program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was including all schools – elementary up through college – but I don’t recall whether he said that. Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn’t have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval. This seem to be more .. where he talked about limited access to other fields .. I seem to recall that as being more at the college level. high school and college level, perhaps. People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But they won’t be able to get a broad education and won’t be able to understand what is going on overall.
He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time he said anybody who wanted computer access, or access to books that were not directly related to their field of study would have to have a very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied.
Another angle was that the schools would become more important in people’s overall life. Kids in addition to their academics would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids.. the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was – sand lot football and sand lot baseball teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There would be few opportunities outside. Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands. where kids would feel they had to be part of something – one or another athletic club or some school activity – these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn out. He said. “the smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to survive. There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but the unfit won’t be able to make it. They will then move on to other things.” In this connection and later on in the connection with drug abuse and alcohol abuse he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help, and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would fall by the wayside and therefore were sort of dispensable – “expendable” I guess is the word I want. Education would be lifelong. Adults would be going to school. There’ll always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When you can’t keep up anymore, you’re too old. This was another way of letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal – you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.
“
In addition to revising the classics, which I alluded to awhile ago .. with revising the Bible, he said, “some books would just disappear from the libraries.” This was in the vein that some books contain information or contain ideas that should not be kept around. And therefore, those books would disappear. I don’t remember exactly if he said how this was to be accomplished. But I seem to recall carrying away this idea that this would include thefts. That certain people would be designated to go to certain libraries and pick up certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily as a matter of policy – just simply steal it. Further down the line, not everybody will be allowed to own books. And some books nobody will be allowed to own.
Another area of discussion was laws that would be changed. At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws [Sunday laws] would all be repealed. Gambling laws would be repeated or relaxed, so that gambling would be increased. He indicated then that governments would get into gambling. We’ve had a lot of state lotteries pop up around the country since then. And, at the time, we were already being told that would be the case. “Why should all that gambling money be kept in private hands when the State would benefit from it?” was the rational behind it. But people should be able to gamble if they want to. So it would become a civil activity, rather than a private, or illegal activity. Bankruptcy laws would be changed. I don’t remember the details, but just that they would be. And I know subsequent to that time they have been. Antitrust laws would be changed, or be interpreted differently, or both. In connection with the changing anti-trust laws, there was some statement that in a sense. competition would be increased. But this would be increased competition within otherwise controlled circumstances. So it’s not a free competition. I recall of having the impression that it was like competition but within members of a club. There would be nobody outside the club would be able to compete. Sort of like teams competing within a professional sports league .. if you’re the NFL or the American or National Baseball Leagues – you compete within the league but the league is all in agreement on what the rules of competition are – not a really free competition.
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out. There was a statement made at the time: “Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived. You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease. And if you were fit you survived. But now we’ve become so civilized – we’re over civilized – and the unfit are enabled to survive only at the expense of those who are more fit.” And the abusive drugs then, would restore, in a certain sense, the law of the jungle, and selection of the fittest for survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and therefore use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence would be established so that more and more people would lose their privilege to drive.
This also had connection with something we’ll get to later about overall restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don’t have a need to travel that way. It’s a privilege! It was kind of the high-handed the way it was put. Again, much more in the way of psychological services would be made available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea being, that in order to promote this – drug and alcohol abuse to screen out some of the unfit – people who are otherwise are pretty good also would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological counseling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he were saying, “you think we’re bad in promoting these evil things – but look how nice we are – we’re also providing a way out!”
More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.
Nothing is permanent. Streets would be rerouted, renamed. Areas you had not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this would contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on, they feel they couldn’t even keep up with the changes in areas that were once familiar. Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges would be made so that they would collapse after a while, there would be more accidents involving airplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe. Not too long after this presentation, and I think one or two even before in the area where I live, we had some newly constructed bridge to break; another newly constructed bridge defect discovered before it broke, and I remember reading just scattered incidents around the country where shopping malls would fall in right where they were filled with shoppers, and I remember that one of the shopping malls in our area, the first building I’d ever been in where you could feel this vibration throughout the entire building when there were a lot of people in there, and I remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was one of the buildings he was talking about. Talking to construction people and architects about it they would say ‘ “Oh no, that’s good when the building vibrates like that, that means it’s flexible not rigid.” Well, maybe so, we’ll wait and see. Other areas there would be well maintained. Not every part of the city would be slums.
There would be the created slums and other areas well maintained. Those people able to leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better appreciate the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if they left the jungle and came to civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and deteriorating neighborhoods. Then a statement that was kind of surprising: We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas, so it won’t be spread heavily into better areas. I should maybe point out here that these are obviously not word for word quotations after 20 years, but where I say that I am quoting, I am giving the general drift of what was said close to word for word, perhaps not precisely so. But anyhow I remember wondering, how can he be so confident that the criminal element is going to stay where he wants it to stay? But he went on to say that increased security would be needed in the better areas. That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts. He did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major cities. I think the John Birch Society was one that was saying “Support your local police, don’t let them be consolidated.” and I remember wondering if that was one of the things he had in mind about security. It was not explicitly stated. But anyhow he went on to say there would be a whole new industry of residential security systems to develop with alarms and locks and alarms going into the police department so that people could protect their wealth and their well being. Because some of the criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better, more affluent looking areas that looked like they would be worth burglarizing. And again it was stated like it was a redeeming quality: See we’re generating all this more crime but look how good we are – we’re also generating the means for you to protect yourself against the crime. A sort of repeated thing throughout this presentation was the recognized evil and then the self forgiveness thing, well, see we’ve given you a way out.
American industry came under discussion – it was the first that I’d heard the term global interdependence or that notion. The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be assigned different roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system. The continued pre-eminence of the United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the United States would have to be changed. This was one of the several times that he said in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down the old, and American industry was one example of that. Our system would have to be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete against the United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries that would be cut back while the same industries were being developed in other countries, notably Japan. And at this point there was some discussion of steel and particularly automobiles – I remember saying that automobiles would be imported from Japan on an equal footing with our own domestically produced automobiles, but the Japanese product would be better. Things would be made so they would break and fall apart, that is in the United States. so that people would tend to prefer the imported variety and this would give a bit of a boost to foreign competitors. One example was Japanese. In 1969 Japanese automobiles, if they were sold here at all I don’t remember, but they certainly weren’t very popular. But the idea was you could get a little bit disgusted with your Ford, GM or Chrysler product or whatever because little things like window handles would fall off more and plastic parts would break which had they been made of metal would hold up. Your patriotism about buying American would soon give way to practicality that if you bought Japanese, German or imported that it would last longer and you would be better off. Patriotism would go down the drain then. It was mentioned elsewhere things being made to fall apart too. I don’t remember specific items or if they were even stated other than automobiles, but I do recall of having the impression, sort of in my imagination, of a surgeon having something fall apart in his hands in the operating room at a critical time. Was he including this sort of thing in his discussion? But somewhere in this discussion about things being made deliberately defective and unreliable not only was to tear down patriotism but to be just a little source of irritation to people who would use such things. Again the idea that you not feel terribly secure, promoting the notion that the world isn’t a terribly reliable place. The United States was to be kept strong in information, communications, high technology, education and agriculture. The United States was seen as continuing to be sort of the keystone of this global system. But heavy industry would be transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was that we had had enough environmental damage from smoke stacks and industrial waste and some of the other people could put up with that for a while. This again was supposed to be a redeeming quality for Americans to accept. You took away our industry but you saved our environment. So we really didn’t lose on it.
And along this line there were talks about people losing their jobs as a result of industry and opportunities for retraining, and particularly population shifts would be brought about. This is sort of an aside. I think I’ll explore the aside before I forget it -population shifts were to be brought about so that people would be tending to move into the Sun Belt. They would be sort of people without roots in their new locations, and traditions are easier to change in a place where there are a lot of transplanted people, as compared to trying to change traditions in a place where people grew up and had an extended family, where they had roots. Things like new medical care systems, if you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant yourself to the South Sunbelt or Southwest, you’ll be more accepting of whatever kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find there than you would accept a change in the medical care system where you had roots and the support of your family. Also in this vein it was mentioned (he used the plural personal pronoun we) we take control first of the port cities – New York, San Francisco, Seattle – the idea being that this is a piece of strategy, the idea being that if you control the port cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the heartland in between has to yield. I can’t elaborate more on that but it is interesting. If you look around the most liberal areas of the country and progressively so are the sea coast cities. The heartland, the Midwest, does seem to have maintained its conservatism. But as you take away industry and jobs and relocate people then this is a strategy to break down conservatism. When you take away industry and people are unemployed and poor they will accept whatever change seems, to offer them survival, and their morals and their commitment to things will all give way to survival. That’s not my philosophy, that’s the speaker’s philosophy. Anyhow, going back to industry, some heavy industry would remain, just enough to maintain a sort of a seed bed of industrial skills which could be expanded if the plan didn’t work out as it was intended. So the country would not be devoid of assets and skills. But this was just sort of a contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that the worldwide specialization would be carried on. But, perhaps repeating myself, one of the upshots of all of this is that with this global interdependence the national identities would tend to be de-emphasized. Each area depended on every other area for one or another elements of its life. We would all become citizens of the world rather than citizens of any one country.
And along these lines then we can talk about sports. Sports in the United States was to be changed, in part as a way of de-emphasizing nationalism. Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be emphasized and pushed in the United States. This was of interest because in this area the game of soccer was virtually unknown at that time. I had a few friends who attended an elementary school other than the one I attended where they played soccer at their school, and they were a real novelty. This was back in the 50’s. So to hear this man speak of soccer in this area was kind of surprising. Anyhow, soccer is seen as an international sport and would be promoted and the traditional sport of American baseball would be de-emphasized and possibly eliminated because it might be seen as too American. And he discussed eliminating this. one’s first reaction would be – well, they pay the players poorly and they don’t want to play for poor pay so they give up baseball and go into some other sport or some other activity. But he said that’s really not how it works. Actually, the way to break down baseball would be to make the salaries go very high. The idea behind this was that as the salaries got ridiculously high there would be a certain amount of discontent and antagonism as people resented the athletes being paid so much, and the athletes would begin more and more to resent among themselves what other players were paid and would tend to abandon the sport. And these high salaries also could break the owners and alienate the fans. And then the fans would support soccer and the baseball fields could be used as soccer fields. It wasn’t said definitely this would have to happen, but if the international flavor didn’t come around rapidly enough this could be done. There was some comment along the same lines about football, although I seem to recall he said football would be harder to dismantle because it was so widely played in colleges as well as in the professional leagues and would be harder to tear down. There was something else also about the violence in football that met a psychological need that was perceived, and people have a need for this vicarious violence. So football, for that reason, might be left around to meet that vicarious need. The same thing is true of hockey. Hockey had more of an international flavor and would be emphasized. There was some foreseeable international competition about hockey and particularly soccer. At that time hockey was international between the United States and Canada. I was kind of surprised because I thought the speaker just never impressed me as being a hockey fan, and I am. And it turns out he was not. He just knew about the game and what it would do to this changing sports program. But in any event soccer was to be the keystone of athletics because it is already a world wide sport in South America, Europe, and parts of Asia and the United States should get on the bandwagon. All this would foster international competition so that we would all become citizens of the world to a greater extent than citizens of our own narrow nations. There was some discussion about hunting, not surprisingly. Hunting requires guns and gun control is a big element in these plans. I don’t remember the details much, but the idea is that gun ownership is a privilege and not everybody should have guns. Hunting was an inadequate excuse for owning guns and everybody should be restricted in gun ownership. The few privileged people who should be allowed to hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official quarters rather than own their own. After all, everybody doesn’t have a need for a gun, is the way it was put. Very important in sports was sports for girls. Athletics would be pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls. Baby dolls would still be around, a few of them, but you would not see the number and variety of dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls should not be thinking about babies and reproduction. Girls should be out on the athletic field just as the boys are. Girls and boys really don’t need to be all that different. Tea sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these things that traditionally were thought of as feminine would be de-emphasized as girls got into more masculine pursuits. Just one other things I recall was that the sports pages would be full of the scores of girls teams just right along- there with the boys teams. And that’s recently begun to appear after 20 years in our local papers. The girls sports scores are right along with the boys sports scores. So all of this is to change the role model of what young girls should look to be. While she’s growing up she should look to be an athlete rather than to look forward to being a mother.
Entertainment. Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex and language. After all, sex and rough language are real and why pretend that they are not? There would be pornographic movies in the theaters and on television. VCR’s were not around at that time, but he had indicated that these cassettes would be available, and video cassette players would be available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be available for use on these as well as in the neighborhood theater and on your television. He said something like: “you’ll see people in the movies doing everything you can think of.” He went on to say that all of this is intended to bring sex out in the open. That was another comment that was made several times- the term “sex out in the open.” Violence would be made more graphic. This was intended to desensitize people to violence. There might need to be a time when people would witness real violence and be a part of it. Later on it will become clear where this is headed. So there would be more realistic violence in entertainment which would make it easier for people to adjust. People’s attitudes toward death would change. People would not be so fearful of it but more accepting of it, and they would not be so aghast at the sight of dead people or injured people. We don’t need to have a genteel population paralyzed by what they might see. People would just learn to say, well I don’t want that to happen to me. This was the first statement suggesting that the plan includes numerous human casualties which the survivors would see. This particular aspect of the presentation came back in my memory very sharply a few years later when a movie about the Lone Ranger came out and I took my very young son to see it and early in the movie were some very violent scenes. One of the victims was shot in the forehead and there was sort of a splat where the bullet entered his forehead and blood and I remember regretting that I took my son and feeling anger toward the doctor who spoke. Not that he made the movie, but he agreed to be part of this movement, and I was repelled by the movie and it brought back this aspect of his presentation very sharply in my memory. As regards music, he made a rather straightforward statement like: Music will get worse. In 1969 Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was interesting just his words-the way he expressed it ” it would get worse” acknowledging that it was already bad. Lyrics would become more openly sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be publicized like that which had been written before that time. All of the old music would be brought back on certain radio stations and records for older people to hear, and older folks would have sort of their own radio stations to hear and for younger people, their music as it got worse and worse would be on their stations. He seemed to indicate that one group would not hear the other group’s music. Older folks would just refuse to hear the junk that was offered to young people, and the young people would accept the junk because it identified them as their generation and helped them feel distinct from the older generation. I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long because even young kids wouldn’t like the junk when they got a chance to hear the older music that was prettier they would gravitate toward it. Unfortunately I was wrong about that, when the kids get through their teens and into their 20’s some of them improve their taste in music, but unfortunately he was right. They get used to this junk and that’s all they want. A lot of them can’t stand really pretty music. He went on to say that the music would carry a message to the young and nobody would even know the message was there they would just think it was loud music. At the time I didn’t understand quite what he meant by that, but in retrospect I think we know now what the messages are in the music for the young. And again he was right. This aspect was sort of summarized with the notion that entertainment would be a tool to influence young people. It won’t change the older people, they are already set in their ways, but the changes would all be aimed at the young who are in their formative years and the older generation would be passing. Not only could you not change them but they are relatively unimportant anyhow. Once they live out their lives and are gone the younger generation being formed are the ones that would be important for the future in the 21st century. He also indicated all the old movies would be brought back again and I remember on hearing that through my mind ran quickly the memory of a number of old movies. I wondered if they would be included, the ones that I thought I would like to see again. Along with bringing back old music and movies for older people there were other privileges that would also be accorded older folks: free transportation, breaks on purchases, discounts, tax discounts, – a number of privileges just because they were older. This was stated to be sort of a reward for the generation which had grown up through the depression and had survived the rigors of World War II. They had deserved it and they were going to be rewarded with all these goodies, and the bringing back of the good old music and the good old movies was going to help ease them through their final years in comfort. Then the presentation began to get rather grim, because once that generation passed, and that would be in the late 80’s and early 90’s where we are now, most of that group would be gone and then gradually things would tighten up and the tightening up would be accelerated. The old movies and old songs would be withdrawn, the gentler entertainment would be withdrawn.
Travel, instead of being easy for old folks, travel then would become very restricted. People would need permission to travel and they would need a good reason to travel. If you didn’t have a good reason for your travel you would not be allowed to travel, and everyone would need ID. This would at first be an ID card you would carry on your person and you must show when you are asked for it. It was already planned that later on some sort of device would be developed to be implanted under the skin that would be coded specifically to identify the individual. This would eliminate the possibility of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of people saying “Well, I lost my ID.” The difficulty about these skin implant that ID was stated to be getting material that would stay in or under the skin without causing foreign body reaction whereby the body would reject it or cause infection, and that this would have to be material on which information could be recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner while it was not rejected by the body. Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at that time was thought to be well tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small would get silicon implants, and I guess that still goes on. At any rate silicon was seen at that time as the promising material to do both: to be retained in the body without rejection and to be able to retain information retrievable by electronic means.
Food supplies would come under tight control. If population growth didn’t slow down, food shortages could be created in a hurry and people would realize the dangers of overpopulation. Ultimately, whether the population slows down or not the food supply is to be brought under centralized control so that people would have enough to be well-nourished but they would not have enough to support any fugitive from the new system. In other words, if you had a friend or relative who didn’t sign on, and growing ones own food would be outlawed. This would be done under some sort of pretext. In the beginning I mentioned there were two purposes for everything – one the ostensible purpose and one the real purpose, and the ostensible purpose here would be that growing your own vegetables was unsafe, it would spread disease or something like that. So the acceptable idea was to protect the consumer but the real idea was to limit the food supply and growing your own food would be illegal. And if you persist in illegal activities like growing your own food, then you’re a criminal.
There was a mention then of weather. This was another really striking statement. He said, “We can or soon will be able to control the weather.” He said, “I’m not merely referring to dropping iodide crystals into the clouds to precipitate rain that’s already there, but REAL control.” And weather was seen as a weapon of war, a weapon of influencing public policy. It could make rain or withhold rain in order to influence certain areas and bring them under your control. There were two sides to this that were rather striking. He said, “On the one hand you can make drought during the growing season so that nothing will grow, and on the other hand you can make for very heavy rains during harvest season so the fields are too muddy to bring in the harvest, and indeed one might be able to do both.” There was no statement how this would be done. It was stated that either it was already possible or very very close to being possible.
Politics. He said that very few people really know how government works. Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in ways that they don’t even realize and they carry out plans that have been made for them and they think that they are authors of the plans. But actually they are manipulated in ways they don’t understand.
Somewhere in the presentation he made two statements that I want to insert at this time. I don’t remember just where they were made, but they’re valid in terms of the general overall view. One statement: “People can carry in their minds and act upon two contradictory ideas at one time, provided that these two contradictory ideas are kept far enough apart.” And the other statement is, “You can know pretty well how rational people are going to respond to certain circumstances or to certain information that they encounter. So, to determine the response you want you need only control the kind of data or information that they’re presented or the kinds of circumstance that they’re in; and being rational people they’ll do what you want them to do. They may not fully understand what they’re doing or why.”
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be – and indeed has been – falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here was said, “People don’t ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting.” Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all … well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church … you just don’t do that. Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N . and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty. Economic interdependence would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint. Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was recognized that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war. It was stated at this point that war was “obsolete.” I thought that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete … this being because of the nuclear bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the “wrong hands” are. We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent years I’m wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people that we’ve assumed that they’ve had nuclear weapons all along … maybe they don’t have them. Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved in the United States – a little bit just in case the world wide plans didn’t work out; just in case some country or some other powerful person decided to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether this might also be true with nuclear weapons. When you hear that … he said they might fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them. But I recall wondering at the time, “Are you telling us, or are you implying that this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?.” At that time that seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to assert independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don’t know. It’s something to speculate about perhaps … Who did he mean when he said, “If these weapons fall into the wrong hands”? Maybe just terrorists. Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation – everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty – then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the New International Political System. This was stated and very impressive thing to hear then … “If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two – possibly more – nuclear weapons. As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people that “We mean business.” That was followed by the statement that, “By the time one or two of those went off then everybody – even the most reluctant – would yield.” He said something about “this negotiated peace would be very convincing”, as kind of in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about war … one, you’re going to die anyway, and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism and if they die they’ve died well and if they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that’s the reward they get out of their warring. Another justification expressed for war was, if you think of the many millions of casualties in WWI and WWII, well.. suppose all those people had not died but had continued to live, then continued to have babies. There would be millions upon millions and we would already be overpopulated, so those two great wars served a benign purpose in delaying over-population. But now there are technological means for the individual and governments to control over-population so in this regard war is obsolete. It’s no longer needed. And then again it’s obsolete because nuclear weapons could destroy the whole universe. War, which once was controllable, could get out of control and so for these two reasons it’s now obsolete.
There was a discussion of terrorism. Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the world. Terrorism at that time was thought would not be necessary in the United States. It could become necessary in the United States if the United States did not move rapidly enough into accepting the system. But at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned. And very benignly on their part. Maybe terrorism would not be required here, but the implication being that it would be indeed used if it was necessary. Along with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had had it too good anyway and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince Americans that the world is indeed a dangerous place … or can be if we don’t relinquish control to the proper authorities.
There was discussion of money and banking. One statement was, “Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite number of zeros after any number and put the decimals points wherever you want”, as an indication that inflation is a tool of the controllers. Money would become predominately credit. It was already … money is primarily a credit thing but exchange of money would be not cash or palpable things but electronic credit signal. People would carry money only in very small amounts for things like chewing gum and candy bars. Just pocket sorts of things. Any purchase of any significant amount would be done electronically. Earnings would be electronically entered into your account. It would be a single banking system. May have the appearance of being more than one but ultimately and basically it would be one single banking system, so that when you got paid your pay would be entered for you into your account balance and then when you purchased anything at the point of purchase it would be deducted from your account balance and you would actually carry nothing with you. Also computer records can be kept on whatever it was you purchased so that if you were purchasing too much of any particular item and some official wanted to know what you were doing with your money they could go back and review your purchases and determine what you were buying. There was a statement that any purchase of significant size like an automobile, bicycle, a refrigerator, a radio or television or whatever might have some sort of identification on it so it could be traced, so that very quickly anything which was either given away or stolen – whatever – authorities would be able to establish who purchased it and when. Computers would allow this to happen. The ability to save would be greatly curtailed. People would just not be able to save any considerable degree of wealth. There was some statement of recognition that wealth represents power and wealth in the hands of a lot of people is not good for the people in charge so if you save too much you might be taxed. The more you save the higher rate of tax on your savings so your savings really could never get very far. And also if you began to show a pattern of saving too much you might have your pay cut. We would say, “Well, your saving instead of spending. You really don’t need all that money.” That basically the idea being to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have long range disruptive influence on the system. People would be encouraged to use credit to borrow and then also be encouraged to renege on their debt so they would destroy their own credit. The idea here is that, again, if you’re too stupid to handle credit wisely, this gives the authorities the opportunity to come down hard on you once you’ve shot your credit. Electronic payments initially would all be based on different kinds of credit cards … these were already in use in 1969 to some extent. Not as much as now. But people would have credit cards with the electronic strip on it and once they got used to that then it would be pointed out the advantage of having all of that combined into a single credit card, serving a single monetary system and then they won’t have to carry around all that plastic.
So the next step would be the single card and then the next step would be to replace the single card with a skin implant. The single card could be lost or stolen, give rise to problems; could be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify. The skin implant on the other hand would be not losable or counterfeitable or transferrable to another person so you and your accounts would be identified without any possibility of error. And the skin implants would have to be put some place that would be convenient to the skin; for example your right hand or your forehead. At that time when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in the Book of Revelation. The speaker went on to say, “Now some of you people who read the Bible will attach significance to this to the Bible,” but he went on to disclaim any Biblical significance at all. This is just common sense of how the system could work and should work and there’s no need to read any superstitious Biblical principals into it. As I say, at the time I was not very familiar with the words of Revelations. Shortly after I became familiar with it and the significance of what he said really was striking. I’ll never forget it. There was some mention, also, of implants that would lend themselves to surveillance by providing radio signals. This could be under the skin or a dental implant … put in like a filling so that either fugitives or possibly other citizens could be identified by a certain frequency from his personal transmitter and could be located at any time or any place by any authority who wanted to find him. This would be particularly useful for somebody who broke out of prison. There was more discussion of personal surveillance. One more thing was said, “You’ll be watching television and somebody will be watching you at the same time at a central monitoring station.” Television sets would have a device to enable this. The T.V. set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative. Also, the television set can be used to monitor what you are watching. People can tell what you’re watching on TV and how you’re reacting to what you’re watching. And you would not know that you were being watched while you were watching your television. How would we get people to accept these things into their homes? Well, people would buy them when they buy their own television. They won’t know that they’re on there at first. This was described by being what we now know as Cable TV to replace the antenna TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor would just be part of the set and most people would not have enough knowledge to know it was there in the beginning. And then the cable would be the means of carrying the surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people found out that this monitoring was going on, they would also be very dependent upon television for a number of things. Just the way people are dependent upon the telephone today. One thing the television would be used for would be purchases. You wouldn’t have to leave your home to purchase. You just turn on your TV and there would be a way of interacting with your television channel to the store that you wanted to purchase. And you could flip the switch from place to place to choose a refrigerator or clothing. This would be both convenient, but it would also make you dependent on your television so the built-in monitor would be something you could not do without. There was some discussion of audio monitors, too, just in case the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in rooms other than where the television monitor was, and in regard to this the statement was made, “Any wire that went into your house, for example your telephone wire, could be used this way. I remember this in particular because it was fairly near the end of the presentation and as we were leaving the meeting place I said something to one of my colleagues about going home and pulling all of the wires out of my house.. except I knew I couldn’t get by without the telephone. And the colleague I spoke to just seemed numb. To this day I don’t think he even remembers what we talked about or what we hear that time, cause I’ve asked him. But at that time he seemed stunned. Before all these changes would take place with electronic monitoring, it was mentioned that there would be service trucks all over the place, working on the wires and putting in new cables. This is how people who were on the inside would know how things were progressing.
Privately owned housing would become a thing of the past. The cost of housing and financing housing would gradually be made so high that most people couldn’t afford it. People who already owned their houses would be allowed to keep them but as years go by it would be more and more difficult for young people to buy a house. Young people would more and more become renters, particularly in apartments or condominiums. More and more unsold houses would stand vacant. People just couldn’t buy them. But the cost of housing would not come down. You’d right away think, well the vacant house, the price would come down, the people would buy it. But there was some statement to the effect that the price would be held high even though there were many available so that free market places would not operate. People would not be able to buy these and gradually more and more of the population would be forced into small apartments. Small apartments which would not accommodate very many children. Then as the number of real home-owners diminished they would become a minority. There would be no sympathy for them from the majority who dwelled in the apartments and then these homes could be taken by increased taxes or other regulations that would be detrimental to home ownership and would be acceptable to the majority. Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live and it would be common to have non-family members living with you. This by way of your not knowing just how far you could trust anybody. This would all be under the control of a central housing authority. Have this in mind in 1990 when they ask, “How many bedrooms in your house? How many bathrooms in your house? Do you have a finished game room?.” This information is personal and is of no national interest to government under our existing Constitution. But you’ll be asked those questions and decide how you want to respond to them.
When the new system takes over people will be expected to sign allegiance to it, indicating that they don’t have any reservations or holding back to the old system. “There just won’t be any room”, he said, “for people who won’t go along. We can’t have such people cluttering up the place so such people would be taken to special places”, and here I don’t remember the exact words, but the inference I drew was that at these special places where they were taken, then they would not live very long. He may have said something like, “disposed of humanely”, but I don’t remember very precisely … just the impression the system was not going to support them when they would not go along with the system. That would leave death as the only alternative. Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs. When I first heard this I thought it meant the people would not be killed, but as the presentation developed what he meant was they would not be killed in such a way or disposed of in such a way that they could serve as inspiration to other people the way martyrs do. Rather he said something like this. “People will just disappear.” Just a few additional items sort of thrown in here in the end which I failed to include where they belong more perfectly. One: The bringing in of the new system he said probably would occur on a weekend in the winter. Everything would shut down on Friday evening and Monday morning when everybody wakened there would be an announcement that the New System was in place. During the process in getting the United States ready for these changes everybody would be busier with less leisure time and less opportunity to really look about and see what was going on around them. Also, there would be more changes and more difficulty in keeping up as far as one’s investments. Investment instruments would be changing. Interest rates would be changing so that it would be a difficult job with keeping up with what you had already earned. Interesting about automobiles; it would look as though there were many varieties of automobiles, but when you look very closely there would be great duplication. They would be made to look different with chrome and wheel covers and this sort of thing, but looking closely one would see that the same automobile was made by more than one manufacturer. This recently was brought down to me when I was in a parking lot and saw a small Ford – I forget the model – and a small Japanese automobile which were identical except for a number of things like the number of holes in the wheel cover and the chrome around the plate and the shape of the grill. But if you looked at the basic parts of the automobile, they were identical. They just happened to be parked side-by-side where I was struck with this and I was again reminded of what had been said many years ago. I’m hurrying here because I’m just about to the end of the tape. Let me just summarize her by saying, all of these things said by one individual at one time in one place relating to so many different human endeavors and then to look and see how many of these actually came about … that is changes accomplished between then and now [1969 – 1988] and the things which are planned for the future, I think there is no denying that this is controlled and there is indeed a conspiracy. The question then becomes what to do. I think first off, we must put our faith in God and pray and ask for his guidance. And secondly do what we can to inform other individuals as much as possible, as much as they may be interested. Some people just don’t care, because they’re preoccupied with getting along in their own personal endeavors. But as much as possible I think we should try to inform other people who may be interested, and again … put our faith and trust in God and pray constantly for his guidance and for the courage to accept what we may be facing in the near future. Rather than accept peace and justice which we hear so much now … it’s a cliché. Let’s insist on liberty and justice for all.
Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don’t we open up with a little bit about the man who you are talking about on these tapes. Just a little profile and a little bit about his education and particularly his relationship with the population control establishment. I think that probably was his entree into much of this information.
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan (DLD): Yeah. Dr. Day was the Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh from about 1959 thru ’64, about that period of time, and then he left the University of Pittsburgh and went to fill the position of Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
R.E: And that was what… about 1965 to ’68, about that period?
D.L.D: About ’64 or ’65 ’til about ’68 or ’69, and then he left there… I don’t know specifically why, I did not know him intimately. We were, you know, more than acquainted… I was a student and he would see me at lectures and, so he knew my name as a student, probably corrected some of my test scores and that sort of thing. Of course, I knew him as lecturer – would stand in front of the auditorium and listen as he talked about diseases… and take notes.
R.E: What’s interesting is that this man is not as well known, I think to our listeners as names like Mary Calderone and Allen Gootmacher(sp). They were medical directors at one time or another for Planned Parenthood, but Dr. Day was not well known. And as a matter of fact when I went back into the SIECUS archives there was very little information that had his actual name on it. So he was not one of the better known of the medical directors, but I’d say he probably had the scoop of what was going on as well – if not better – than any of the others before or after he came. Can you describe the scene of this particular lecture, the approximate date, and what was the occasion – and then a little bit about the audience?
D.L.D: This was the… the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society holds about four meetings each year where we have some speaker come in and talk about a medical topic related to pediatrics and this was our spring meeting. It’s always late February or early part of March. This was in March, 1969 and it was held at a restaurant called the Lamont which is well known in Pittsburgh. Beautiful place. In attendance, I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 people. Mostly physicians, if not exclusively physicians. Predominantly pediatricians, particularly pediatric surgeons and pediatric radiologists – other people who were involved in medical care of children, even though they might not be pediatricians as such.
R.E: And the speech was given after the meal, I presume?
D.L.D: A very nice meal and everyone was settled down, quite comfortable and quite filled and really an ideal state to absorb what was coming.
R.E: But when you listen to the tape, he says some of the most… well not only outrageous things, but things you would think a pediatrician would kind of almost jump out of his seat at… for example when he mentions the cancer cures. There were probably doctors in the audience who were perhaps treating a child or knowing of a child who was in need of a particular cancer cure. And to hear that some of these prescriptions for or treatments for cancer were sitting over at the Rockefeller Institute, and yet, as far as I got from the tape everyone just kind of sat there… didn’t say very much. I mean he was talking about falsifying scientific data and everyone just kind of yawns and… How long did this speech go on?
D.L.D: Two hours. He spoke for over two hours which was longer than most of our speakers go and one of the interesting things… he hasn’t finished, it was getting late and he said, “there’s much much more, but we could be here all night but it’s time to stop”.
And I think that’s significant, that there was much more that we never heard. In the beginning of the presentation, I don’t know whether I mentioned this at the introduction of the first tape or not, but somewhere in the beginning of this he said, “You will forget most or much of what I’m going to tell you tonight.”
And at the time I thought, well, sure, that’s true. We tend to forget. You know, somebody talks for hours you forget a lot of what they say. But, there is such a thing as the power of suggestion and I can’t say for sure but I do wonder if this may not have been a suggestion when we were all full of a nice dinner and relaxed and listening – we took that suggestion and forgot, because I know a number of my colleagues who were there when I would – some years later – say, “Do you remember when Dr. Day said this, or he said that or said the other?” They’d say, “Well, yeah, I kind of… is that what he said? You know I kind of remember that”.
But most were not very impressed, which to me was surprising because… well use the example of cancer cures. But he said a number of things that…
R.E: Like doctors making too much money…?
D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image of the doctor. You’re just going to be a high-paid technician rather than a professional who exercises independent judgment on behalf of his independent patient. A number of things that I thought should have been offensive and elicited a reaction from physicians because they were physicians. I was surprised at how little reaction there was to it. And then other things that I would have expected people to react to just because they were human beings and I think most of the people at the meeting subscribed more or less to the Judeo-Christian ethic and codes of behavior, and that was violated right and left. And particularly one of my friends I thought would be as disturbed as I was about this just sort of smiled… wasn’t disturbed at a ll. I thought, gee, this is surprising.
R.E: Was part of it also because of his prominence? I mean he was…
D.L.D: The authority… Authority figure? Yeah, I think there might be something there. This is the authority. We sort of owe some deference here.
R.E: And he couldn’t possibly mean what he’s saying or there couldn’t possibly be any… I mean, he’s such a good guy.
D.L.D: I’ve often heard that phrase, “He’s such a good guy. I can’t believe he’d actually mean the things”… I can only speculate about this. But I do think at the time there was an element of disbelief about all of this. Thinking, well this is somebody’s fairy tale plan but it will never really happen because it’s too outlandish. Of course we know step by step it is indeed happening right under our feet.
R.E: Before talking about the specific areas, I think there’s a lot of benefits from this tape. One of them is when we have a good idea of what the opposition is about and the techniques he’s using – then you can turn around and begin your resistance to all the types of manipulations and so forth. So I think that the… seeing that there were four or five “theme songs” – he kept repeating them over and over again.
For example this business which I think is so important… that people fail to distinguish between the ostensible reason and the real reason. In other words, if you want someone to do something and you know that initially he’ll be balky at doing that because it’s against his morals or against his religious beliefs, you have to substitute another reason that will be acceptable. And then, after he accepts it and it’s a fait accompli then there’s just no turning back.
D.L.D: Right. It was in that connection that he said, “People don’t ask the right questions.” Too trusting. And this was directed, as I recall, mostly at Americans. I had the feelings he thought Europeans maybe were more skeptical and more sophisticated. That Americans are too trusting and don’t ask the right questions.
R.E: With regard to this lack of… almost a lack of discernment. I guess that’s basically what he was saying. They were easily tricked or too trusting. The thing that flashed through my mind rather quickly, for example in schools… how quickly so-called AIDS education was introduced.
It did amaze me because if a group stated publicly that they wanted to introduce the concept of sodomy or initiate sex earlier and earlier in children and that was the reason given, most parents I presume wouldn’t go for that. So you have to come up with another reason and of course the reason for this so-called AIDS education was to protect children from this disease. But actually, as it turns out, it’s really been a great boon for the homosexual network, because through various things like Project Ten they now have access to our children from the youngest years.
These programs are going on from K-12 and I imagine well into college and beyond, so that they are reaching a tremendous segment. Speaking of children, I gather that this speaker… he kept on making the point about, well, old people, they’re going to go by the wayside, so I presume that the emphasis for these controllers for this New World Order is really an emphasis on youth.
D.L.D: Absolutely. Yes. Emphasis on youth. This was stated explicitly. People beyond a certain age… they’re set in their ways and you’re not going to change them. They have values and they’re going to stick to them. But you get to the youth when they’re young, they’re pliable. You mold them in the direction you want them to go. This is correct. They’re targeting the young. They figure, “you old fogies that don’t see it our way, you’re going to be dying off or when the time comes we’re going to get rid of you. But it’s the youngsters we have to mold in the impression we want.”
Now something on homosexuality I want to expand on, I don’t think this came out on the original tape, but there was, first of all, “We’re going to promote homosexuality.” And secondly “We recognize that it’s bizarre abnormal behavior. But, this is another element in the law of the jungle, because people who are stupid enough to go along with this are not fit to inhabit the planet and they’ll go by the wayside”.
I’m not stating this precisely the way he said it, but it wasn’t too far from there where there was some mention of diseases being created. And when I remember the one statement and remember the other statement, I believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the laboratory and I think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who are so stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe themselves out.
Now it’s hard for me make clear how much of it is I’m remembering with great confidence and how much is pure speculation. But as I synthesize this – this is I think what happens… “If you’re dumb enough to be convinced by our promotion of homosexuality you don’t deserve a place and you’re going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We’ll be rid of you. We’ll select out… the people who will survive are those who are also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda”. Does that make sense?
R.E: Well, it certainly makes sense for them. And I think also this early sex initiation has the over all purpose which I think we’ll get to in depth a little later. But of the sexualization of the population… when he said on the tape, basically, “Anything goes”, I think that is what we’re seeing. It’s not so much that, let’s say, someone may not adopt the homosexual style for himself, but as a result of the propaganda he certainly will be a lot more tolerant of that type of behavior too.
So it’s a desensitization, even for the individual who doesn’t go over and accept it for himself.
D.L.D: With the power of propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals, otherwise you get labeled homophobe. You dare not be against any of our programs for women, otherwise you’re a male chauvinist pig. It’s like anti-Semitism. If this label gets enough currency in the culture that people get shockingly stuck with it. It’s easier to keep quiet.
R.E: Another theme was this business about “CHANGE”. And I want to get to change in relation to religion and family, but during the period of hearing this tape, I remember going to a MASS and they happened to have at that point DANCING GIRLS FROM THE ALTER. So when I was sitting and getting a chance to listen to the tape I thought, as a Catholic that has been… if you talk about effective change, that has been probably the most difficult and the hardest thing has been to watch our traditional Mass, those things which Catholics have practiced and believed for so long and… at about that time this speech was given which was about late 1969, everything had begun to turn over on its head, so much so that I think many people feel now when they go into a church where there is the Novus Ordo (sp), I think you’re almost in a state of constant anxiety because you’re not quite sure… What am I going to encounter now?
You look at the little song book; of course that’s changed radically and you see, instead of brethren, you see people; or you might see something odd happening up at the alter which is now the “table”.
The notion of God as eternal and the teachings of Jesus Christ as eternal, and therefore the teachings of the church as eternal depends on the authority of God, and God brings about change in God’s way. What this boils down to me is these people say, “No, we take the place of God; we establish what will change and what will not change, so if we say that homosexuality or anything is moral today… wasn’t yesterday, but it is today. We have said so, and therefore it’s moral. We can change tomorrow. We can make it immoral again tomorrow”. And this is the usurpation of the role of God to define what the peon, the ordinary person’s supposed to believe.
D.L.D: So, the idea is, that if everybody is used to change most people aren’t going to ask, “Well who has decided what should be changed and how it should be changed”? Most people just go along with it, like hemlines, and shoe styles and that sort of thing. So it IS a usurpation of the Rule of God, and if you read the Humanist Manifesto, and somewhere early in the introductory part of it, they say, “human intellect is the highest good”. Well, to any human being, what you call the highest good, that’s your god. So to these people human intellect being the highest good is god. And where does human intellect reside? Well, in the brain of one or more human beings. So these people, in effect… I don’t know think they’d be so candid as to say so, but whether they know it or not what they’re saying is, “I am god. WE are gods, because we decide what is moral what is moral tomorrow, what is going to be moral next year. WE determine change.”
R.E: That’s right. And of course, in a nutshell, you’ve just explained the human potential, the New Age, all the new esoteric movements that we’ve seen. But with regard to change, he seemed to acknowledge that there were a couple of entities which traditionally blocked this change and therefore made people resistant to constant manipulation.
And of course one of those is the family, and that would include grandmothers, grandfathers, our ethnic background and so forth and I guess I was impressed by everything he seemed to mention whether it was economics, music… had the overall effect of diminishing the family and enhancing the power of the state.
That was a constant theme, and therefore when we’re evaluating things I think one of the things we should generally say to ourselves is, “What effect does that have on family life, and the family and I think if every congressman or senator asked that question we probably wouldn’t have much action up on Capitol Hill, because almost everything coming down the pike has an effect of disavowing, hurting the family life and enhancing and expanding the power of government.
D.L.D: It has an ostensible purpose, and then it has a REAL purpose.
R.E: Yes, and as a so-called helping professional your ability to say that is very interesting. The other factor is this whole factor of religion, and he was talking basically about a religion without dogma, a religion that would have a little bit from all the other traditional religions so no one would really feel uncomfortable, and he said, rather condescendingly, some people need this and if they need it we’ll manufacture something that they need. But of course it can’t be anything that would declare anything that were moral absolutes or the natural law. Which means that the main target of this group of controllers of course, was and is the Roman Catholic Church and he mentioned the Roman Catholic Church specifically.
D.L.D: Religion’s important because it is eternal and we… people who would follow the church will not buy our rules about change. But if we make our own religion, if we define what is religion then we can change it as it suits us. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church… I was kind of flattered sitting here as a catholic, hearing it pointed out that the church is the one obstacle that, he said, “We have to change that. And once the Roman Catholic Church falls, the rest of Christianity will fall easily”.
R.E: I notice that, as the conversation went on, he said, “Now you may think Churches will stand in the way, but I want to tell you that they will HELP us”, and he didn’t say they will help us, all except the Roman Catholic Church… he said, “They will help us”, and unfortunately…
D.L.D: He was right.
RE: He didn’t say this explicitly, but again it was one of those themes that came through… he apparently thought the use of words was real important because he mentioned this with regard to a number of things, like the Bible. The very same as the psychiatrist, Miralu(sp?) mentioned that “if you want to control the people, you control the language first”. Words are weapons. He apparently knew that very well and I think the controllers as a whole know this very well. Of course, it’s part of their campaign.
But that little statement about words, that “words will be changed”. When I heard that I thought… “Instead of saying ‘alter’ you say ‘table’. Instead of saying ‘sacrifice’ you say ‘meal’ with regard to the Mass”, and people say, “That’s not important”. Of course, you know that’s VERY important, otherwise, why would they bother to change it? Otherwise, why go through all this rigmarole if it isn’t important? It’s obviously important for them because they know WITH THE CHANGING OF WORDS YOU CHANGE IDEAS.
D.L.D: They’re exerting a lot of effort and time to change it and they’re not exerting effort on things that are NOT important, so yes, you’re absolutely right. The priest no longer has the role… in some cases he no longer has the role the priest formerly had. Because words carry meaning. There’s the dictionary definition, but I think we all know that certain words carry meaning that is a little bit hard to put into words… but they carry meaning.
So yes, controlling the language… you THINK in your language. You think to yourself in English or Spanish or whatever language you’re familiar with, but when you think, you talk to yourself and you talk to yourself in words, just the way you talk to other people. And if you can control the language with which one person speaks to himself or one person speaks to another you’ve gone a long way towards controlling what that person is ABLE – what he is CAPABLE of thinking, and that has both an inclusionary and an exclusionary component to it. You set the tone….
R.E: Take the word GAY, for example. I have some old tapes by Franz Layhar(sp?) and he talks about the GAY Hussars, you know… the happy soldiers… and now you couldn’t quite use that same word, could you? But you know, the word homosexual, sodomite has been replaced with the term “gay”, represents an ideology not only a word and when you use it, it’s tacit to saying, “Yes, I accept what your interpretation of this is”.
D.L.D: They probably had a committee working for months to pick which word they were going to use for this. The word “gay” carries a connotation, first of all, which is inaccurate. Most homosexuals are not at all gay. They tend to be pretty unhappy people. Despite all the publicity that tells them they can and should feel comfortable with what they’re doing, most of them deep down inside don’t… (both talking at the same time here).
R.E: I suppose they’re going to come up with a sadophobia for those who have a hang-up about sadomasochism and a pedophobia for those who have difficulties with pedophilia, so we can just look forward to this I think. I guess we can look forward to it to the extent we permit ourselves… that we permit the opposition to have access to the brain.
D.L.D: And to dictate the truth WE use. Sex education is NOT education. It’s conditioning, and we should never use the term “sex education”. It’s a misnomer. If they control the vocabulary, then they can control the way we can think and the way we can express ideas among ourselves and to anybody. But “sex conditioning”, “sex initiation” is much more accurate and we should insist on that. We should never use terms “homophobia” and “gay”. Homosexual is homosexual. It’s not at all gay.
R.E: That’s right. In fact we’re probably going to have to do some homework on… probably of all the popular movements in the U.S. Probably the pro-life movement is the most sensitive to words.
Talking about media events and access to the brain, I remember the first speech Bush gave in which he talked about the New World Order… I remember jumping halfway off my seat. That term. Here he is, the president, saying New World Order as if it was something everyone knew about. And someone looking across the room said, “I heard that. What did he say”? And I said, “He said, ‘New World Order’!” And they said, “What does that mean? Why is that extraordinary?”
So, I think one of the weapons we have against the controllers is that if we can cut off his access to our mind then we have a shot at escaping the manipulation, if not totally – at least escape a portion of the manipulations. Remember, one of the books on Chinese POWs pointed out that some of their survivors in order NOT to be brainwashed broke their eardrums. And in that way – not being able to hear – the enemy could not have access to their brain and therefore they were able to survive where others did not.
And in our popular culture we have a number of things… TV and radio probably primarily, that are the constant means by which the opposition has access to our brain and to our children’s brains. So I think the logical conclusion, and one of the common-sense conclusions is that if you don’t want the enemy to have access you have to cut off the lines of access… which would be in homes to simply either eliminate altogether, or control by other forms….
D.L.D: Take the networks at there word. They say, “if you don’t like our programming, turn it off”. And we should. We should say, “Yeah. You’re right.” And we should turn it off. And let the advertisers spend their money on an audience that isn’t there.
As a pediatrician I’m always interested in how kids do things and how kids are like adults, and whether you’re talking about International politics where one nation goes to war with another or kids on the playground, there are certain things that are common. It’s just that kids on the playgrounds do it on a smaller scale. But you mention cutting off access to your brain… somebody says, I don’t want to hear it. And I remember hearing kids on a playground… somebody says…”ya-na-na na naa-na”, and they’re teasing the kid… What’s he do? He puts his hands over his ears. Says I’m not going to listen. And the kid who’s trying to torment him will try to pull his hands away and be sure that he listens. And it’s the same….
R.E: Words. Words entering. And the child knows. Words have meaning. They’re hurting him.
D.L.D: Goebels knew it. Lenin knew it. CBS knows it. It’s interesting; the principle stands – across the board. It just gets more complicated as you get older. More sophisticated. But watch kids on a playground and you’ll learn a whole lot about adults.
R.E: Yes. We’re all nodding our heads at that one. This Dr. Day was very much into the whole population control establishment, and he was of course in favor of abortion. But as he started talking about the aged and euthanasia I recall one of the population- control books saying that birth control without death control was meaningless.
And one of the advantages in terms… if one was favorable toward the killing of the aged… one of the favorable things is in fact abortion for the simple reason that — universally speaking — abortion has the result of bringing about a rather inordinate chopping off of population at the front end. That is, at the birth end. And the inevitable effect is that you will have a population that is top heavy with a rapidly aging population which is the current state in the United States.
So, inevitably, if you are going to go about killing the young, especially at the pace we seem to have adapted ourselves to in this country, then invariably you’re going to have to do something about all those aging populations. Because, the few children who are born, after all, they cannot be expected to carry this tremendous burden of all these people. So you’re cutting one end and therefore, inevitably, as you pointed out on the tape, he was saying, “Well, these few young people who are permitted to be born will feel this inevitable burden on them and so they’ll be more desensitized.”
They’ll be more warmed up to the idea of grandma and grandpa having this little party and then shuffle them off to wherever they shuffle off to. And whether it’s taking the “demise” pill or going to a death camp, or….
D.L.D: There was a movie out sometime back called “Soilant Green”. Remember that movie? I didn’t see the whole movie, but Edward G. Robinson liked to sit in the theatre and listen to Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony as he was to take his demise pill.
R.E: That’s right. He also made the point that the food the people were eating were each other. But as he said, as long as it’s done with dignity and humanely… like putting away your horse.
D.L.D: That’s a little bit like pornography. Years back kids would come across pornography. It was always poor photography and cheap paper. Then Playboy came out with the glossy pages and really good photography, so then pornography is no longer cheap. It’s respectable. We went to a movie at the Pittsburgh Playhouse. I took my son along. It was the Manchurian Candidate. During the previews of the things that are going to come there was a title I don’t remember but it was (inaudible) in technicolor with classical music in the background.
And it was a pornographic movie. And I said, well, if you have a guitar then it’s pornography; but if you have classical movie then it converts it into art. It was pornography.
It’s an example of what you were saying. As long as it’s done with dignity, that’s what counts. If you kill someone with dignity, it’s ok. If you have pornography with classical music it’s art. That was the point I was trying to make.
R.E: Again, talking about the family. Currently I know there are an awful lot of people who are out of jobs and he [Dr. Day] had quite a lot of things to say about, for example, heavy industry. I guess the shock was that this man… I wasn’t surprised that he knew a lot about population control, abortion, and at the other end — euthanasia.
But what DID surprise me was that he was an individual who was talking about religion, law, education, sports, entertainment, food… how could one individual have that much input? Now one could say, “well, it didn’t pan out”. But we know listening to these recollections twenty years later… except perhaps for some minor things, everything that he has said has come to pass and almost beyond imagination. How COULD one individual talk with such authoritative, non-questioning… that this was the way THIS was going to happen and THIS was going to happen in “fashion” and THIS was going to happen on TV and there were going to be video recorders before I ever heard of the word.
D.L.D: I think what happens… certainly one individual hears this, but the plans are by no means made by one or a small number of individuals. Just as industrial corporations which have a board of directors, with people from all sorts of activities who sit on the board of this corporation, and they say, “Now if we do this to our product, or if we expand in this area what will that do to banking? What will that do to clothing? What will that do… what impact, ripple effect will that have on other things?” And I’m sure that whoever makes these plans they have representatives from every area you can think of.
So they’ll have educators, they’ll have clothing manufacturers – designers; architects… across the board. I’m sure they get together and have meetings and plan and everybody puts in his input, just the way a military operation goes. What will the Navy do? Will they bombard the shore? What will the Air Force do? Will they come in with air cover? What will the infantry do? It’s the same thing. These people, when they plan, they don’t miss a trick.
They have experts in every field and they say, “Well, if we do this, that and the other.. John, what will that do to your operation?” And John will be in position to feed back, “Well this is what I think will happen.” So it certainly covers a broad range of people. And for one individual to be able to say all of this in the two hours that he spoke to us, really tells us that he was privy to a lot of information.
R.E: That’s right. He must have been sitting in on one of those boardrooms at least at some point. And I think not at the highest level from his position, but enough, because anyone in the population control would be associated with names of foundations… powerful foundations, powerful organizations…
D.L.D: And I’m sure there was a lot in the plans that he never heard. He wasn’t a four-star general in this outfit. He wouldn’t be in on the whole story.
R.E: Well, too bad he couldn’t have talked for six hours instead of two, and we might have had a lot more information. There was another aspect that I found fascinating in listening to this. This whole aspect of privacy… he mentioned that as the private homes went by we would have individuals, non-family members perhaps sharing our apartments.
As I understand that is becoming more popular out in California. Could California and New York being the coast states, did he say… That’s right… PORT cities that bring in things so that they can eventually work their way to middle America. But this is about privacy. When he was talking, for example, about the area of sex, he made some interesting remarks. One of them that hit me like a ton of bricks was this business about; “We must be open about sex”. As if there can’t be any fear of the person that does not hesitate to open up to the public. Now, if you look at these so-called sex initiation programs in the schools where the children are forced either through writing or through verbal expression to talk about all aspects of the sexual sphere…
[end of side one ends abruptly – side two follows]
D.L.D: …. of our right to investigate even your sex life. Your money will be easy. We’ll have it all on computer. We’ll know more about it than you do. But we have to form a generation where the most intimate activity which two people can have is public, or can be public. Therefore, it’s harder to have any private thoughts and you can’t buck the system if everything you think and do is public knowledge. But the planners won’t be that open about their own lives. They’ll reserve their privacy. It’s for the rest of us.
R.E: Yes. Just like their listening to concerts and operas, but for the mass media they’re pumping in hard rock. That was another fascinating thing. For example, the… and I know this has come to pass because I deal with a lot of young people… the young people have their own radio stations for their music and adults have their own and never the twain shall meet. And when they do there’s usually a clash. And I think the same is probably true with a lot of the classical movies. I can remember when I was growing up and my dad had the radio on, I think it was a kind of general music. I didn’t say, “Dad, I don’t like that music; turn to another station”. Whereas now there is a fabricated generational gap which puts the family at the disadvantage.
D.L.D: And it creates conflict within the family, which is one of the spin-off benefits to them. If you’re constantly fussing at your kids, you don’t like the music they’re playing, and they’re constantly fussing at you because they don’t like what you’re playing… that does bad things to the bonds of affection that you would like to be nurtured in the family.
R.E: It would appear, that any resistance movement against the population controllers would probably be based on families strengthening themselves in a number of ways. One of them being to make sure that children know about grandma and grandpa and where did they come from and developing a whole… getting out the family albums and making sure that children know they have roots, first of all. And secondly, that their family is stable. One father, one mother, with children, with grandfathers. Those of us who have them should hold on to them.
Toward the end of the tape there was a reference – at the time everything would be coming together – how this New World Order would be introduced to a population which, at this point I think they would assume would be acceptable to it…. how was this put? We’re just going to wake up one morning and changes would just be there? What did he say about that?
D.L.D: It was presented in what must be an over-simplified fashion, so with some qualifications, here’s the recollections I have… That in the winter, and there was importance to the winter – on a weekend, like on a Friday an announcement would be made that this was or about to be in place… That the New World Order was now the System for the World and we all owe this New World Order our allegiance.
And the reason for winter is that – and this was stated – people are less prone to travel in the winter, particularly if they live in an area where there’s ice and snow. In summer it’s easier to get up and go. And the reason for the weekend is, people who have questions about this, Saturday and Sunday everything’s closed and they would not have an opportunity to raise questions, file a protest and say no.
And just that period over the weekend would allow a desensitizing period so that when Monday came and people had an opportunity maybe to express some reservations about it, or even oppose it… there would have been 48 hours to absorb the idea and get used to it.
R.E: What about those who decided they didn’t want to go along?
D.L.D: Somewhere in there it was that… because this is a “New Authority” and it represents a change, then, from where your allegiance was presumed to be, people would be called on to publicly acknowledge their allegiance to the new authority. This would mean to sign an agreement or in some public way acknowledge that you accepted this… authority. You accepted its legitimacy and there were two impressions I carried away. If you didn’t… and I’m not sure whether the two impressions are necessarily mutually exclusive because this wasn’t explored in great detail… one of them was that you would simply have nowhere to go.
If you don’t sign up then you can’t get any electric impulses in your banking account and you won’t have any electric impulses with which to pay your electric, or your mortgage or your food, and when your electric impulses are gone, then you have no means of livelihood.
R.E: Could you get these things from other people, or would that be… in other words, let’s say if you had a sympathetic family…
D.L.D: No you could not because the housing authority would keep close tabs on who is inhabiting any domicile. So the housing authority would be sure that everybody living there was authorized to live there.
R.E: Could I get some food?
D.L.D: Your expenditures, through electronic surveillance would be pretty tightly watched so if you were spending too much money at the super market, somebody would pick this up and say, “How come? What are you doing with all that food? You don’t look that fat. You don’t have that many people. We know you’re not entertaining. What are you doing with all that food?” And these things then would alert the…
R.E: I have seven people in my basement who object to the New World Order and I’m feeding them and then they said, well, one has to go.
D.L.D: They don’t belong there and you can’t feed them and since you’re sympathetic to them, maybe your allegiance isn’t very trustworthy either.
R.E: Yes. We see this… I think the Chinese experience tells us a great deal about certain things. For example, when they wanted to enforce the “One child family”… they cut off all education for the second child. Your food rations were cut so you couldn’t get the right amount of food, and if they found ways around that, they instituted compulsory abortions and compulsory plugging in of the IUD’s.
Somewhere in the tape this business about “People can carry two conflicting ideas around – or even espouse two conflicting ideas as long as they don’t get two close together”. And what immediately came to mind is… here we have an organization like Planned Parenthood… “freedom to choose”, yet they support population control programs which is of course NOT the freedom to choose. And then when they’re called into account and someone says, “Now wait a minute here. You’re, ‘freedom to choose – freedom to choose’ here, but you’re supporting the Chinese program which is compulsory.
I remember a statement from the late Allen Gootmacher, one of the medical directors of Planned Parenthood and he said, “Well, if people limit their families and do what we say, fine. But if we need compulsory population control, we’re going to have it.”
What would happen with people who wouldn’t go along, and particularly that point about, “There wouldn’t be any martyrs”? That was significant, because I recall having watched some movies about the Third Reich that many times they would come late in the evening and people would be taken from their home, but neighbors would never ask, “Where did they go?” They knew where they went!
D.L.D: Solzhenitsyn mentions that in the Gulag Archipelago.
R.E: I think this is very similar to what we would see. People would just disappear and you would not ask because it might endanger yourself or your family. But you would know where they went. If you ask questions, you draw attention to yourself and then you might follow them to where they went. So you mind your own business and step over the starving man on the street who didn’t go along.
D.L.D: He didn’t go into detail about precisely how this would come about but it’s not too hard to imagine. Yes. In the past, the Nazi’s came, the Communists came in the middle of the night, people just disappeared and one simple way to do this is that if you’re cut off from all economic support and you have no place to live and nothing to eat… we already see a lot of homeless now.
I just had a man in the office this morning talking about he and his child seeing people living in boxes in downtown Pittsburgh today. When the New World Order is here and you’re living in a box, we can’t have people littering the place, so you come around in the wagon and you pick them up.
If your frame of mind as you’re growing up and formed is that, “Human value resides in being productive; you have to have a prestigious position or at least perform something useful – make a contribution”, and the truck comes by to pick up some guy living in a box and he’s not making any contribution, who’s going to get excited about it? You know… he’s sub-human; he’s a fetus; he’s a zygote; he’s a derelict, and fetuses and zygotes and derelicts are all the same animal. So what do you do with them? You dispose of them. Who gets excited about it?
R.E: I recall that when the Chinese Communists came into power one of the first things that they taught in schools was not any thoughts about specific political ideology, but about evolution and that man was just an animal and if man was just an animal then we won’t mind being herded and having masters who keep tabs on the animals and we’re one big ant colony and we’ve got someone to direct traffic and…
Speaking of traffic. We talked about the aged and again – people hearing this tape, it’s phenomenal how many times these things on this tape will hit you. I just came back from New Jersey which has a lot of retirement-type villages and I’ve been there over a period of years and there’s a structure around a retirement home which has been uncompleted for at least two or three years. Now they’ve recently completed it. It’s kind of a roadway, but I think it would be easier to get out of a complex at a play-land it is so complicated. And yet the whole area has elderly people driving.
And we are a fairly middle-aged couple and for the life of me we couldn’t figure out how we were going to get out, what we were going to do and so I asked some of the residents… “Doesn’t it bother you that they haven’t fixed this road for years and now you can’t just go across the street which would have been the logical thing?” You have to go down and they have a jug-handle and you have to go over and under, so it takes you so long, and the woman replied to me, “Well you know, we just don’t go out. We just don’t go out”.
So here we have this little retirement village where they’ve made it very difficult for a population, maybe several hundred homes in this plat with only one exit and the exit involves such a great deal of bother, they say they just cut down on the number of times they have to go out shopping.
D.L.D: Right away it makes me wonder… if it’s difficult to get out, it’s also difficult to get in probably for visitors.
R.E: These retirement homes sort of remind me of an elephant burial ground. The one thing you notice is that there are no children. There’s not the laughter of children in these homes.
D.L.D: My experience has been, these people in the retirement homes, when they see a child they just blossom. They’re really delighted to see a child. Sure they’re happy to have their sons and daughters come and other adults, but when they see a child – and it doesn’t have to be their own – it has a very beneficial effect on their mood. And if these older people aren’t seeing children, the other side of that coin is, the children aren’t seeing older people either. So if you don’t get used to seeing older people, they don’t exist.
R.E: And that’s why, with the family, making sure your children see their grandparents very often, no matter how much that entails, the trouble with the logistics, etc… it’s certainly worth while because, again if you never see someone and you don’t learn to love them and you never have any contact with them, when someone says, “Well it’s time for your grandpa to check out”, it’s like, “Who’s that?”
Who’s going to defend and fight for someone they never even saw before? Oh, I remember one of the phrases. So many of these things… you only have to hear them once and they stick in your mind. It’s so jarring.
We’ve already discussed “sex without reproduction”, then you also said the technology would be there for “reproduction without sex” and this is a whole other area because it’s contradictory. If a land is so overpopulated, then you would want to diminish sexual activity, get rid of pornography, get rid of everything that was sexually stimulating. But, no. It’s a contrary. You want to Increase sexual activity but only insofar as it doesn’t lead to reproduction. That was the message, right?
D.L.D: Yes, and this is my own extension. He didn’t say this, but that leads to slavery because if you become enslaved to your gratification, whether it’s sex, food or whatever, then you’re more easily controlled, which is one of the reasons the celibate priesthood is so important. And so many priests don’t even understand that. But if you’re addicted to sex… if sex is divorced from reproduction, something you do for gratification only – I won’t try to parallel that with food because you can’t go without food – then you can be more easily controlled by the availability or the removal of the availability of sex.
So that can become an enslaving feature. Now, reproduction without sex… what you would get then would have all the desirable attributes of a human being without any claim to human rights. The way we do it now, we say, you’re human because you have a father and mother… you have a family and so you’re a human being with human rights. But if your father was a petrie dish and you mother was a test tube, how can you lay claim to human rights? You owe your existence to the laboratory which conveys to you no human rights.
And there is no God, so you can’t go for any God-given human rights, so you’re an ideal slave. You have all the attributes of a human being but you don’t have any claim on rights.
R.E: In PDF Document”Brave New World” they had the caste system, the alphas, the omegas, etc. The way they brought about the different caste systems was that in the decanting, or birthing rooms, the individual who was to do menial or slave labor… work in the mines… received just a little bit of oxygen to the brain so they learned to love their slavery and they were very happy.
They didn’t know any better. They didn’t have the wherewithal to do things, but the higher in the caste you got, the more oxygen you got to your brain. So we actually had a group of sub-human beings who loved their slavery. In the past slaves probably didn’t love their slavery very much, but in this case, we have this technology which will make people love their slavery, and each caste loved being what they were in “Brave New World”. And any of our listeners who hasn’t read that recently…
D.L.D: You may remember the slogan that was above the Nazi concentration camps… something about, “Work is Peace and Work is Happiness”. I don’t remember if it was Bucchenwald (sp) or Auschwitz. My recollection of words isn’t precise, but the idea is what counts. And here’s Huxley, writing Brave New World, saying basically the same thing before Hitler was even in power, so Huxley knew something.
R.E: He came from a family that probably contributed at least in part to this New World Order. A number of the English authors… H.G. Wells… from that period and from those associations who highlighted the concepts of what was coming down the path.
I can remember reading Brave New World in high school, and thought, “Boy, is this fantasy land”. Thirty years later and I said, “This is scary”. There seems to be kind of a similarity between his writings and the talk given by Dr. Day, because you get kind of a mixed message in Brave New World, that these things are not really good. It would be better if man still had a sense of humor, a sense of privacy, if the family still existed.. but, it’s inevitable. They’re going to go. Too bad. I feel a little sorry about that. A little sentiment, but the New Order has to come in and we have to make room for it.
And I got that same impression from the things that were said about this Day tape. He wasn’t real happy about some of the things, but they’re going to occur anyway, so make it easier on yourself. The more you accept it the easier it’s going to be when it comes around, and I’m kind of doing you a favor – you physicians out there this evening – I’m going to make it easier for you by telling you in advance what’s coming and you can make your own adjustments.
D.L.D: Somewhere in Scripture… I think it was after the flood, God said, “I will write my law on man’s hearts”, and I feel the same parallel that you do between Dr. Day’s reaction to what he was exposed to and mine… seeming not totally accepting of this. Huxley seeming not totally accepting of what he wrote about but both saying, “Well, there’s a certain inevitability to all of this, so let’s try to talk about the best parts of it. It’s going to be good for people. Technology will be better, quality of life will be better… so you live a few years shorter.”
But they both do seem to send out messages not buying the whole package…
R.E: And maybe wishing some people would ask more questions. Looking back over history there are many individuals who had an idea of what a New World Order should be, certainly Hitler and Stalin did, but what was lacking during these periods is that they lacked the technology to carry many a many of the things out… surveillance, constant monitoring… but in this so-called New World Order it’s going to be very difficult to escape because technology will provide those means which had been lacking those totalitarian individuals from years ago.
D.L.D: I can’t remember on the original tapes, did I mention the phrase where he said, “This time we’re going to do it right!” ?
R.E: No. You didn’t.
D.L.D: There were so many details to remember. But when he mentioned bringing in the New World Order, he said, “This time we’re going to do it right”.
And right away, I’m wondering, “what do you mean, ‘this time’?”. There was no explicit explanation of that, but I think it’s fairly easy to infer that previous efforts had to do with the Third Reich… Your point about the technology is critical with computers and all means of exchange being controlled by electronic impulse.
Nobody has any wealth. You own nothing of value except access to electronic impulses which are beyond your control. A cashless society. So when your reward for working is [nothing more than] impulses on the computer and the only claim you have is these impulses and the people who run the system can give or take them as they choose. Up until this time there was no way the statement in the Book of Revelation that said, “No man can buy or sell unless he has the mark of the beast”… there’s no way that could have been enforced.
People could say I’ll trade you a bushel of tomatoes for a bushel of wheat. If you’ll drive my kids to school I’ll give you six ears of corn. Bartering. And even not going necessarily that primitive, there was always gold and silver and other forms of money that were even better than bartering. But with this cashless society, I believe this is the first time in the history of the human race where the entire population of the world can be controlled economically so that somebody can say, “I pushed the right buttons and I know how much credit you have electronically; I know where you spend your money electronically; and you cannot buy, you cannot sell unless you get on my computer.”
Right now you have a half a dozen credit cards in your pocket, but pretty soon it will be narrowed to one credit card and then when we… you know the ostensible reason is that when people loose their credit cards and we have to get rid of that and put the implant in… where it has to be accessible to the scanner… in your right hand or in your forehead.
R.E: Speaking of scanner. When we had the TV War….. the Gulf War? It was the first war where you just sit there and 24 hours a day just like being on the battlefield there. There were several points made about the advances in technology and how they could spot just one little individual down in… they used the constant reference to pinpoint… “pinpoint”. I imagine with the different technologies they can also pinpoint a couple of renegades in the New World Order. The technology which was applicable to a so- called ‘enemy’ can also be applicable to this controlling the order.
D.R.D: Exactly. It’s infra-red stuff that’s… I’m sort of amateurish about this, but any heat source like a deer, a human being, a renegade… can be picked up by an infra-red scanner and you get sort of an outline of whether it’s a deer or sheep or whatever.
My first hearing about them was in the Vietnam War where our troops used them to detect the enemy. That’s twenty-some years ago, so they’re probably even more sophisticated now than they were then; but with this kind of surveillance it would be pretty hard for anybody to escape and say, “Well, I’m just going to go out into the mountains and be a hermit and escape the New World Order. I can shoot deer and eat berries and survive and I’ve got a wife who’s pretty sturdy and she’ll be able to survive and we’ll do what the Indians did before Columbus got here and we’ll all survive”. The New World Order will say, “No you won’t because we’re gonna find you”.
R.E: Even in Brave New World they had a group of people who still lived as a family and the women breast-fed and they were called savages. But we won’t have any savages. We’re cultured, we’ll be thin and our teeth will be straight.
D.L.D: Something also that was mentioned; forests could — and if necessary would — be leveled or burned. Now this comes out of this movement… goddess mother earth, and how we have to protect the environment… but if we want to get someone who’s trying to get away we’ll burn down the whole forest. We’ll find them. That was stated. Deforestation could be and would be brought about to make sure that nobody gets outside the control of the system.
R.E: We’re drawing to a close here. How did you feel after… well, it’s been about 22 years now since that original lecture and there probably isn’t a day that goes by – at least since I’ve heard the tape – that I don’t think about the things that this Dr. Day said.
D.L.D: You get constant reminders. Not a day goes by something doesn’t say, “That reminds me of…” such and such, whether it’s surveillance or security…
R.E: … or clothing. I opened up a toy catalogue the other day and noticed there didn’t happen to be any baby dolls in this toy catalogue… of course going back to the idea that we don’t want little girls to by thinking about babies. They only had one little doll and it was kind of an adult doll. And nothing that would raise anyone’s maternal instincts. Well, Doc, what’s the prognosis?
D.L.D: Left to man alone I think the technology is already here and with technological progress, I think it is inevitable — if man is left to his own devices — that some men will be able to assert total control over other men… other people. Man left to his own devices… the tendency is — in groups like this, then — is for internal dissention to arise where the leaders would be at each other’s throats too… each saying, “No, I’m more powerful than you. I deserve more than you”.
R.E: Who will control the controllers?
D.L.D: Yeah. They would stab themselves. I think so. They would create their own seeds of destruction while they’re creating the system. But the other thing I wonder if indeed this may be time for our Lord to come back and say, “Enough’s enough. Because you’re going to destroy my planet earth. I am in charge of the planet. I’m in charge of mankind. Mankind will be destroyed if I say. I will not allow my creatures to assume and exert this degree of control where you’re going to destroy the whole thing.
R.E: What I was just thinking as you were just saying that is that in the past, dictators could kill people, they could torture them, but essentially they could not change what it meant to be a human being. They could not change human nature. Now we are going to have with this new Genome Project, a multi-billion dollar project where they’re going to be getting a tab on everyone’s genes. No one shall escape. Everyone shall have their genetic codes and with this opens the door to manipulation to change the very meaning of what it MEANS to be human.
And if one has an entity then that no longer has free will, you just have to wonder if that point out Lord says, “Enough”.
D.L.D: Just as Lucifer set himself up as God in the beginning, some people now would set themselves up as God and say, “I control the computers, I control the genomes, I control everything, I am God…” and at that point He would have to say, “No, you are not! I have to demonstrate to you… you’re NOT. I’m still God. You’re just a creature” [human+Being]
RE: And as you said on the original tape, we believe in what our Lord has said, in that He will not leave us orphans. He will be with us ’til the end of time.
D.L.D: This right away now begs the questions, when they come around and say, “It’s your turn to sign the allegiance form”… what are you going to do? When Henry the eighth came around and said, either sign here and join… and while he was saying it they were throwing the noose over the limb of the oak tree, and slipping the noose around your neck and saying, “you want to sign this or do we slap the horse out from under you?” and a lot of people said I won’t sign it and they were martyred.
Despite his having said there will be no martyrs, certainly there will be martyrs. The implication of his statements were that they would not be recognized as martyrs, but there will be martyrs and they will be RECOGNIZED as martyrs. Maybe not the same way as in the past but I think this is something people should sort of prepare themselves for.
When I’m nose to nose with this choice, “ether sign this allegiance or we’re going to put you in a boxcar and you’re going out to Arizona, to the desert…” I think we have to be prepared to make a decision.
R.E: I think it would be an understatement to say that this tape has great meaning and it’s like a forewarning and it gives us ideas of things we should do and things we shouldn’t do and I think everybody listening to the tapes will come up with things he can do on a small scale. I think that’s the beauty of this thing. As he was talking… it wasn’t real earth shattering things he was talking about. He was talking about little things. Television. Things that we do every day. Things that are under our control. The books we read.
And I think some of these changes if they are going to occur will occur with the individual person within that family, with him getting the word out and then doing the little things. I think they matter over the long haul, the most.
D.L.D: Just as with the prisoners who survived the brainwashing, I think people who are Spiritually oriented, who are thinking about God, thinking about their relationship WITH God, are the ones who will then be better prepared or equipped to survive this world and the next. Whereas, those who are just focused on meeting their needs right now, strictly the material needs of the day, they’re more easily controlled.
Under the threat of losing your comforts or losing your food or loosing your head or whatever, certainly some people are going to yield, and those who I think will survive and I really mean both in this life and the next – they’re going to have to be the ones who are prepared because it’s my belief when the time comes to make the decision… “Are you going to sign on or not?”… it’s too late to begin preparation and start saying, “Well, let me think about this.”
You won’t have time to think about it. You’re either going to say yes or no. I hope a lot of us make the right decision.
R.E: I do so too, and I think the tape will change as many lives and have hopefully as good an effect as it had on mine and on yours and so let me thank you very much. For further information please contact the U.S. Coalition for Life; Box 315, Export, Penn 15632. Your comments and criticism and any other information which you might have regarding this tape will be most welcome.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ASSEMBLE, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Who is pushing the lock-down and prohibiting people to assemble? The Democratic party. In the name of what? Life? Do they really care about our lives? The Democrats are the same people who say a woman has the right to take away the life of her unborn child.
The story you are about to read is true. The names have not been changed to protect the guilty. This book may have the effect of changing your life. After reading this book you will never look at national and world events in the same way again.
None Dare Call It Conspiracy will be a very controversial book. At first it will receive little publicity and those whose plans are exposed in it will try to kill it by the silent treatment. For reasons that become obvious as you read this book, it will not be reviewed in all the “proper” places or be available on your local bookstand. However, there is nothing these people can do to stop a grass roots book distributing system. Eventually it will be necessary for the people and organizations named in this book to try to blunt its effect by attacking it or the author. They have a tremendous vested interest in keeping you from discovering what they are doing. And they have the big guns of the mass media at their disposal to fire the barrages at None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
By sheer volume, the “experts” will try to ridicule you out of investigating for yourself as to whether or not the information in this book is true. They will ignore the fact that the author admits that some of his ideas are conjecture because the people who know the truth are not about to confess. They will find a typographical error or argue some point that is open to debate. If necessary they will lie in order to protect themselves by smearing this book. Psychologically many people would prefer to believe those who pooh-pooh the information herein because we all like to ignore bad news. We do so at our own peril!
Having been a college instructor, a State Senator and now a Congressman, I have had experience with real professionals at putting up smokescreens to cover up their own actions by trying to destroy the accuser. I hope that you will read this book carefully and draw your own conclusions and not accept the opinions of those who of necessity must attempt to discredit the book. Your future may depend upon it. October 25, 1971
John G. Schmitz United States Congressman
Most of us have had the experience, either as parents or youngsters, of trying to discover the “hidden picture” within another picture in a children’s magazine. Usually you are shown a landscape with trees, bushes, flowers and other bits of nature. The caption reads something like this: “Concealed somewhere in this picture is a donkey pulling a cart with a boy in it. Can you find them?” Try as you might, usually you could not find the hidden picture until you turned to a page farther back in the magazine which would reveal how cleverly the artist had hidden it from us. If we study the landscape we realize that the whole picture was painted in such a way as to conceal the real picture within, and once we see the “real picture,” it stands out like the proverbial painful digit.
We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture. In this book we will show you how to discover the “hidden picture” in the landscapes presented to us daily through newspapers, radio and television. Once you can see through the camouflage, you will see the donkey, the cart and the boy who have been there all along.
Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation. They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters they can’t quite put their fingers on it.
Maybe you are one of those persons. Something is bugging you, but you aren’t sure what. We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the world-wide Communist advance, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the fires of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country into a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong. Yet, despite high hopes and glittering campaign promises, these problems continue to worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.
FDR once said “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation’s well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove that we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media.
Those who believe that major world events result from planning are laughed at for believing in the “conspiracy theory of history.” Of course, no one in this modern day and age really believes in the conspiracy theory of history -except those who have taken the time to study the subject. When you think about it, there are really only two theories of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the “accidental theory of history” preached in the unhallowed Halls of Ivy which should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? Why does our State Department “stumble” from one Communist-aiding “blunder” to another? If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an “intellectual” who understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook!
Why is it that virtually all “reputable” scholars and mass media columnists and commentators reject the cause and effect or conspiratorial theory of history? Primarily, most scholars follow the crowd in the academic world just as most women follow fashions. To buck the tide means social and professional ostracism. The same is true of the mass media. While professors and pontificators profess to be tolerant and broadminded, in practice it’s strictly a one way street-with all traffic flowing left. A Maoist can be tolerated by Liberals of Ivory Towerland or by the Establishment’s media pundits, but to be a conservative, and a conservative who propounds a conspiratorial view, is absolutely verboten. Better you should be a drunk at a national WCTU convention!
Secondly, these people have over the years acquired a strong vested emotional interest in their own errors. Their intellects and egos are totally committed to the accidental theory. Most people are highly reluctant to admit that they have been conned or have shown poor judgment. To inspect the evidence of the existence of a conspiracy guiding our political destiny from behind the scenes would force many of these people to repudiate a lifetime of accumulated opinions. It takes a person with strong character indeed to face the facts and admit he has been wrong even if it was because he was uninformed.
Such was the case with the author of this book. It was only because he set out to prove the conservative anti-Communists wrong that he happened to end up writing this book. His initial reaction to the conservative point of view was one of suspicion and hostility; and it was only after many months of intensive research that he had to admit that he had been “conned.”
Politicians and “intellectuals” are attracted to the concept that events are propelled by some mysterious tide of history or happen by accident. By this reasoning they hope to escape the blame when things go wrong.
Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with the conspiratorial theory of history simply by ignoring it. They never attempt to refute the evidence. It can’t be refuted. If and when the silent treatment doesn’t work, these “objective” scholars and mass media opinion molders resort to personal attacks, ridicule and satire. The personal attacks tend to divert attention from the facts which an author or speaker is trying to expose. The idea is to force the person exposing the conspiracy to stop the exposure and spend his time and effort defending himself.
However, the most effective weapons used against the conspiratorial theory of history are ridicule and satire. These extremely potent weapons can be cleverly used to avoid any honest attempt at refuting the facts. After all, nobody likes to be made fun of. Rather than be ridiculed most people will keep quiet; and, this subject certainly does lend itself to ridicule and satire. One technique which can be used is to expand the conspiracy to the extent it becomes absurd. For instance, our man from the Halls of Poison Ivy might say in a scoffingly arrogant tone, “I suppose you believe every liberal professor gets a telegram each morning from conspiracy headquarters containing his orders for the day’s brainwashing of his students?” Some conspiratorialists do indeed overdraw the picture by expanding the conspiracy (from the small clique which it is) to include every local knee-jerk liberal activist and government bureaucrat. Or, because of racial or religious bigotry, they will take small fragments of legitimate evidence and expand them into a conclusion that will support their particular prejudice, i.e., the conspiracy is totally “Jewish,” “Catholic,” or “Masonic.” These people do not help to expose the conspiracy, but, sadly play into the hands of those who want the public to believe that all conspiratorialists are screwballs.
“Intellectuals” are fond of mouthing clichés like “The conspiracy theory is often tempting. However, it is overly simplistic.” To ascribe absolutely everything that happens to the machinations of a small group of power hungry conspirators is overly simplistic. But, in our opinion nothing is more simplistic than doggedly holding onto the accidental view of major world events.
In most cases Liberals simply accuse all those who discuss the conspiracy of being paranoid. “Ah, you right wingers,” they say, “rustling every bush, kicking over every rock, looking for imaginary boogeymen.” Then comes the coup de grace-labeling the conspiratorial theory as the “devil theory of history.” The Liberals love that one. Even though it is an empty phrase, it sounds so sophisticated!
With the leaders of the academic and communications world assuming this sneering attitude towards the conspiratorial (or cause and effect) theory of history, it is not surprising that millions of innocent and well-meaning people, in a natural desire not to appear naive, assume the attitudes and repeat the clichés of the opinion makers. These persons, in their attempt to appear sophisticated, assume their mentors’ air of smug superiority even though they themselves have not spent five minutes in study on the subject of international conspiracy.
The “accidentalists” would have us believe that ascribing any of our problems to planning is ‘simplistic” and all our problems are caused by Poverty, Ignorance and Disease–hereinafter abbreviated as FID. They ignore the fact that organized conspirators use PID, real and imagined, as an excuse to build a jail for us all. Most of the world has been in PID since time immemorial and it takes incredibly superficial thinking to ascribe the ricocheting of the United States government from one disaster to another over the past thirty years to PID. “Accidentalists” ignore the fact that some of the more advanced nations in the world have been captured by Communists. Czechoslovakia was one of the world’s most modern industrial nations and Cuba had the second highest per capita income of any nation in Central and South America. It is not true, however, to state that there are no members of the intellectual elite who subscribe to the conspiratorial theory of history. For example, there is Professor Carroll Quigley of the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University. Professor Quigley can hardly be accused of being a “right wing extremist.” (Those three words have been made inseparable by the mass media.) Dr. Quigley has all the “liberal” credentials, having taught at the Liberal Establishment’s academic Mecca’s of Princeton and Harvard. In his 1300-page, 8 pound tome Tragedy and Hope, Dr, Quigley reveals the existence of the conspiratorial network which will be discussed in this book. The Professor is not merely formulating a theory, but revealing this network’s existence from firsthand experience. He also makes it clear that it is only the network’s secrecy and not their goals to which he objects. Professor Quigley discloses:
“I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I HAVE NO AVERSION TO IT OR TO MOST OF ITS AIMS AND HAVE, FOR MUCH OF MY LIFE, BEEN CLOSE TO IT AND TO MANY OF ITS INSTRUMENTS. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that IT WISHES TO REMAIN UNKNOWN, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” (Emphasis added)
We agree, its role in history does deserve to be known. That is why we have written this book. However, we most emphatically disagree with this network’s aim which the Professor describes as “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” In other words, this power mad clique wants to control and rule the world. Even more-frightening, they want total control over all individual actions. As Professor Quigley observes: “… his [the individual’s] freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.” It wants control over all natural resources, business, banking and transportation by controlling the governments of the world. In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fomenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free enterprise system. And Professor Quigley, of Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown approves!
Professor Quigley is not the only academic who is aware of the existence of a clique of serf-perpetuating conspirators whom we shall call Insiders. Other honest scholars finding the same individuals at the scenes of disastrous political fires over and over again have concluded that there is obviously an organization of pyromaniacs at work in the world. But these intellectually honest scholars realize that if they challenged the Insiders head-on, their careers would be destroyed. The author knows these men exist because he has been in contact with some of them.
There are also religious leaders who are aware of the existence of this conspiracy. In a UPI story dated December 27, 1965, Father Pedro Arrupe, head of the Jesuit Order of the Roman Catholic Church, made the following charges during his remarks to the Ecumenical Council:
(Webmaster’s note: The former Black Pope, the Jesuit Superior General Pedro Arrupe, is calling godless the same entities he himself was ultimately in control of!)
“This .. . Godless society operates in an extremely efficient manner at least in its higher levels of leadership. It makes use of every possible means at its disposal, be they scientific, technical, social or economic. It follows a perfectly mapped-out strategy. It holds almost complete sway in international organizations, in financial circles, in the field of mass communications; press, cinema, radio and television.”
There are a number of problems to be overcome in convincing a person of the possible existence of a conspiratorial clique of Insiders who from the very highest levels manipulate government policy. In this case truth is really stranger than fiction. We are dealing with history’s greatest “whodunit,” a mystery thriller which puts Erie Stanley Gardner to shame. If you love a mystery, you’ll be fascinated with the study of the operations of the Insiders. If you do study this network of which Professor Quigley speaks, you will find that what had at first seemed incredible not only exists, but heavily influences our lives.
It must be remembered that the first job of any conspiracy, whether it be in politics, crime or within a business office, is to convince everyone else that no conspiracy exists. The conspirators success will be determined largely by their ability to do this. That the elite of the academic world and mass communications media always pooh- pooh the existence of the Insiders merely serves to camouflage their operations. These “artists” hide the boy, the cart and the donkey.
Probably at some time you have been involved with or had personal knowledge of some event which was reported in the news. Perhaps it concerned an athletic event, an election, a committee or your business. Did the report contain the “real” story, the story behind the story? Probably not. And for a variety of reasons. The reporter had time and space problems and there is a good chance the persons involved deliberately did not reveal all the facts. Possibly the reporter’s own prejudices governed what facts went into the story and which were deleted. Our point is that most people know from personal experience that a news story often is not the whole story. But many of us assume that our own case is unique when really it is typical. What is true about the reporting of local events is equally as true about the reporting of national and international events.
Psychological problems are also involved in inducing people to look at the evidence concerning the Insiders. People are usually comfortable with their old beliefs and conceptions. When Columbus told people the world was a ball and not a pancake, they were highly upset. They were being asked to reject their way of thinking of a lifetime and adopt a whole new outlook. The “intellectuals” of the day scoffed at Columbus and people were afraid they would lose social prestige if they listened to him. Many others just did not want to believe the world was round. It complicated too many things. And typical flat-earthers had such a vested interest involving their own egos, that they heaped abuse on Columbus for challenging their view of the universe. “Don’t confuse us with facts; our minds are made up,” they said.
These same factors apply today. Because the Establishment controls the media, anyone exposing the Insiders will be the recipient of a continuous fusillade of invective from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio. In this manner one is threatened with loss of “social respectability” if he dares broach the idea that there is organization behind any of the problems currently wracking America. Unfortunately, for many people social status comes before intellectual honesty. Although they would never admit it, social position is more important to many people than is the survival of freedom in America.
If you ask these people which is more important-social respectability or saving their children from slavery -they will tell you the latter, of course. But their actions (or lack of same) speak so much louder than their words. People have an infinite capacity for rationalization when it comes to refusing to face the threat to America’s survival. Deep down these people are afraid they may be laughed at if they take a stand, or may be denied an invitation to some social climber’s cocktail party. Instead of getting mad at the Insiders, these people actually get angry at those who are trying to save the country by exposing the conspirators.
One thing which makes it so hard for some socially minded people to assess the conspiratorial evidence objectively is that the conspirators come from the very highest social strata. They are immensely wealthy, highly educated and extremely cultured. Many of them have lifelong reputations for philanthropy. Nobody enjoys being put in the position of accusing prominent people of conspiring to enslave their fellow Americans, but the facts are inescapable. Many business and professional people axe particularly vulnerable to the “don’t jeopardize your social respectability” pitch given by those who don’t want the conspiracy exposed. The Insiders know that if the business and professional community will not take a stand to save the private enterprise system, the socialism through which they intend to control the world will be inevitable. They believe that most business and professional men are too shallow and decadent, too status conscious, too tied up in the problems of their jobs and businesses to worry about what is going on in politics. These men are told that it might be bad for business or jeopardize their government contracts if they take a stand. They have been bribed into silence with their own tax monies!
We are hoping that the conspirators have underestimated the courage and patriotism remaining in the American people. We feel there are a sufficient number of you who are not mesmerized by the television set, who put God, family and country above social status, who will band together to expose and destroy the conspiracy of the Insiders. The philosopher Diogenes scoured the length and breadth of ancient Greece searching for an honest man. We are scouring the length and breadth of America in search of hundreds of thousands of intellectually honest men and women who are willing to investigate facts and come to logical conclusions-no matter how unpleasant those conclusions may be.
Everyone knows that Adolph Hitler existed. No one disputes that. The terror and destruction that this madman inflicted upon the world are universally recognized. Hitler came from a poor family which had absolutely no social position. He was a high school drop-out and nobody ever accused him of being cultured. Yet this man tried to conquer the world. During his early career he sat in a cold garret and poured onto paper his ambitions to rule the world. We know that.
Similarly, we know that a man named Vladimir Ilich Lenin also existed. Like Hitler, Lenin did not spring from a family of social lions. The son of a petty bureaucrat, Lenin, who spent most of his adult life in poverty, has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of your fellow human beings and the enslavement of nearly a billion more. Like Hitler, Lenin sat up nights in a dank garret scheming how he could conquer the world. We know that too.
Is it not theoretically possible that a billionaire could be sitting, not in a garret, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan, London or Paris and dream the same dream as Lenin and Hitler? You will have to admit it is theoretically possible. Julius Caesar, a wealthy aristocrat, did. And such a man might form an alliance or association with other like- minded men, might he not? Caesar did. These men would be superbly educated, command immense social prestige and be able to pool astonishing amounts of money to carry out their purposes. These are advantages that Hitler and Lenin did not have.
It is difficult for the average individual to fathom such perverted lust for power. The typical person, of whatever nationality, wants only to enjoy success in his job, to be able to afford a reasonably high standard of living complete with leisure and travel. He wants to provide for his family in sickness and in health and to give his children a sound education. His ambition stops there. He has no desire to exercise power over others, to conquer other lands or peoples, to be a king. He wants to mind his own business and enjoy life. Since he has no lust for power, it is difficult for him to imagine that there are others who have … others who march to a far different drum. But we must realize that there have been Hitlers and Lenins and Stalins and Caesars and Alexander the Greats throughout history. Why should we assume there are no such men today with perverted lusts for power? And if these men happen to be billionaires is it not possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to seize power for themselves?
Indeed, difficult as this is to believe, such is the case. Like Columbus, we are faced with the task of convincing you that the world is not flat, as you have been led to believe all your life, but, instead, is round. We are going to present evidence that what you call “Communism” is not run from Moscow or Peking, but is an arm of a bigger conspiracy run from New York, London and Paris. The men at the apex of this movement are not Communists in the traditional sense of that term. They feel no loyalty to Moscow of Peking. They are loyal only to themselves and their undertaking. And these men certainly do not believe in the clap-trap pseudo- philosophy of Communism. They have no intention of dividing their wealth.
Socialism is a philosophy which conspirators exploit, but in which only the naive believe. Just how finance capitalism is used as the anvil and Communism as the hammer to conquer the world will be explained in this book.
The concept that Communism is but an arm of a larger conspiracy has become increasingly apparent throughout the author’s journalistic investigations. He has had the opportunity to interview privately four retired officers who spent their careers high in military intelligence. Much of what the author knows he learned from them. And the story is known to several thousand others. High military intelligence circles are well aware of this network. In addition, the author has interviewed six men who have spent considerable time as investigators for Congressional committees. In 1953, one of these men, Norman Dodd, headed the Reece Committee’s investigation of tax-free foundations. When Mr. Dodd began delving into the role of international high finance in the world revolutionary movement, the investigation was killed on orders from the Eisenhower-occupied White House. According to Mr. Dodd, it is permissable to investigate the radical bomb throwers in the streets, but when you begin to trace their activities back to their origins in the “legitimate world,” the political iron curtain slams down.
You can believe anything you want about Communism except that it is a conspiracy run by men from the respectable world. People will often say to an active anti- Communist: “I can understand your concern with Communism, but the idea that a Communist conspiracy is making great inroads in the United States is absurd. The American people are anti-Communist. They’re not about to buy Communism. It’s understandable to be concerned about Communism in Africa or Asia or South America with their tremendous poverty, ignorance and disease. But to be concerned about Communism in the United States where the vast majority of people have no sympathy with it whatsoever is a misspent concern.”
On the face of it, that is a very logical and plausible argument. The American people are indeed anti-Communist. Suppose you were to lay this book down right now, pick up a clip board and head for the nearest shopping center to conduct a survey on Americans’ attitudes about Communism. “Sir,” you say to the first prospect you encounter, “we would like to know if you are for or against Communism?”
Most people would probably think you were putting them on. If we stick to our survey we would find that ninety-nine percent of the people are anti-Communist. We probably would be hard put to find anybody who would take an affirmative stand for Communism.
So, on the surface it appears that the charges made against anti-Communists concerned with the internal threat of Communism are valid. The American people are not pro-Communist But before our imaginary interviewee walks away in disgust with what he believes is a hokey survey, you add: “Sir, before you leave there are a couple of other questions I would like to ask. You won’t find these quite so insulting or ludicrous.” Your next question is: “What is Communism? Will you define it, please?”
Immediately a whole new situation has developed. Rather than the near unanimity previously found, we now have an incredible diversity of ideas. There are a multitude of opinions on what Communism is. Some will say: “Oh, yes, Communism. Well, that’s a tyrannical brand of socialism.” Others will maintain: “Communism as it was originally intended by Karl Marx was a good idea. But it has never been practiced and the Russians have loused it up.” A more erudite type might proclaim: “Communism is simply a rebirth of Russian imperialism.”
If perchance one of the men you ask to define Communism happened to be a political science professor from the local college, he might well reply: “You can’t ask ‘what is Communism?’ That is a totally simplistic question about an extremely complex situation. Communism today, quite unlike the view held by the right wing extremists in America, is not an international monolithic movement. Rather, it is a polycentric, fragmented, nationalistic movement deriving its character through the charismas of its various national leaders. While, of course, there is the welding of Hegelian dialectics with Feuerbachian materialism held in common by the Communist parties generally, it is a monumental oversimplification to ask ‘what is Communism.’ Instead you should ask: What is the Communism of Mao Tse-tung? What is the Communism of the late Ho Chi Minh, or Fidel Castro or Marshal Tito?”
If you think we are being facetious here, you haven’t talked to a political science professor lately. For the above is the prevailing view on our campuses, not to mention in our State Department.
Whether you agree or disagree with any of these definitions, or, as may well be the case, you have one of your own, one thing is undeniable. No appreciable segment of the anti-Communist American public can agree on just what it is that they are against. Isn’t that frightening? Here we have something that almost everybody agrees is bad, but we cannot agree on just what it is we are against.
How would this work in a football game, for example? Can you imagine how effective the defense of a football team would be if the front four could not agree with the linebackers who could not agree with the corner backs who could not agree with the safety men who could not agree with the assistant coaches who could not agree with the head coach as to what kind of defense they should put up against the offense being presented? The obvious result would be chaos. You could take a sand lot team and successfully pit them against the Green Bay Packers if the Packers couldn’t agree on what it is they are opposing. That is academic. The first principle in any encounter, whether it be football or war (hot or cold), is: Know your enemy. The American people do not know their enemy. Consequently, it is not strange at all that for three decades we have been watching one country of the world after another fall behind the Communist curtain.
In keeping with the fact that almost everybody seems to have his own definition of Communism, we are going to give you ours, and then we will attempt to prove to you that it is the only valid one. Communism: AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM-GLOBAL CONQUEST.
You will notice that we did not mention Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, bourgeois, proletariat or dialectical materialism. We said nothing of the pseudo-economics or political philosophy of the Communists. These are the TECHNIQUES of Communism and should not be confused with the Communist conspiracy itself. We did call it an international conspiratorial drive for power. Unless we understand the conspiratorial nature of Communism, we don’t understand it at all. We will be eternally fixated at the Gus Hall level of Communism. And that’s not where it’s at, baby!
The way to bring down the wrath of the Liberal press Establishment or the professional Liberals is simply to use the word conspiracy in relation to Communism. We are not supposed to believe that Communism is a political conspiracy. We can believe anything else we wish to about it. We can believe that it is brutal, tyrannical, evil or even that it intends to bury us, and we will win the plaudits of the vast majority of American people. But don’t ever, ever use the word conspiracy if you expect applause, for that is when the wrath of Liberaldom will be unleashed against you. We are not disallowed from believing in all types of conspiracy, just modern political conspiracy.
We know that down through the annals of history small groups of men have existed who have conspired to bring the reins of power into their hands. History books are full of their schemes. Even Life magazine believes in conspiracies like the Cosa Nostra where men conspire to make money through crime. You may recall that Life did a series of articles on the testimony of Joseph Valachi before the McClellan Committee several years ago. There are some aspects of those revelations which are worth noting.
Most of us did not know the organization was called Cosa Nostra. Until Valachi “sang” we all thought it was named the Mafia. That is how little we knew about this group, despite the fact that it was a century old and had been operating in many countries with a self-perpetuating clique of leaders. We didn’t even know it by its proper name. It is not possible a political conspiracy might exist, waiting for a Joseph Valachi to testify? Is Dr. Carroll Quigley the Joseph Valachi of political conspiracies?
We see that everybody, even Life magazine, believes in some sort of conspiracy. The question is: Which is the more lethal form of conspiracy-criminal or political? And what is the difference between a member of the Cosa Nostra and a Communist, or more properly, an Insider conspirator? Men like Lucky Luciano who have scratched and clawed to the top of the heap in organized crime must, of necessity, be diabolically brilliant, cunning and absolutely ruthless. But, almost without exception, the men in the hierarchy of organized crime have had no formal education. They were born into poverty and learned their trade in the back alleys of Naples, New York or Chicago.
Now suppose someone with this same amoral grasping personality were born into a patrician family of great wealth and was educated at the best prep schools, then Harvard, Yale or Princeton, followed by graduate work possibly at Oxford. In these institutions he would become totally familiar with history, economics, psychology, sociology and political science. After having graduated from such illustrious establishments of higher learning, are we likely to find him out on the streets peddling fifty cent tickets to a numbers game? Would you find him pushing marijuana to high schoolers or running a string of houses of prostitution? Would he be getting involved in gangland killings? Not at all. For with that sort of education, this person would realize that if one wants power, real power, the lessons of history say, “Get into the government business.” Become a politician and work for political power or, better yet, get some politicians to front for you. That is where the real power-and the real money- is.
Conspiracy to seize the power of government is as old as government itself. We can study the conspiracies surrounding Alcibiades in Greece or Julius Caesar in ancient Rome, but we are not supposed to think that men today scheme to achieve political power.
Every conspirator has two things in common with every other conspirator. He must be an accomplished liar and a far-seeing planner. Whether you are studying Hitler, Alcibiades, Julius Caesar or some of our contemporary conspirators, you will find that their patient planning is almost overwhelming. We repeat FDR’s statement: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
In reality, Communism is a tyranny planned by power seekers whose most effective weapon is the big lie. And if one takes all the lies of Communism and boils them down, you will find they distill into two major lies out of which all others spring. They are: (1) Communism is inevitable, and (2) Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses rising up against exploiting bosses.
Let us go back to our imaginary survey and analyze our first big lie of Communism- that it is inevitable. You will recall that we asked our interviewee if he was for or against Communism and then we asked him to define it. Now we are going to ask him: “Sir, do you think Communism is inevitable in America?” And in almost every case the response will be something like this: “Oh, well, no. I don’t think so. You know how Americans are. We are a little slow sometimes in reacting to danger. You remember Pearl Harbor. But the American people would never sit still for Communism.”
Next we ask: “Well then, do you think socialism is inevitable in America?” The answer, in almost every case will be similar to this: “I’m no socialist, you understand, but I see what is going on in this country. Yeah, I’d have to say that socialism is inevitable.”
Then we ask our interviewee: “Since you say you are not a socialist but you feel the country is being socialized, why don’t you do something about it?” His response will run: “I’m only one person. Besides it’s inevitable. You can’t fight city hall, heh, heh, heh.”
Don’t you know that the boys down at city hall are doing everything they can to convince you of that? How effectively can you oppose anything if you feel your opposition is futile? Giving your opponent the idea that defending himself is futile is as old as warfare itself. In about 500 B. C. the Chinese war lord-philosopher Sun Tsu stated, “Supreme excellence in warfare lies in the destruction of your enemy’s will to resist in advance of perceptible hostilities.” We call it “psy war” or psychological warfare today. In poker, it is called “running a good bluff.” The principle is the same.
Thus we have the American people: anti-Communist, but unable to define it and anti- socialist, but thinking it is inevitable. How did Marx view Communism? How important is “the inevitability of Communism” to the Communists? What do the Communists want you to believe is inevitable-Communism or socialism? If you study Marx’ Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said the proletarian revolution would establish the SOCIALIST dictatorship of the proletariat. To achieve the SOCIALIST dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished: (1) The elimination of all right to private property; (2) The dissolution of the family unit; and (3) Destruction of what Marx referred to as the “opiate of the people,” religion.
Marx went on to state that when the dictatorship of the proletariat had accomplished these three things throughout the world, and after some undetermined length of time (as you can imagine, he was very vague on this point), the all powerful state would miraculously wither away and state socialism would give way to Communism. You wouldn’t need any government at all. Everything would be peace, sweetness and light and everybody would live happily ever after. But first, all Communists must work to establish SOCIALISM.
Can’t you just see Karl Marx really believing that an omnipotent state would wither away? Or can you imagine that a Joseph Stalin (or any other man with the cunning and ruthlessness necessary to rise to the top of the heap in an all-powerful dictatorship) would voluntarily dismantle the power he had built by fear and terror? *
Footnote:
{*} Karl Marx was hired by a mysterious group who called themselves the League of Just Men to write the Communist Manifesto as demogogic boob-bait to appeal to the mob. In actual fact the Communist Manifesto was in circulation for many years before Marx’ name was widely enough recognized to establish his authorship for this revolutionary handbook. All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria. And, it is widely acknowledged by serious scholars of this subject that the League of Just Men was simply an extension of the Illuminati which was forced to go deep underground after it was exposed by a raid in 1786 conducted by the Bavarian authorities.
Socialism would be the bait … the excuse to establish the dictatorship. Since dictatorship is hard to sell in idealistic terms, the idea had to be added that the dictatorship was just a temporary necessity and would soon dissolve of its own accord. You really have to be naive to swallow that, but millions do!
The drive to establish SOCIALISM, not Communism, is at the core of everything the Communists and the Insiders do. Marx and all of his successors in the Communist movement have ordered their followers to work on building SOCIALISM. If you go to hear an official Communist speaker, he never mentions Communism. He will speak only of the struggle to complete the socialization of America. If you go to a Communist bookstore you will find that all of their literature pushes this theme. It does not call for the establishment of Communism, but SOCIALISM.
And many members of the Establishment push this same theme. The September 1970 issue of New York magazine contains an article by Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, himself a professed socialist, entitled “Richard Nixon and the Great Socialist Revival.” In describing what he calls the “Nixon Game Plan,” Galbraith states:
“Mr. Nixon is probably not a great reader of Marx, but [his advisors] Drs. Burns, Shultz and McCracken are excellent scholars who know him well and could have brought the President abreast and it is beyond denying that the crisis that aided the rush into socialism was engineered by the Administration …”
Dr. Galbraith began his article by stating:
“Certainly the least predicted development under the Nixon Administration was this great new thrust to socialism. One encounters people who still aren’t aware of it. Others must be rubbing their eyes, for certainly the portents seemed all to the contrary. As and opponent of socialism, Mr. Nixon seemed steadfast. …”
Galbraith then proceeds to list the giant steps toward socialism taken by the Nixon Administration. The conclusion one draws from the article is that socialism, whether it be from the Democrat or Republican Parties, is inevitable. Fellow Harvard socialist Dr. Arthur Schlesinger has said much the same thing:
“The chief liberal gains in the past generally remain on the statute books when the conservatives recover power … liberalism grows constantly more liberal, and by the same token, conservatism grows constantly less conservative….”
Many extremely patriotic individuals have innocently fallen for the conspiracy’s line. Walter Trohan, columnist emeritus for the Chicago Tribune and one of America’s outstanding political commentators, has accurately noted:
“It is a known fact that the policies of the government today, whether Republican or Democratic, are closer to the 1932 platform of the Communist Party than they are to either of their own party platforms in that critical year. More than 100 years ago, in 1848 to be exact, Karl Marx promulgated his program for the socialized state in the Communist Manifesto. …”
And Mr. Trohan has also been fed to believe that the trend is inevitable:
“Conservatives should be realistic enough to recognize that this country is going deeper into socialism and will see expansion of federal power, whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. The only comfort they may have is that the pace will be slower under Richard M. Nixon than it might have been under Hubert H. Humphrey. …
Conservatives are going to have to recognize that the Nixon Administration will embrace most of the socialism of the Democratic administrations, while professing to improve it. …”
The Establishment promotes the idea of the inevitability of Communism through its perversion of terms used in describing the political spectrum. (See Chart 1) We are told that on the far Left of the political spectrum we find Communism, which is admittedly dictatorial. But, we are also told that equally to be feared is the opposite of the far Left, i.e., the far Right, which is labeled Fascism. We are constantly told that we should all try to stay in the middle of the road, which is termed democracy, but by which the Establishment means Fabian (or creeping) socialism. (The fact that the middle of the road has been moving inexorably leftward for forty years is ignored.) Here is an excellent example of the use of false alternatives. We are given the choice between Communism (international socialism) on one end of the spectrum, Naziism (national socialism) on the other end, or Fabian socialism in the middle. The whole spectrum is socialist!
This is absurd. Where would you put an anarchist on this spectrum? Where do you put a person who believes in a Constitutional Republic and the free enterprise system? He is not represented here, yet this spectrum is used for political definitions by a probable ninety percent of the people of the nation.
Charts 1 and 2
Chart 1 depicts a false Left-Right political spectrum used by Liberals which has Communism (International Socialism) on the far Left and its twin, Fascism (National Socialism) on the far Right with the “middle of the road” being Fabian Socialism. The entire spectrum is Socialist!
Chart 2 is a more rational political spectrum with total government in any form on the far Left and no government or anarchy on the far right. The U.S. was a Republic with a limited government, but for the past 60 years we have been moving leftward across the spectrum towards total government with each new piece of socialist legislation.
There is an accurate political spectrum. (See Chart 2.) Communism is, by definition, total government. If you have total government it makes little difference whether you call it Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Caesarism or Pharaohism. It’s all pretty much the same from the standpoint of the people who must live and suffer under it. If total government (by any of its pseudonyms) stands on the far Left, then by logic the far Right should represent anarchy, or no government.
Our Founding Fathers revolted against the near-total government of the English monarchy. But they knew that having no government at all would lead to chaos. So they set up a Constitutional Republic with a very limited government. They knew that men prospered in freedom. Although the free enterprise system is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is the only one which can exist under a Constitutional Republic. All collectivist systems require power in government which the Constitution did not grant. Our Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man’s labor and give it to another who had not earned it. Our government was to be one of severely limited powers. Thomas Jefferson said: “In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Jefferson knew that if the government were not enslaved, people soon would be.
It was Jefferson’s view that government governs best which governs least. Our forefathers established this country with the very least possible amount of government. Although they lived in an age before automobiles, electric lights and television, they understood human nature and its relation to political systems far better than do most Americans today. Times change, technology changes, but principles are eternal. Primarily, government was to provide for national defense and to establish a court system. But we have burst the chains that Jefferson spoke of and for many years now we have been moving leftward across the political spectrum toward collectivist total government. Every proposal by our political leaders (including some which are supposed to have the very opposite effect, such as Nixon’s revenue sharing proposal) carries us further leftward to centralized government. This is not because socialism is inevitable. It is no more inevitable than Pharaohism. It is largely the result of clever planning and patient gradualism.
Since all Communists and their Insider bosses are waging a constant struggle for SOCIALISM, let us define that term. Socialism is usually denned as government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services. When analyzed this means government control over everything, including you. All controls are “people” controls. If the government controls these areas it can eventually do just exactly as Marx set out to do-destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out religion.
We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it. If we had a chance to sit down and have a cup of coffee with the man in the street that we have been interviewing, he might say: “You know, the one thing I can never figure out is why all these very, very wealthy people like the Kennedys, the Fords, the Rockefellers and others are for socialism. Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don’t they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller’s and it seems funny that I’m against socialism and he’s out promoting it.” Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-thewealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the Insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.
Doesn’t it strike you as strange that some of the individuals pushing hardest for socialism have their own personal wealth protected in family trusts and tax-free foundations? Men like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy are for every socialist program known to man which will increase your taxes. Yet they pay-little, if anything, in taxes themselves. An article published by the North American Newspaper Alliance in August of 1967 tells how the Rockefellers pay practically no income taxes despite their vast wealth. The article reveals that one of the Rockefellers paid the grand total of $685 personal income tax during a recent year. The Kennedys have their Chicago Merchandise Mart, their mansions, yachts, planes, etc., all owned by their myriads of family foundations and trusts. Taxes are for peons! Yet hypocrites like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy pose as great champions of the “downtrodden.” If they were really concerned about the poor, rather than using socialism as a means of achieving personal political power, they would divest themselves of their own fortunes. There is no law which prevents them from giving away their own fortunes to the poverty stricken. Shouldn’t these men set an example? And practice what they preach? If they advocate sharing the wealth, shouldn’t they start with their own instead of that of the middle class which pays almost all the taxes? Why don’t Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Ford II give away all their wealth, retaining only enough to place themselves at the national average? Can’t you imagine Teddy Kennedy giving up his mansion, airplane and yacht and moving into a $25,000 home with a $20,000 mortgage like the rest of us?
We are usually told that this clique of super-rich are socialists because they have a guilt complex over wealth they inherited and did not earn. Again, they could relieve these supposed guilt complexes simply by divesting themselves of their unearned wealth. There are doubtless many wealthy do-gooders who have been given a guilt complex by their college professors, but that doesn’t explain the actions of Insiders like the Rockefellers, Fords or Kennedys. All their actions betray them as power seekers.
But the Kennedys, Rockefellers and their super-rich confederates are not being hypocrites in advocating socialism. It appears to be a contradiction for the super-rich to work for socialism and the destruction of free enterprise. In reality it is not.
Our problem is that most of us believe socialism is what the socialists want us to believe it is-a share-thewealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works? Let us examine the only Socialist countries-according to the Socialist definition of the word-extant in the world today. These are the Communist countries. The Communists themselves refer to these as Socialist countries, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Here in the reality of socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other ninety-seven percent. Certainly even the most naive observe that Mr. Brezhnev doesn’t live like one of the poor peasants out on the great Russian steppes. But, according to socialist theory, he is supposed to do just that!
If one understands that socialism is not a share-thewealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite. The plan of the conspirator Insiders then is to socialize the United States, not to Communize it.
How is this to be accomplished? Chart 3 shows the structure of our government as established by our Founding Fathers. The Constitution fractionalized and subdivided governmental power in every way possible. The Founding Fathers believed that each branch of the government, whether at the federal, state or local level, would be jealous of its powers and would never surrender them to centralized control. Also, many phases of our lives (such as charity and education) were put totally, or almost totally, out of the grasp of politicians. Under this system you could not have a dictatorship. No segment of government could possibly amass enough power to form a dictatorship. In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single branch holding most of the reins of power. Once you have this, a dictatorship is inevitable.
Chart 3 – Constitutional Republic
A dictatorship was impossible in our Republic because power was widely diffused. Today, as we approach Democratic Socialism, all power is being centralized at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government. This concentration of power makes a dictatorship inevitable. Those who control the President indirectly gain virtual control of the whole country.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes noted: “Freedom is government divided into small fragments.” Wood-row Wilson, before he became the tool of the Insiders, observed: “This history of liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.” And the English historian Lord Acton commented: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Even though these men lived after our Constitution was written, our forefathers understood these principles completely.
But what is happening today? As we move leftward along the political spectrum towards socialism, all the reins of power are being centralized in the executive branch of the federal government. Much of this is being done by buying with legislation or with “free” federal grants all the other entities. Money is used as bait and the hook is federal control. The Supreme Court has ruled, and in this case quite logically, that “it is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.”
If you and your clique wanted control over the United States, it would be impossible to take over every city hall, county seat and state house. You would want all power vested at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government; then you would have only to control one man to control the whole shebang. If you wanted to control the nation’s manufacturing, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all-powerful SOCIALIST government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all your competitors. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what the game is all about. “Communism” is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world … first by establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then consolidating them all through a “Great Merger,” into an all-powerful world socialist super-state probably under the auspices of the United Nations. The balance of this book will outline just how they have used Communism to approach that goal.
Many college history professors tell their charges that the books they will be using in the class are “objective.” But stop and ask yourself: Is it possible to write a history book without a particular point of view? There are billions of events which take place in the world each day. To think of writing a complete history of a nation covering even a year is absolutely incredible.
Not only is a historian’s ability to write an “objective” history limited by the sheer volume of happenings but by the fact that many of the most important happenings never appear in the papers or even in somebody’s memoirs. The decisions reached by the “Big Boys” in the smoke-filled rooms are not reported even in the New York Times which ostensibly reports all the news that is fit to print. (“All the news that fits” is a more accurate description.)
In order to build his case, a historian must select a miniscule number of facts from the limited number that are known. If he does not have a “theory,” how does he separate important facts from unimportant ones? As Professor Stuart Crane has pointed out, this is why every book “proves” the author’s thesis. But no book is objective. No book can be objective; and this book is not objective. (Liberal reviewers should have a ball quoting that out of context.) The information in it is true, but the book is not objective. We have carefully selected the facts to prove our case. We believe that most other historians have focused on the landscape, and ignored that which is most important: the cart, boy and donkey.
Most of the facts which we bring out are readily verifiable at any large library. But our contention is that we have arranged these facts in the order which most accurately reveals their true significance in history. These are the facts the Establishment does not want you to know.
Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie two-thirds of the way through? Confusing wasn’t it? All the evidence made it look as if the butler were the murderer, but in the final scenes you find out, surprisingly, that it was the man’s wife all along. You have to stay and see the beginning of the film. Then as all the pieces fall into place, the story makes sense.
This situation is very similar to the one in which millions of Americans find themselves today. They are confused by current happenings in the nation. They have come in as the movie, so to speak, is going into its conclusion. The earlier portion of the mystery is needed to make the whole thing understandable. (Actually, we are not really starting at the beginning, but we are going back far enough to give meaning to today’s happenings.)
In order to understand the conspiracy it is necessary to have some rudimentary knowledge of banking and, particularly, of international bankers. While it would be an over-simplification to ascribe the entire conspiracy to international bankers, they nevertheless have played a key role. Think of the conspiracy as a hand with one finger labelled “international banking,” others “foundations,” “the anti-religion movement”
“Fabian Socialism,” and “Communism.” But it was the international bankers of whom Professor Quigley was speaking when we quoted him earlier as stating that their aim was nothing less than control of the world through finance.
Where do governments get the enormous amounts of money they need? Most, of course, comes from taxation; but governments often spend more than they are willing to tax from their citizens and so are forced to borrow. Our national debt is now $455 billion-every cent of it borrowed at interest from somewhere.
The public is led to believe that our government borrows from “the people” through savings bonds. Actually, only the smallest percentage of the national debt is held by individuals in this form. Most government bonds, except those owned by the government itself through its trust funds, are held by vast banking firms known as international banks.
For centuries there has been big money to be made by international bankers in the financing of governments and kings. Such operators are faced, however, with certain thorny problems. We know that smaller banking operations protect themselves by taking collateral, but what kind of collateral can you get from a government or a king? What if the banker comes to collect and the king says, “Off with his head”? The process through which one collects a debt from a government or a monarch is not a subject taught in the business schools of our universities, and most of us-never having been in the business of financing kings-have not given the problem much thought. But there is a king-financing business and to those who can ensure collection it is lucrative indeed.
Economics Professor Stuart Crane notes that there are two means used to collateralize loans to governments and kings. Whenever a business firm borrows big money its creditor obtains a voice in management to protect his investment. Like a business, no government can borrow big money unless willing to surrender to the creditor some measure of sovereignty as collateral. Certainly international bankers who have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to governments around the world command considerable influence in the policies of such governments.
But the ultimate advantage the creditor has over the king or president is that if the ruler gets out of line the banker can finance his enemy or rival. Therefore, if you want to stay in the lucrative king-financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or rival waiting in the wings to unseat every king or president to whom you lend. If the king doesn’t have an enemy, you must create one.
Preeminent in playing this game was the famous House of Rothschild. Its founder, Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany, kept one of his five sons at home to run the Frankfurt bank and sent the others to London, Paris, Vienna and Naples. The Rothschilds became incredibly wealthy during the nineteenth century by financing governments to fight each other. According to Professor Stuart Crane:
“If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power.’ With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.”
In describing the characteristics of the Rothschilds and other major international bankers, Dr. Quigley tells us that they remained different from ordinary bankers in several ways: they were cosmopolitan and international; they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with government debts, including foreign government debts; these bankers came to be called “international bankers.” (Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 52)
One major reason for the historical blackout on the role of the international bankers in political history is that the Rothschilds were Jewish. Anti-Semites have played into the hands of the conspiracy by trying to portray the entire conspiracy as Jewish. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The traditionally Anglo-Saxon J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller international banking institutions have played a key role in the conspiracy. But there is no denying the importance of the Rothschilds and their satellites. However, it is just as unreasonable and immoral to blame all Jews for the crimes of the Rothschilds as it is to hold all Baptists accountable for the crimes of the Rockefellers.
The Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an organization called the Anti- Defamation League as an instrument to try to convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds or their allies is an attack on all Jews. In this way they have stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and made the subject taboo within universities.
Any individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by hundreds of A.D.L. committees all over the country. The A.D.L. has never let truth or logic interfere with its highly professional smear jobs. When no evidence is apparent, the A.D.L., which staunchly opposed so-called “McCarthyism,” accuses people of being “latent anti-Semites.” Can you imagine how they would yowl and scream if someone accused them of being “latent” Communists? Actually, nobody has a right to be more angry at the Rothschild clique than their fellow Jews. The Warburgs, part of the Rothschild empire, helped finance Adolph Hitler. There were few if any Rothschilds or Warburgs in the Nazi prison camps! They sat out the war in luxurious hotels in Paris or emigrated to the United States or England. As a group, Jews have suffered most at the hands of these power seekers. A Rothschild has much more in common with a Rockefeller than he does with a tailor from Budapest or the Bronx.
Since the keystone of the international banking empires has been government bonds, it has been in the interest of these international bankers to encourage government debt. The higher the debt the more the interest. Nothing drives government deeply into debt like a war; and it has not been an uncommon practice among international bankers to finance both sides of the bloodiest military conflicts. For example, during our Civil War the North was financed by the Rothschilds through their American agent, August Belmont, and the American South through the Erlangers, Rothschild relatives.
But while wars and revolutions have been useful to international bankers in gaining or increasing control over governments, the key to such control has always been control of money. You can control a government if you have it in your debt; a creditor is in a position to demand the privileges of monopoly from the sovereign. Money-seeking governments have granted monopolies in state banking, natural resources, oil concessions and transportation. However, the monopoly which the international financiers most covet is control over a nation’s money.
Eventually these international bankers actually owned as private corporations the central banks of the various European nations. The Bank of England, Bank of France and Bank of Germany were not owned by their respective governments, as almost everyone imagines, but were privately owned monopolies granted by the heads of state, usually in return for loans. Under this system, observed Reginald McKenna, President of the Midlands Bank of England: “Those that create and issue the money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people.” Once the government is in debt to the bankers it is at their mercy. A frightening example was cited by the London Financial Times of September 26, 1921, which revealed that even at that time: “Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills.”
All those who have sought dictatorial control over modern nations have understood the necessity of a central bank. When the League of Just Men hired a hack revolutionary named Karl Marx to write a blueprint for conquest called The Communist Manifesto, the fifth plank read: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Lenin later said that the establishment of a central bank was ninety percent of communizing a country. Such conspirators knew that you cannot take control of a nation without military force unless that nation has a central bank through which you can control its economy. The anarchist Bakunin sarcastically remarked about the followers of Karl Marx: “They have one foot in the bank and one foot in the socialist movement.”
The international financiers set up their own front man in charge of each of Europe’s central banks. Professor Quigley reports:
“It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called ‘international’ or ‘merchants’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. …” (Quigley, op. cit., pp. 326-7.)
Dr. Quigley also reveals that the international bankers who owned and controlled the Banks of England and France maintained their power even after those Banks were theoretically socialized.
Naturally those who controlled the central banks of Europe were eager from the start to fasten a similar establishment on the United States. From the earliest days, the Founding Fathers had been conscious of attempts to control America through money manipulation, and they carried on a running battle with the international bankers. Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams: “… I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. …”
But, even though America did not have a central bank after President Jackson abolished it in 1836, the European financiers and their American agents managed to obtain a great deal of control over our monetary system. Gustavus Myers, in Ms History of The Great American Fortunes, reveals:
“Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were powers in the old Bank of the United States [abolished by Andrew Jackson].”
During the nineteenth century the leading financiers of the metropolitan East often cut one another’s financial throats, but as their Western and rural victims started to organize politically, the “robber barons” saw that they had a “community of interest” toward which they must work together to protect themselves from thousands of irate farmers and up and coming competitors. This diffusion of economic power was one of the main factors stimulating the demands for a central bank by would-be business and financial monopolists.
In Years of Plunder Proctor Hansl writes of this era:
“Among the Morgans, Kuhn-Loebs and other similar pillars of the industrial order there was less disposition to become involved in disagreements that led to financial dislocation. A community of interest came into being, with results that were highly beneficial. …”
But aside from the major Eastern centers, most American bankers and their customers still distrusted the whole concept.
In order to show the hinterlands that they were going to need a central hanking system, the international bankers created a series of panics as a demonstration of their power-a warning of what would happen unless the rest of the bankers got into line. The man in charge of conducting these lessons was J. Pierpont Morgan, American- born but educated in England and Germany. Morgan is referred to by many, including Congressman Louis McFadden, (a banker who for ten years headed the House Banking and Currency Committee), as the top American agent of the English Rothschilds.
By the turn of the century J. P. Morgan was already an old hand at creating artificial panics. Such affairs were well co-ordinated. Senator Robert Owen, a co-author of the Federal Reserve Act, (who later deeply regretted his role), testified before a Congressional Committee that the bank he owned received from the National Bankers’ Association what came to be known as the “Panic Circular of 1893.’ It stated: “You will at once retire one-third of your circulation and call in one-half of your loans. …”
Historian Frederick Lewis Allen tells in Life magazine of April 25, 1949, of Morgan’s role in spreading rumors about the insolvency of the Knickerbocker Bank and The Trust Company of America, which rumors triggered the 1907 panic. In answer to the question: “Did Morgan precipitate the panic?” Allen reports:
“Oakleigh Thome, the president of that particular trust company, testified later before a congressional committee that his bank had been subjected to only moderate withdrawals … that he had not applied for help, and that it was the [Morgan’s] ‘sore point’ statement alone that had caused the run on his bank. From this testimony, plus the disciplinary measures taken by the Clearing House against the Heinze, Morse and Thomas banks, plus other fragments of supposedly pertinent evidence, certain chroniclers have arrived at the ingenious conclusion that the Morgan interests took advantage of the unsettled conditions during the autumn of 1907 to precipitate the panic, guiding it shrewdly as it progressed so that it would kill off rival banks and consolidate the preeminence of the banks within the Morgan orbit.”
The “panic” which Morgan had created, he proceeded to end almost single-handedly. He had made his point. Frederick Allen explains:
“The lesson of the Panic of 1907 was clear, though not for some six years was it destined to be embodied in legislation: the United States gravely needed a central banking system. …”
The man who was to play the most significant part in providing America with that central bank was Paul Warburg, who along with his brother Felix had immigrated to the United States from Germany in 1902. (See Chart 4.) They left brother Max (later a major financier of the Russian Revolution) at home in Frankfurt to run the family bank (M. N. Warburg & Company).
Paul Warburg married Nina Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, America’s most powerful international banking firm. Brother Felix married Frieda Schiff, daughter of Jacob Schiff, the ruling power behind Kuhn, Loeb. Stephen Birmingham writes in his authoritative Our Crowd: “In the eighteenth century the Schiffs and Rothschilds shared a double house” in Frankfurt. Schiff reportedly bought his partnership in Kuhn, Loeb with Rothschild money.
Both Paul and Felix Warburg became partners in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.
In 1907, the year of the Morgan-precipitated panic, Paul Warburg began spending almost all of his time writing and lecturing on the need for “bank reform.” Kuhn, Loeb and Company was sufficiently public spirited about the matter to keep him on salary at $500,000 per year while for the next six years he donated his time to “the public good.”
Working with Warburg in promoting this “banking reform” was Nelson Aldrich, known as “Morgan’s floor broker in the Senate.” Aldrich’s daughter Abby married John D. Rockefeller Jr. (the current Governor of New York is named for his maternal grandfather).
Chart 4 -Federal Reserve
After the Panic of 1907, Aldrich was appointed by the Senate to head the National Monetary Commission. Although he had no technical knowledge of banking, Aldrich and his entourage spent nearly two years and $300,000 of the taxpayers’ money being wined and dined by the owners of Europe’s central banks as they toured the Continent “studying” central banking. When the Commission returned from its luxurious junket it held no meetings and made no report for nearly two years. But Senator Aldrich was busy “arranging” things. Together with Paul Warburg and other international bankers, he staged one of the most important secret meetings in the history of the United States. Rockefeller agent Frank Vanderlip admitted many years later in his memoirs:
“Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive- indeed as furtive-as any conspirator …. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyl Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.”
The secrecy was well warranted. At stake was control over the entire economy. Senator Aldrich had issued confidential invitations to Henry P. Davison of J. P. Morgan & Company; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of the Rockefeller-owned National City Bank; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Benjamin Strong of Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; and Paul Warburg. They were all to accompany him to Jekyl Island, Georgia, to write the final recommendations of the National Monetary Commission report.
At Jekyl Island, writes B. C. Forbes in his Men Who Are Making America:
“After a general discussion it was decided to draw up certain broad principles on which all could agree. Every member of the group voted for a central bank as being the ideal cornerstone for any banking system.” (Page 399)
Warburg stressed that the name “central bank” must be avoided at all costs. It was decided to promote the scheme as a “regional reserve” system with four (later twelve) branches in different sections of the country. The conspirators knew that the New York bank would dominate the rest, which would be marble “white elephants” to deceive the public.
Out of the Jekyl Island meeting came the completion of the Monetary Commission Report and the Aldrich Bill. Warburg had proposed the bill be designated the “Federal Reserve System,” but Aldrich insisted his own name was already associated in the public’s mind with banking reform and that it would arouse suspicion if a bill were introduced which did not bear his name. However, Aldrich’s name attached to the bill proved to be the kiss of death, since any law bearing his name was so obviously a project of the international bankers.
When the Aldrich Bill could not be pushed through Congress, a new strategy had to be devised. The Republican Party was too closely connected with Wall Street. The only hope for a central bank was to disguise it and have it put through by the Democrats as a measure to strip Wall Street of its power. The opportunity to do this came with the approach of the 1912 Presidential election. Republican President William Howard Taft, who had turned against the Aldrich Bill, seemed a sure-fire bet for reelection until Taft’s predecessor, fellow Republican Teddy Roosevelt, agreed to run on the ticket of the Progressive Party. In America’s 60 Families, Ferdinand Lundberg acknowledges:
“As soon as Roosevelt signified that he would again challenge Taft the President’s defeat was inevitable. Throughout the three-cornered fight [Taft-Roosevelt-Wilson] Roosevelt had [Morgan agents Frank] Munsey and [George] Perkins constantly at his heels, supplying money, going over his speeches, bringing people from Wall Street in to help, and, in general, carrying the entire burden of the campaign against Taft. . . .
Perkins and J. P. Morgan and Company were the substance of the Progressive Party; everything else was trimming. . . .
In short, most of Roosevelt’s campaign fund was supplied by the two Morgan hatchet men who were seeking Taft’s scalp.” (Pp. 110-112)
The Democrat candidate, Woodrow Wilson, was equally the property of Morgan. Dr. Gabriel Kolko in his The Triumph of Conservatism, reports: “In late 1907 he [Wilson] supported the Aldrich Bill on banking, and was full of praise for Morgan’s role in American society.” (Page 205) According to Lundberg: “For nearly twenty years before his nomination Woodrow Wilson had moved in the shadow of Wall Street.” (Page 112)
Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt proceeded to whistle-stop the country trying to out-do each other in florid (and hypocritical) denunciations of the Wall Street “money trust”-the same group of Insiders which was financing the campaigns of both.
Dr. Kolko goes on to tell us that, at the beginning of 1912, banking reform “seemed a dead issue. … The banking reform movement had neatly isolated itself.” Wilson resurrected the issue and promised the country a money system free from domination by the international bankers of Wall Street. Moreover, the Democrat platform expressly stated: “We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank.” But the ‘”Big Boys” knew who they had bought. Among the international financiers who contributed heavily to the Wilson campaign, in addition to those already named, were Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Thomas Fortune Ryan, and New York Times publisher Adolph Ochs.
The Insiders’ sheepdog who controlled Wilson and guided the program through Congress was the mysterious “Colonel” Edward Mandel House, the British-educated son of a representative of England’s financial interests in the American South. The title was honorary; House never served in the military. He was strictly a behind-thescenes wire-puller and is regarded by many historians as the real President of the United States during the Wilson years. House authored a book, Philip Dru: Administrator, in which he wrote of establishing “Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx.” As steps toward his goal, House, both in his book and in real life, called for passage of a graduated income tax and a central bank providing “a flexible [inflatable paper] currency.” The graduated income tax and a central bank are two of the ten planks of The Communist Manifesto.
In his The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Professor Charles Seymour refers to the “Colonel” as the “unseen guardian angel” of the Federal Reserve Act. Seymour’s work contains numerous documents and records showing constant contact between House and Paul Warburg while the Federal Reserve Act was being prepared and steered through Congress. Biographer George Viereck assures us that “The Schiffs, the Warburgs, the Kahns, the Rockefellers, and the Morgans put their faith in House. …” Their faith was amply rewarded.
In order to support the fiction that the Federal Reserve Act was “a people’s bill,” the Insider financiers put up a smoke-screen of opposition to it. It was strictly a case of Br’er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch. Both Aldrich and Vanderlip denounced what in actuality was their own bill. Nearly twenty-five years later Frank Vanderlip admitted: “Now although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all contained in the plan that finally was adopted.”
Taking advantage of Congress’ desire to adjourn for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 22, 1913 by a vote of 298 to 60 in the House, and in the Senate by a majority of 43 to 25. Wilson had fulfilled to the Insiders the pledge he had made in order to become President. Warburg told House, “Well, it hasn’t got quite everything we want, but the lack can be adjusted later by administrative process.”
There was genuine opposition to the Act, but it could not match the power of the bill’s advocates. Conservative Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. proclaimed with great foresight, “The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of currency. … I do not like to think that any law can be passed which will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency.” {Congressional Record, June 10, 1932.) After the vote, Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., father of the famous aviator, told Congress:
“This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. … When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized. …
This is the Aldrich Bill in disguise. …
The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. …
The Federal Reserve Act was, and still is, hailed as a victory of “democracy” over the “money trust.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The whole central bank concept was engineered by the very group it was supposed to strip of power. The myth that the “money trust” had been defrocked should have been exploded when Paul Warburg was appointed to the first Federal Reserve Board-a board which was hand-picked by “Colonel” House. Paul Warburg relinquished his $500,000 a year job as a Kuhn, Loeb partner to take a $12,000 a year job with the Federal Reserve. The “accidentalists” who teach in our universities would have you believe that he did it because he was a “public spirited citizen.” And the man who served as Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank during its early critical years was the same Benjamin Strong of the Morgan interests, who accompanied Warburg, Davison, Vanderlip et al. to Jekyl Island, Georgia, to draft the Aldrich Bill. How powerful is our “central bank?” The Federal Reserve controls our money supply and interest rates, and thereby manipulates the entire economy-creating inflation or deflation, recession or boom, and sending the stock market up or down at whim. The Federal Reserve is so powerful that Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintains:
“In the United States today we have in effect two governments. … We have the duly constituted Government. … Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.”
Prof. Carroll Quigley of Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown Universities wrote book disclosing international bankers’ plan to control the world from behind the political and financial scenes. Quigley revealed plans of billionaires to establish dictatorship of the super-rich disguised as workers’ democracies.
J.P. Morgan created artificial panic used as excuse to pass Federal Reserve Act. Morgan was instrumental in pushing U.S. into WWl to protect his loans to British government. He financed Socialist groups to create an all-powerful centralized government which international bankers would control at the apex from behind the scenes. After his death, his partners helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Neither Presidents, Congressmen nor Secretaries of the Treasury direct the Federal Reserve! In the matters of money, the Federal Reserve directs them! Th uncontrolled power of the “Fed” was admitted by Secretary of the Treasury David M. Kennedy in an interview for the May 5, 1969, issue of U.S. News & World Report:
“Q. Do you approve of the latest credit-tightening moves?
A. It’s not my job to approve or disapprove. It is the action of the Federal Reserve.” And, curiously enough, the Federal Reserve System has never been audited and has firmly resisted all attempts by House Banking Committee Chairman Wright Patman to have it audited. (N. Y. Times, Sept. 14, 1967.)
How successful has the Federal Reserve System been? It depends on your point of view. Since Woodrow Wilson took his oath of office, the national debt has risen from $1 billion to $455 billion. The total amount of interest paid since then to the international bankers holding that debt is staggering, with interest having become the third largest item in the federal budget. Interest on the national debt is now $22 billion every year, and climbing steeply as inflation pushes up the interest rate on government bonds. Meanwhile, our gold is mortgaged to European central banks, and our silver has all been sold. With economic catastrophe imminent, only a blind disciple of the “accidental theory of history” could believe that all of this has occurred by coincidence.
When the Federal Reserve System was foisted on an unsuspecting American public, there were absolute guarantees that there would be no more boom and bust economic cycles. The men who, behind the scenes, were pushing the central bank concept for the international bankers faithfully promised that from then on there would be only steady growth and perpetual prosperity. However, Congressman Charles A. Lindberg Sr. accurately proclaimed: “From now on depressions will be scientifically created.”
Using a central bank to create alternate periods of inflation and deflation, and thus whipsawing the public for vast profits, had been worked out by the international bankers to an exact science.
Having built the Federal Reserve as a tool to consolidate and control wealth, the international bankers were now ready to make a major killing. Between 1923 and 1929, the Federal Reserve expanded (inflated) the money supply by sixty-two percent. Much of this new money was used to bid the stock market up to dizzying heights.
At the same time that enormous amounts of credit money were being made available, the mass media began to ballyhoo tales of the instant riches to be made in the stock market. According to Ferdinand Lundberg:
“For profits to be made on these funds the public had to be induced to speculate, and it was so induced by misleading newspaper accounts, many of them bought and paid for by the brokers that operated the pools. …”
The House Hearings on Stabilization of the Purchasing Power of the Dollar disclosed evidence in 1928 that the Federal Reserve Board was working closely with the heads of European central banks. The Committee warned that a major crash had been planned in 1927. At a secret luncheon of the Federal Reserve Board and heads of the European central banks, the committee warned, the international bankers were tightening the noose.
Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, came to Washington on February 6, 1929, to confer with Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. On November 11, 1927, the Wall Street Journal described Mr. Norman as “the currency dictator of Europe.” Professor Carroll Quigley notes that Norman, a close confidant of J. P. Morgan, admitted: “I hold the hegemony of the world.” Immediately after this mysterious visit, the Federal Reserve Board reversed its easy-money policy and began raising the discount rate. The balloon which had been inflated constantly for nearly seven years was about to be exploded. On October 24, the feathers hit the fan. Writing in The United States’ Unresolved Monetary and Political Problems, William Bryan describes what happened:
“When everything was ready, the New York financiers started calling 24 hour broker call loans. This meant that the stock brokers and the customers had to dump their stock on the market in order to pay the loans. This naturally collapsed the stock market and brought a banking collapse all over the country because the banks not owned by the oligarchy were heavily involved in broker call claims at this time, and bank runs soon exhausted their coin and currency and they had to close. The Federal Reserve System would not come to their aid, although they were instructed under the law to maintain an elastic currency.”
The investing public, including most stock brokers and bankers, took a horrendous blow in the crash, but not the Insiders. They were either out of the market or had sold “short” so that they made enormous profits as the Dow Jones plummeted. For those who knew the score, a comment by Paul Warburg had provided the warning to sell. That signal came on March 9, 1929, when the Financial Chronical quoted Warburg as giving this sound advice:
“If orgies of unrestricted speculation are permitted to spread too far … the ultimate collapse is certain … to bring about a general depression involving the whole country.”
Sharpies were later able to buy back these stocks at a ninety percent discount from their former highs.
To think that the scientifically engineered Crash of ’29 was an accident or the result of stupidity defies all logic. The international bankers who promoted the inflationary policies and pushed the propaganda which pumped up the -stock market represented too many generations of accumulated expertise to have blundered into “the great depression.”
Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, commented:
“It [the depression] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. … The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”
Although we have not had another depression of the magnitude of that which followed 1929, we have since suffered regular recessions. Each of these has followed a period in which the Federal Reserve tromped down hard on the money accelerator and then slammed on the brakes. Since 1929 the following recessions have been created by such manipulation:
1936-1937 -Stock Prices fell fifty percent; 1948 -Stock prices dropped sixteen percent; 1953 -Stock declined thirteen percent; 1956-1957 -The market dipped thirteen percent; 1957 -Late in the year the market plunged nineteen percent; 1960 -The market was off seventeen percent; 1966 -Stock prices plummeted twenty-five percent; 1970 -The market plunged over twenty-five percent.
Chart 5, based on one appearing in the highly respected financial publication, Indicator Digest of June 24, 1969, shows the effects on the Dow-Jones Industrial Average of Federal Reserve policies of expanding or restricting the monetary supply. This is how the stock market is manipulated and how depressions or recessions are scientifically created. If you have inside knowledge as to which way the Federal Reserve policy is going to go, you can make a ton of money.
The members of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed by the President for fourteen year terms. Since these positions control the entire economy of the country they are far more important than cabinet positions, but who has ever heard of any of them except possibly Chairman Arthur Burns? These appointments which should be extensively debated by the Senate are routinely approved. But, here, as in Europe, these men are mere figureheads, put in their positions at the behest of the international bankers who finance the Presidential campaigns of both political parties.
And, Professor Quigley reveals that these international bankers who owned and controlled the Banks of England and France maintained their power even after those banks were theoretically socialized. The American system is slightly different, but the net effect is the same–everincreasing debt” requiring ever-increasing interest payments, inflation and periodic scientifically created depressions and recessions.
The end result, if the Insiders have their way, will be the dream of Montagu Norman of the Bank of England “that the Hegemony of World Finance should reign supreme over everyone, everywhere, as one whole supernadonal control mechanism.” (Montagu Norman by John Hargrave, Greystone Press, N.Y., 1942.)
The establishing of the Federal Reserve System provided the “conspiracy” with an instrument whereby the international bankers could run the national debt up to the sky, thereby collecting enormous amounts of interest and also gaining control over the borrower. During the Wilson Administration* alone, the national debt expanded 800 percent.
Two months prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the conspirators had created the mechanism to collect the funds to pay the interest on the national debt. That mechanism was the progressive income tax, the second plank of Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto which contained ten planks for SOCIALIZING a country.
One quite naturally assumes that the graduated income tax would be opposed by the wealthy. The fact is that many of the wealthiest Americans supported it. Some, no doubt, out of altruism and because, at first, the taxes were very small. But others backed the scheme because they already had a plan for permanently avoiding both the income tax and the subsequent inheritance tax.
What happened was this: At the turn of the century the Populists, a group of rural socialists, were gaining strength and challenging the power of the New York bankers and monopolist industrialists. While the Populists had the wrong answers, they asked many of the right questions. Unfortunately, they were led to believe that the banker- monopolist control over government, which they opposed, was a product of free enterprise.
Since the Populist threat to the cartelists was from the Left (there being no organized political movement for laissez-faire), the Insiders moved to capture the Left. Professor Quigley discloses that over fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Leftwing political movement in the United States. This was not difficult to do since these Left groups needed funds and were eager for help to get their message to the public. Wall Street supplied both. There was nothing new about this decision, says Quigley, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. He continues:
“What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes …” (Page 938)
Radical movements are never successful unless they attract big money and/or outside support. The great historian of the Twentieth Century, Oswald Spengler, was one of those who saw what American Liberals refuse to see-that the Left is controlled by its alleged enemy, the malefactors of great wealth. He wrote in his monumental Decline of the West (Modern Library, New York, 1945):
“There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money-and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”
While the Populist movement was basically non-conspiratorial, its Leftist ideology and platform were made to order for the elitist Insiders because it aimed at concentrating power in government. The Insiders knew they could control that power and use it to their own purposes. They were not, of course, interested in promoting competition but in restricting it. Professor Gabriel Kolko has prepared a lengthy volume presenting the undeniable proof that the giant corporate manipulators promoted much of the so-called “progressive legislation” of the Roosevelt and Wilson eras-legislation which ostensibly was aimed at controlling their abuses, but which was so written as to suit their interests. In The Triumph of Conservatism (by which Kolko mistakenly means big business), he notes:
“… the significant reason for many businessmen welcoming and working to increase federal intervention into their affairs has been virtually ignored by historians and economists. The oversight was due to the illusion that American industry was centralized and monopolized to such an extent that it could rationalize the activity [regulate production and prices] in its various branches voluntarily. Quite the opposite was true. Despite the large numbers of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant tendency in the American economy at the beginning of this century was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests. …”
The best way for the Insiders to eliminate this growing competition was to impose a progressive income tax on their competitors while writing the laws so as to include built-in escape hatches for themselves. Actually, very few of the proponents of the graduated income tax realized they were playing into the hands of those they were seeking to control. As Ferdinand Lundberg notes in The Rich And The Super-Rich:
“What it [the income tax] became, finally, was a siphon gradually inserted into the pocketbooks of the general public. Imposed to popular huzzas as a class tax, the income tax was gradually turned into a mass tax in a jiujitsu turnaround. …”
The Insiders’ principal mouthpiece in the Senate during this period was Nelson Aldrich, one of the conspirators involved in engineering the creation of the Federal Reserve and the maternal grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Lundberg says that “When Aldrich spoke, newsmen understood that although the words were his, the dramatic line was surely approved by ‘Big John ID. Rockefeller]. …'” In earlier years Aldrich had denounced the income tax as “communistic and socialistic,” but in 1909 he pulled a dramatic and stunning reversal. The American Biographical Dictionary comments:
“Just when the opposition had become formidable he [Aidrich] took the wind out of its sails by bringing forward, with the support of the President [Taft], a proposed amendment to the Constitution empowering Congress to lay income taxes.”
Howard Hinton records in his biography of Cordell Hull that Congressman Hull, who had been pushing in the House for the income tax, wrote this stunned observation:
“During the past few weeks the unexpected spectacle of certain so-called ‘old-line conservative’ [sic] Republican leaders in Congress suddenly reversing their attitude of a lifetime and seemingly espousing, through ill-concealed reluctance, the proposed income-tax amendment to the Constitution has been the occasion of universal surprise and wonder.”
The escape hatch for the Insiders to avoid paying taxes was ready. By the time the Amendment had been approved by the states (even before the income-tax was passed), the Rockefellers and Carnegie foundations were in full operation.
One must remember that it was to break up the Standard Oil (Rockefeller) and U.S. Steel (Carnegie) monopolies that the various anti-trust acts were ostensibly passed. These monopolists could now compound their wealth tax-tree while competitors had to face a graduated income tax which made it difficult to amass capital. As we have said, socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, as the socialists would like you to believe, but a consolidate-and-control-the-wealth program for the Insiders. The Reece Committee which investigated foundations for Congress in 1953 proved with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the various Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations have been promoting socialism since their inception. (See Rene Wormser’s Foundations: Their Power and Influence, Devin Adair, New York, 1958.)
The conspirators now had created the mechanisms to run up the debt, to collect the debt, and (for themselves) to avoid the taxes required to pay the yearly interest on the debt. Then all that was needed was a reason to escalate the debt. Nothing runs up a national debt like a war. And World War I was being brewed in Europe.
In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected by a hair. He had based his campaign on the slogan: “He Kept Us Out of War!” The American public was extremely opposed to America’s getting involved in a European war. Staying out of the perennial foreign quarrels had been an American tradition since George Washington. But as Wilson was stumping the country giving his solemn word that American soldiers would not be sent into a foreign war, he was preparing to do just the opposite. His “alter ego,” as he called “Colonel” House, was making behind-the-scenes agreements with England which committed America to entering the war. Just five months later we were in it. The same crowd which manipulated the passage of the income tax and the Federal Reserve System wanted America in the war. J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, “Colonel” House, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg and the rest of the Jekyl Island conspirators were all deeply involved in getting us involved. Many of these financiers had loaned England large sums of money. In fact, J. P. Morgan & Co. served as British financial agents in this country during World War I.
While all of the standard reasons given for the outbreak of World War I in Europe doubtless were factors, there were also other more important causes. The conspiracy had been planning the war for over two decades.
The assassination of an Austrian Archduke was merely an incident providing an excuse for starting a chain reaction.
After years of fighting, the war was a complete stalemate and would have ended almost immediately in a negotiated settlement (as had most other European conflicts) had not the U.S. declared war on Germany.
As soon as Wilson’s re-election had been engineered through the “he kept us out of war” slogan, a complete reversal of propaganda was instituted. In those days before radio and television, public opinion was controlled almost exclusively by newspapers. Many of the major newspapers were controlled by the Federal Reserve crowd. Now they began beating the drums over the “inevitability of war.” Arthur Ponsonby, a memebr of the British parliament, admitted in his book Falsehood In War Time (E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1928): “There must have been more deliberate lying in the world from 1914 to 1918 than in any other period of the world’s history.” Propaganda concerning the war was heavily one-sided. Although after the war many historians admitted that one side was as guilty as the other in starting the war, Germany was pictured as a militaristic monster which wanted to rule the world. Remember, this picture was painted by Britain which had its soldiers in more countries around the world than all other nations put together. So-called “Prussian militarism” did exist, but it was no threat to conquer the world. Meanwhile, the sun never set on the British Empire! Actually, the Germans were proving to be tough business competitors in the world’s markets and the British did not approve.
In order to generate war fever, the sinking of the Lusitania-a British ship torpedoed two years earlier-was revived and given renewed headlines. German submarine warfare was turned into a major issue by the newspapers.
Submarine warfare was a phony issue. Germany and England were at war. Each was blockading the other country. J. P. Morgan and other financiers were selling munitions to Britain. The Germans could not allow those supplies to be delivered any more than the English would have allowed them to be delivered to Germany. If Morgan wanted to take the risks and reap the rewards (or suffer the consequences) of selling munitions to England, that was his business. It was certainly nothing over which the entire nation should have been dragged into war.
The Lusitania, at the time it was sunk, was carrying six million pounds of ammunition. It was actually illegal for American passengers to be aboard a ship carrying munitions to belligerents. Almost two years before the liner was sunk, the New York Tribune (June 19, 1913) carried a squib which stated: “Cunard officials acknowledged to the Tribune correspondent today that the greyhound [Lusitania] is being equipped with high power naval rifles. …” In fact, the Lusitania was registered in the British navy as an auxiliary cruiser. (Barnes, Harry E., The Genesis of the War, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1926, p. 611.) In addition, the German government took out large ads in all the New York papers warning potential passengers that the ship was carrying munitions and telling them not to cross the Atlantic on it. Those who chose to make the trip knew the risk they were taking. Yet the sinking of the Lusitania was used by clever propagandists to portray the Germans as inhuman slaughterers of innocents. Submarine warfare was manufactured into a cause celebre to push us into war. On April 6, 1917, Congress declared war. The American people acquiesced on the basis that it would be a “war to end all wars.”
During the “war to end all wars,” Insider banker Bernard Baruch was made absolute dictator over American business when President Wilson appointed him Chairman of the War Industries Board, where he had control of all domestic contracts for Allied war materials. Baruch made lots of friends while placing tens of billions in government contracts, and it was widely rumored in Wall Street that out of the war to make the world safe for international bankers he netted $200 million for himself.
“Colonel” House (I) was front man for the international banking fraternity He manipulated President woodrow wilson (r) like a puppet. wilson called him my alter ego. House played a major role in creating the Federal Reserve System, passing the graduated income tax and getting America into WWI House s influence over Wilson is an example that in the world of super-politics the real rulers are not always the ones the public sees.
German born international financier Paul Warburg masterminded establishment of Federal Reserve to put control over nation’s economy in hands of international bankers. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply which allows manipulators to create alternate cycles of boom and bust, i.e., a roller coaster economy. This allows those in the know to make fabulous amounts of money, but even more important, allows the Insiders to control the economy and further centralize power in the federal government.
While Insider banker Paul Warburg controlled the Federal Reserve, and international banker Bernard Baruch placed government contracts, international banker Eugene Meyer, a former partner of Baruch and the son of a partner in the Rothschilds’
international banking house of Lazard Freres, was Wilson’s choice to head the War Finance Corporation, where he too made a little money. *
Footnote:
* Meyer later gained control of the highly influential Washington Post which became known as the “Washington Daily Worker.” It should be noted that Sir William Wiseman, the man sent by British Intelligence to help bring the United States into the war, was amply rewarded for his services. He stayed in this country after WWI as a new partner in the Jacob Schiff-Paul Warburgcontrolled Kuhn, Loeb bank.
World War I was a financial bonanza for the international bankers. But it was a catastrophe of such magnitude for the United States that few even today grasp its importance. The war reversed our traditional foreign policy of non-involvement and we have been enmeshed almost constantly ever since in perpetual wars for perpetual peace. Winston Churchill once observed that all nations would have been better off had the U.S. minded its own business. Had we done so, he said, “peace would have been made with Germany; and there would have been no collapse in Russia leading to Communism; no breakdown of government in Italy followed by Fascism; and Naziism never would have gained ascendancy in Germany.” (Social Justice Magazine, July 3, 1939, p. 4.)
The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was obviously one of the great turning points in world history. It is an event over which misinformation abounds. The myth-makers and re-writers of history have done their landscape painting jobs well. The establishing of Communism in Russia is a classic example of the second “big lie” of Communism, i.e., that it is the movement of the downtrodden masses rising up against exploiting bosses. This cunning deception has been fostered since before the first French Revolution in 1789.
Most people today believe the Communists were successful in Russia because they were able to rally behind them the sympathy and frustration of the Russian people who were sick of the tyranny of the Czars. This is to ignore the history of what actually happened. While almost everybody is reminded that the Bolshevik Revolution took place in November of 1917, few know that the Czar had abdicated seven months earlier in March. When Czar Nicholas II abdicated, a provisional government was established by Prince Lvov who wanted to pattern the new Russian government after our own. But, unfortunately, the Lvov government gave way to the Kerensky regime. Kerensky, a so-called democratic socialist, may have been running a caretaker government for the Communists. He kept the war going against Germany and the other Central Powers, but he issued a general amnesty for Communists and other revolutionaries, many of whom had been exiled after the abortive Red Revolution of 1905. Back to mother Russia came 250,000 dedicated revolutionaries, and Kerensky’s own government’s doom was sealed.
In the Soviet Union, as in every Communist country (or as they call themselves-the Socialist countries), the power has not come to the Communists’ hands because the downtrodden masses willed it so. The power has come from the top down in every instance. Let us briefly reconstruct the sequences of the Communist takeover.
The year is 1917. The Allies are fighting the Central Powers. The Allies include Russia, the British Commonwealth, France and by April 1917, the United States. In March of 1917, purposeful planners set in motion the forces to compel Czar Nicholas II to abdicate. He did so under pressure from the Allies after severe riots in the Czarist capitol of Petrograd, riots that were caused by the breakdowns in the transportation system which cut the city off from food supplies and led to the closing of factories.
But where were Lenin and Trotsky when all this was taking place? Lenin was in Switzerland and had been in Western Europe since 1905 when he was exiled for trying to topple the Czar in the abortive Communist revolution of that year. Trotsky also was in exile, a reporter for a Communist newspaper on the lower east side of New York City. The Bolsheviks were not a visible political force at the time the Czar abdicated. And they came to power not because the downtrodden masses of Russia called them back, but because very powerful men in Europe and the United States sent them in.
Lenin was sent across Europe-at-war on the famous “sealed train.” With him Lenin took some $5 to $6 million in gold. The whole thing was arranged by the German high command and Max Warburg, through another very wealthy and life-long socialist by the name of Alexander Helphand alias “Parvus.” When Trotsky left New York aboard the S. S. Christiania, on March 27, 1917, with his entourage of 275 revolutionaries, the first port of call was Halifax, Nova Scotia. There the Canadians grabbed Trotsky and his money and impounded them both. This was a very logical thing for the Canadian government to do for Trotsky had said many times that if he were successful in coming to power in Russia he would immediately stop what he called the “imperialist war” and sue for a separate peace with Germany. This would free millions of German troops for transfer from the Eastern front to the Western front where they could kill Canadians. So Trotsky cooled his heels in a Canadian prison-for five days. Then all of a sudden the British (through future Kuhn, Loeb partner Sir William Wiseman) and the United States (through none other than the ubiquitous “Colonel” House) pressured the Canadian government. And, despite the fact we were now in the war, said, in so many words, “Let Trotsky go.” Thus, with an American passport, Trotsky went back to meet Lenin. They joined up, and, by November, through bribery, cunning, brutality and deception, they were able (not to bring the masses rallying to their cause, but) to hire enough thugs and make enough deals to impose out of the gun barrel what Lenin called “all power to the Soviets.” The Communists came to power by seizing a mere handful of key cities. In fact, practically the whole Bolshevik Revolution took place in one city-Petrograd. It was as if the whole United States became Communist because a Communist-led mob seized Washington, D. C. It was years before the Soviets solidified power throughout Russia.
The Germans, on the face of it, had a plausible excuse for financing Lenin and Trotsky. The two Germans most responsible for the financing of Lenin were Max Warburg and a displaced Russian named Alexander Helphand. They could claim that they were serving their country’s cause by helping and financing Lenin. However, these two German “patriots” neglected to mention to the Kaiser their plan to foment a Communist revolution in Russia. The picture takes on another dimension when you consider that the brother of Max Warburg was Paul Warburg, prime mover in establishing the Federal Reserve System and who from his position on the Federal Reserve Board of Directors, played a key role in financing the American war effort. (When news leaked out in American papers about brother Max running the German finances, Paul resigned from his Federal Reserve post without a whimper.) From here on the plot sickens.
For the father-in-law of Max Warburg’s brother, Felix, was Jacob Schiff, senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Paul and Felix Warburg, you will recall, were also partners in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. while Max ran the Rothschild-allied family bank of Frankfurt.) Jacob Schiff also helped finance Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949: “Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.” (See Chart 6.)
One of the best sources of information on the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution is Czarism and the Revolution by an important White Russian General named Arsene de Goulevitch who was founder in France of the Union of Oppressed Peoples. In this volume, written in French and subsequently translated into English, de Goulevitch notes:
“The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The ‘real’ money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause. …”
De Goulevitch continues:
“The important part played by the wealthy American banker, Jacob Schiff, in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret.”
General Alexander Nechvolodov is quoted by de Goulevitch as stating in his book on the Bolshevik Revolution:
“In April 1917, Jacob Schiff publicly declared that it was thanks to his financial support that the revolution in Russia had succeeded.
In the Spring of the same year, Schiff commenced to subsidize Trotsky . . .
Simultaneously Trotsky and Co. were also being subsidized by Max Warburg and Olaf Aschberg of the Nye Banken of Stockholm … The Rhine Westphalian Syndicate and Jivotovsky,.. . whose daughter later married Trotsky.”
Chart 6 -Financing Bolshevik Revolution
Schiff spent millions to overthrow the Czar and more millions to overthrow Kerensky. He was sending money to Russia long after the true character of the Bolsheviks was known to the world. Schiff raised $1Q million, supposedly for Jewish war relief in Russia, but later events revealed it to be a good business investment. (Forbes, B. C, Men Who Are Making America, pp. 334-5.)
According to de Goulevitch:
“Mr. Bakhmetiev, the late Russian Imperial Ambassador to the United States, tells us that the Bolsheviks, after victory, transferred 600 million roubles in gold between the years 1918 and 1922 to Kuhn, Loeb & Company [Schiff’s firm].”
Schiff’s participation in the Bolshevik Revolution, though quite naturally now denied, was well known among Allied intelligence services at the time. This led to much talk about Bolshevism being a Jewish plot. The result was that the subject of financing the Communist takeover of Russia became taboo. Later evidence indicates that the bankrolling of the Bolsheviks was handled by a syndicate of international bankers, which in addition to the Schiff-Warburg clique, included Morgan and Rockefeller interests. Documents show that the Morgan organization put at least $1 million in the Red revolutionary kitty. {*}
Footnote:
* Higedorn, Herman, The Magnate, John Day, N.Y. See also Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1918, p. 195. Still another important financier of the Bolshevik Revolution was an extremely wealthy Englishman named Lord Alfred Milner, the organizer a/id head of a. secret organization called “The Round Table” Group which was backed by Lord Rothschild (discussed in the next chapter).
De Goulevitch notes further:
“On April 7, 1917, General Janin made the following entry in his diary (‘Au G.C.C. Russe’-At Russian G.H.Q.-Le Monde Slave, Vol. 2, 1927, pp. 296-297): Long interview with R., who confirmed what I had previously been told by M. After referring to the German hatred of himself and his family, he turned to the subject of the Revolution which, he claimed, was engineered by the English and, more precisely, by Sir George Buchanan and Lord [Alfred] Milner. Petrograd at the time was teeming with English. … He could, he asserted, name the streets and the numbers of the houses in which British agents were quartered. They were reported, during the rising, to have distributed money to the soldiers and incited them to mutiny.”
De Goulevitch goes on to reveal: “In private interviews I have been told that over 21 million roubles were spent by Lord Milner in financing the Russian Revolution.”
It should be noted parenthetically that Lord Milner, Paul, Felix and Max Warburg represented “their” respective countries at the Paris Peace Conference at the conclusion of World War I.
If we can somehow ascribe Max Warburg’s financing of Lenin to-.German “patriotism,” it was certainly not “patriotism” which inspired Schiff, Morgan, Rockefeller and Milner to bankroll the Bolsheviks. Both Britain and America were at war with Germany and were allies of Czarist Russia. To free dozens of German divisions to switch from the Eastern front to France and kill hundreds of thousands of American and British soldiers was nothing short of treason.
In the Bolshevik Revolution we see many of the same old faces that were responsible for creating the Federal Reserve System, initiating the graduated income tax, setting up the tax-free foundations and pushing us into WWI. However, if you conclude that this is anything but coincidental, your name will be immediately expunged from the Social Register.
No revolution can be successful without organization and money. “The downtrodden masses” usually provide little of the former and none of the latter. But Insiders at the top can arrange for both.
What did these people possibly have to gain in financing the Russian Revolution? What did they have to gain by keeping it alive and afloat, or, during the 1920’s by pouring millions of dollars into what Lenin called his New Economic Program, thus saving the Soviets from collapse?
Why would these “capitalists” do all this? If your goal is global conquest, you have to start somewhere. It may or may not have been coincidental, but Russia was the one major European country without a central bank. In Russia, for the first time, the Communist conspiracy gained a geographical homeland from which to launch assaults against the other nations of the world. The West now had an enemy.
In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its very existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth men like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners. But obviously these men have no fear of international Communism. It is only logical to assume that if they financed it and do not fear it, it must be because they control it. Can there be any other explanation that makes sense? Remember that for over 150 years it has been standard operating procedure of the Rothschilds and their allies to control both sides of every conflict. You must have an “enemy” if you are going to collect from the King. The East-West balance-of-power politics is used as one of the main excuses for the socialization of America. Although it was not their main purpose, by nationalization of Russia the Insiders bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate, complete with mineral rights, for somewhere between $30 and $40 million.
Lord Alfred Milner, wealthy Englishman and front man for the Rothschilds, served as paymaster for the international bankers in Petrograd during the Bolshevik Revolution. Milner later headed secret society known as The Round Table which was dedicated to establishing a world government whereby a clique Of super-rich financiers would control the world under the guise of Socialism. The American subsidiary of this conspiracy is called the Council on Foreign Relations and was started by. and is still controlled by Leftist international bankers.
According to his grandson John, Jacob Schiff (above), long-time associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to the tune of $20 million. According to a report on file with the State Department, his firm, Kuhn loeb and Co. bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin. Schiff’s partner and relative, Paul Warburg, engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System while on the Kuhn Loeb payroll. Schiff’s descendants are active in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) today.
The admitted goal of the CFR is to abolish the Constitution and replace our ones independent Republic with a World Government. CFR members have controlled, the last six administrations. Richard Nixon has been a member and has appointed at least 100 CFR members to high positions in his administration.
We can only theorize on the manner in which Moscow is controlled from New York, London and Paris. Undoubtedly much of the control is economic, but certainly the international bankers have an enforcer arm within Russia to keep the Soviet leaders in line. The organization may be SMERSH, the international Communist murder organization described in testimony before Congressional Committees and by Ian Fleming in his James Bond books. For although the Bond novels were wildly imaginative, Fleming had been in British Navy intelligence, maintained excellent intelligence contacts around the world and was reputedly a keen student of the international conspiracy.
We do know this, however. A clique of American financiers not only helped establish Communism in Russia, but has striven mightily ever since to keep it alive. Ever since 1918 this clique has been engaged in transferring money and, probably more important, technical information, to the Soviet Union. This is made abundantly clear in the three volume history Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development by scholar Antony Sutton of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Using, for the most part, official State Department documents, Sutton shows conclusively that virtually everything the Soviets possess has been acquired from the West. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the U.S.S.R. was made in the U.S.A. The landscape painters, unable to refute Sutton’s monumental scholarship, simply paint him out of the picture.
At Versailles, this same clique carved up Europe and set the stage for World War II. As Lord Curzon commented: “It is not a peace treaty, it is simply a break in hostilities.” In 1933, the same Insiders pushed FDR into recognizing the Soviet
Union, thus saving it from financial collapse, while at the same time they were underwriting huge loans on both sides of the Atlantic for the new regime of Adolph Hitler. In so doing they assisted greatly in setting the stage for World War II, and the events that followed. In 1941, the same Insiders rushed to the aid of our “noble ally,” Stalin, after his break with Hitler. In 1943, these same Insiders marched off to the Teheran Conference and proceeded to start the carving up of Europe after the second great “war to end war.” Again at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945, they established the China policy … later summarized by Owen Lattimore: “The problem was how to allow them [China] to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them.” The facts are inescapable. In one country after another Communism has been imposed on the local population from the top down. The most prominent forces for the imposition of that tyranny came from the United States and Great Britain. Here is a charge that no American enjoys making, but the facts lead to no other possible conclusion. The idea that Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses is a fraud.
None of the foregoing makes sense if Communism really is what the Communists and the Establishment tell us it is. But if Communism is an arm of a bigger conspiracy to control the world by power-mad billionaires (and brilliant but ruthless academicians who have shown them how to use their power) it all becomes perfectly logical.
It is at this point that we should again make it clear that this conspiracy is not made up solely of bankers and international cartelists, but includes every field of human endeavor. Starting with Voltaire and Adam Weishaupt and running through John Ruskin, Sidney Webb, Nicholas Murray Butler, and on to the present with Henry Kissinger and John Kenneth Galbraith, it has always been the scholar looking for avenues of power who has shown the “sons of the very powerful”‘ how their wealth could be used to rule the world.
We cannot stress too greatly the importance of the reader keeping in mind that this book is discussing only one segment of the conspiracy, certain international bankers. Other equally important segments which work to foment labor, religious and racial strife in order to promote socialism have been described in numerous other books. These other divisions of the conspiracy operate independently of the international bankers in most cases and it would certainly be disastrous to ignore the danger to our freedom they represent.
It would be equally disastrous to lump all businessmen and bankers into the conspiracy. One must draw the distinction between competitive free enterprise, the most moral and productive system ever devised, and cartel capitalism dominated by industrial monopolists and international bankers. The difference is the private enterpriser operates by offering products and services in a competitive free market while the cartel capitalist uses the government to force the public to do business with him. These corporate socialists are the deadly enemies of competitive private enterprise.
Liberals are willing to believe that these “robber barons” will fix prices, rig markets, establish monopolies, buy politicians, exploit employees and fire them the day before they are eligible for pensions, but they absolutely will not believe that these same men would want to rule the world or would use Communism as the striking edge of their
conspiracy. When one discusses the machinations of these men, Liberals usually respond by saying, “But don’t you think they mean well?”
However, if you think with logic, reason and precision in this field and try to expose these power seekers, the Establishment’s mass media will accuse you of being a dangerous paranoid who is “dividing” our people. In every other area, of course, they encourage dissent as being healthy in a “democracy.”
One of the primary reasons the Insiders worked behind the scenes to foment WWI was to create in its aftermath a world government. If you wish to establish national monopolies, you must control national governments. If you wish to establish international monopolies or cartels, you must control a world government.
After the Armistice on November 11, 1918, Woodrow Wilson and his alter ego, “Colonel” House (the ever present front man for the Insiders), went to Europe in hopes of establishing a world government in the form of the League of Nations. When the negotiations revealed one side had been about as guilty as the other, and the glitter of the “moral crusade” evaporated along with Wilson’s vaunted “Fourteen Points,” the “rubes back on Main Street” began to waken. Reaction and disillusionment set in.
Americans certainly didn’t want to get into a World Government with double-dealing Europeans whose specialty was secret treaty hidden behind secret treaty. The guest of honor, so to speak, stalked out of the banquet before the poisoned meal could be served. And, without American inclusion, there could be no meaningful World Government.
Aroused public opinion made it obvious that the U.S. Senate dared not ratify a treaty saddling the country with such an internationalist commitment. In some manner the American public had to be sold on the idea of internationalism and World Government. Again, the key was “Colonel” House.
House had set down his political ideas in his book called Philip Dru: Administrator in 1912. In this book House laid out a thinly fictionalized plan for conquest of America by establishing “Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx.” He described a “conspiracy”the word is his-which succeeds in electing a U.S. President by means of “deception regarding his real opinions and intentions.” Among other things, House wrote that the conspiracy was to insinuate “itself into the primaries, in order that no candidate might be nominated whose views were not in accord with theirs.” Elections were to become mere charades conducted for the bedazzlement of the booboisie. The idea was to use both the Democrat and Republican parties as instruments to promote World Government.
In 1919 House met in Paris with members of a British “secret society” called The Round Table in order to form an organization whose job it would be to propagandize the citizens of America, England and Western Europe on the glories of World Government. The big selling point, of course, was “peace.” The part about the Insiders establishing a world dictatorship quite naturally was left out.
The Round Table organization in England grew out of the life-long dream of gold and diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes for a “new world order.”
Rhodes’ biographer Sara Millin was a little more direct. As she put it: “The government of the world was Rhodes’ simple desire.” Quigley notes:
“In the middle 1890’s Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year (then about five million dollars) which he spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account. …”
Cecil Rhodes’ commitment to a conspiracy to establish World Government was set down in a series of wills described by Frank Aydelotte in his book American Rhodes Scholarships. Aydelotte writes:
“The seven wills which Cecil Rhodes made between the ages of 24 and 46 [Rhodes died at age forty-eight] constitute a kind of spiritual autobiography. … Best known are the first (the Secret Society Will …), and the last, which established the Rhodes Scholarships. …
In his first will Rhodes states his aim still more specifically: ‘The extension of British rule throughout the world. … the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interests of humanity.’
The ‘Confession of Faith’ enlarges upon these ideas. The model for this proposed secret society was the Society of Jesus, though he mentions also the Masons.”
It should be noted that the originator of this type of secret society was Adam Weishaupt, the monster who founded the Order of Illuminati on May 1, 1776, for the purpose of conspiracy to control the world. The role of Weishaupt’s Illuminists in such horrors as the Reign of Terror is unquestioned, and the techniques of the Illuminati have long been recognized as models for Communist methodology. Weishaupt also used the structure of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) as his model, and rewrote his Code in Masonic terms. Aydelotte continues:
“In 1888 Rhodes made his third will … leaving everything to Lord Rothschild [his financier in mining enterprises], with an accompanying letter enclosing ‘the written matter discussed between us.’ This, one surmises, consisted of the first will and the ‘Confession of Faith,’ since in a postscript Rhodes says ‘in considering questions suggested take Constitution of the Jesuits if obtainable. …'”
Apparently for strategic reasons Lord Rothschild was subsequently removed from the forefront of the scheme. Professor Quigley reveals that Lord Rosebury “replaced his father-in-law, Lord Rothschild, hi Rhodes’ secret group and was made a Trustee under Rhodes’ next (and last), will.”
The “secret society” was organized on the conspiratorial pattern of circles within circles. Professor Quigley informs us that the central part of the “secret society” was established by March, 1891, using Rhodes’ money. The organization was run for Rothschild by Lord Alfred Milner, discussed in the last chapter as a key financier of the Bolshevik revolution. The Round Table worked behind the scenes at the highest levels of British government, influencing foreign policy and England’s involvement and conduct of WWI. According to Professor Quigley:
“At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system [the Round Table Group] had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group. The American organizers were dominated by the large number of Morgan ‘experts,’ … who had gone to the Paris Peace Conference and there became close friends with the similar group of English ‘experts’ which had been recruited by the Milner group. In fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations [C.F.R.] were drawn up in Paris. …”
Joseph Kraft (C.F.R.), however, tells us in Harper’s of July 1958, that the chief agent in the formal founding of the Council on Foreign Relations was “Colonel” House, supported by such proteges as Walter Lippmann, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and Christian Herter. It was House who acted as host for the Round Table Group, both English and American, at the key meeting of May 19, 1919, in the Majestic Hotel, Paris, which committed the conspiracy to creation of the C.F.R.
Although Quigley stresses the importance of Morgan men at the creation of the organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations, this organization’s own materials and “Colonel” House’s own memoirs reveal his function as midwife at the birth of the C.F.R.
The C.F.R.’s Twenty-Fifth Annual Report tells us this of the C.F.R.’s founding at Paris:
“… The Institute of International Affairs founded at Paris in 1919 was comprised, at the outset, of two branches, one in the United Kingdom and one in the U.S. …”
Later the plan was changed to create an ostensible autonomy because, “… it seemed unwise to set up a single institute with branches.” It had to be made to appear that the
C.F.R. in America, and the R.I.I.A. in Britain, were really independent bodies, lest the American public become aware the C.F.R. was in fact a subsidiary of the Round Table Group and react in patriotic fury. According to Quigley, the most important financial dynasties in America following WWI were (in addition to Morgan) the Rockefeller family; Kuhn, Loeb & Company; Dillon Read and Company and Brown Bros. Harriman. All were represented in the C.F.R. and Paul Warburg was one of the incorporators. The Insider crowd which created the Federal Reserve System, many of whom also bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution, were all in the original membership. In addition to Paul Warburg, founders of the C.F.R. included international financial Insiders Jacob Schiff, Averell Harriman, Frank Vanderlip, Nelson Aldrich, Bernard Baruch, J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller. These men did not create the C.F.R. because they had nothing better to do with their time and money. They created it as a tool to further their ambitions. The C.F.R. has come to be known as “The Establishment,” “the invisible government” and “the Rockefeller foreign office.” This semi-secret organization unquestionably has become the most influential group in America.
One of the extremely infrequent articles to appear in the national press concerning this Council was published in the Christian Science Monitor of September 1, 1961. It began this way:
“On the west side of fashionable Park Avenue at 68th Street [in New York City] sit two handsome buildings across the way from each other. One is the Soviet Embassy to the United Nations. … Directly opposite on the southwest corner is the Council on Foreign Relations-probably one of the most influential semi-public organizations in the field of foreign policy.”
Although the formal membership in the C.F.R. is composed of close to 1500 of the most elite names in the worlds of government, labor, business, finance, communications, the foundations, and the academy-and despite the fact that it has staffed almost every key position of every administration since those of FDR-it is doubtful that one American in a thousand so much as recognizes the Council’s name, or that one in ten thousand can relate anything at all about its structure or purpose. Indicative of the C.F.R.’s power to maintain its anonymity is the fact that, despite its having been operative at the highest levels for nearly fifty years and having from the beginning counted among its members the foremost lions of the Establishment communications media, we discovered after poring over volumes of the Readers’ Guide To Periodical Literature covering several decades that only one magazine article on the C.F.R. has ever appeared in a major national journal-and that in Harper’s, hardly a mass-circulation periodical. Similarly, only a handful of articles on the Council have appeared in the nation’s great news-papers. Such anonymity-at that level-can hardly be a matter of mere chance.
What makes this secret organization so influential? No one who knows for a certainty will say. The Christian Science Monitor, which is edited by a member of the American Round Table (a branch of Milner’s secret society) did not in the article of September 1, 1961, that “its roster … contains names distinguished in the field of diplomacy, government, business, finance, science, labor, journalism, law and education. What united so wide-ranging and disparate a membership is a passionate concern for the direction of American foreign policy.”
The Christian Science Monitor indicates the fantastic power the C.F.R. has had during the last six administrations:
“Because of the Council’s single-minded dedication to studying and deliberating American foreign policy, there is a constant flow of its members from private to public service. Almost half of the Council members have been invited to assume official government positions or to act as consultants at one time or another.”
The policies promoted by the C.F.R. in the fields of defense and international relations become, with a regularity which defies the laws of chance, the official policies of the United States Government. As Liberal columnist Joseph Kraft, himself a member of the C.F.R., noted of the Council in the Harper’s article: “It has been the seat of some basic government decisions, has set the context for many more, and has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground for ranking officials.” Kraft, incidentally, aptly titled his article on the C.F.R., “School for Statesmen”-an admission that the members of the Council are drilled with a “line” of strategy to be carried out in Washington.
As World War II approached, the Round Table Group was influential in seeing that Hitler was not stopped in Austria, the Rhineland, or Sudetenland-and thereby was largely responsible for precipitating the holocaust. A second world war would greatly enhance the opportunity for establishment of World Government. The financing for Adolph Hitler’s rise to power was handled through the Warburg-controlled Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam and later by the J. Henry Schroeder Bank with branches in Frankfurt, London and New York. Chief legal counsel to the J. Henry Schroeder Bank was the firm of Sullivan and Cromwell whose senior partners included John Foster and Allen Dulles, (See James Martin’s All Honorable Men, Little Brown Co., New York, 1950, p. 51. See also Quigley, p. 433.)
With the Round Table doing its work in Europe, the C.F.R. carried the ball in the United States. The Council’s first task was to infiltrate and develop effective control of the U.S. State Department-to make certain that after World War II there would be no slip-ups as there had been following World War I. The story of the C.F.R. takeover of the Department of State is contained in State Department Publication 2349, Report To The President On The Results of the San Francisco Conference. It is the report of Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius (C.F.R.) to President Truman. On page twenty we find:
“With the outbreak of war in Europe it was clear that the United States would be confronted, after the war, with new and exceptional problems. … Accordingly, a Committee on Post-War Problems was set up before the end of 1939 [two years before the U.S. entered the war], at the suggestion of the C.F.R. The Committee consisted of high officials of the Department of State [all but one of whom were C.F.R. members]. It was assisted by a research staff [provided by, financed by, and directed by the C.F.R.], which in February, 1941, was organized into a Division of Special Research [and went off the C.F.R. payroll and onto that of the State Department]. [After Pearl Harbor] the research facilities were rapidly expanded, and the Departmental Committee on Post-War Problems was reorganized into an Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policies [completely staffed by the C.F.R.].” (See also the C.F.R.’s booklet, A Record of Twenty Years, 1921-1947.)
This is the group which designed the United Nations-the first major successful step on the road to a World Superstate. At least forty-seven C.F.R. members were among the American delegates to the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945. Members of the C.F.R. group included Harold Stassen, John J. McCloy, Owen Lattimore (called by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee a “conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy”), Alger Hiss (Communist spy), Philip Jessup, Harry Dexter White (Communist agent), Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, John Carter Vincent (security risk), and Dean Acheson. Just to make sure that Communist Party members understood the importance of the U.N. establishment, Political Affairs, the Party’s official theoretical journal, in the April 1945 issue, gave the order:
“Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations policies should be built up, well organized and fully articulate. But it is also necessary to do more than that. The opposition must be rendered so impotent that it will be unable to gather any significant support in the Senate against the United Nations Charter and the treaties which will follow.”
One wonders if the boobs at the Party level ever questioned why they were to support an organization dominated by the hated “Wall Street” personalities. The landscape painters of the mass media have outdone themselves painting the U. N. as a peace organization instead of a front for the international bankers.
Not only did members of the Council on Foreign Relations dominate the establishment of the U.N., but C.F.R. members were at the elbow of the American President at Teheran, Potsdam and Yalta-where hundreds of millions of human beings were delivered into the hands of Joseph Stalin, vastly extending the power of the International Communist Conspiracy. Administrative assistant to FDR during this time was a key member of the C.F.R. named Lauchlin Currie-subsequently identified by J. Edgar Hoover as a Soviet agent.
So completely has the C.F.R. dominated the State Department over the past thirty- eight years that every Secretary of State except Cordell Hull, James Byrnes, and William Rogers has been a member of the C.F.R. While Rogers is not a member, Professor Henry Kissinger, Mr. Nixon’s chief foreign policy advisor, came to the job from the staff of the C.F.R., and the undersecretaries of state, almost to a man, are C.F.R. members. Today the C.F.R. remains active in working toward its final goal of a government over all the world-a government which the Insiders and their allies will control. The goal of the C.F.R. is simply to abolish the United States with its Constitutional guarantees of liberty. And they don’t even try to hide it. Study No. 7, published by the C.F.R. on November 25, 1959, openly advocates “building a new international order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, [and] for social and economic change … an international order [code word for world government] … including states labeling themselves as ‘Socialist’ [Communist].” The reason is evident to those who have studied its membership for this little known semi-secret organization to be called “the Establishment.” (See Chart 7) International banking organizations that currently have men in the C.F.R. include Kuhn, Loeb & Company; Lazard Freres (directly affiliated with Rothschild); Dillon Read; Lehman Bros.; Goldman, Sachs; Chase Manhattan Bank; Morgan Guaranty Bank; Brown Bros. Harriman; First National City Bank; Chemical Bank & Trust, and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Bank.
Chart 7 – World Supra-Government
Among the major corporations that have men in the C.F.R. are Standard Oil, IBM, Xerox, Eastman Kodak, Pan American, Firestone, U.S. Steel, General Electric and American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
Also in the C.F.R. are men from such openly Leftist organizations as the Fabian Socialist Americans for Democratic Action, the avowedly Socialist League for Industrial Democracy–(formerly the Intercollegiate Socialist Society), and the United World Federalists which openly advocates world government with the Communists. Such devotedly Socialist labor leaders as the late Walter Reuther, David Dubinsky and Jay Lovestone have also been members of the C.F.R. In theory, these men and organizations are supposed to be the blood enemies of the banks and businesses listed above. Yet they all belong to the same lodge. You can see why that fact is not advertised.
The C.F.R. is totally interlocked with the major foundations and so-called “Think Tanks.” Included in the interlock are the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Rand Corporation, Hudson Institute, Fund for the Republic and Brookings Institute “Think Tanks.”
The fact that the C.F.R. operates in near-complete anonymity can hardly be accidental. Among the communications corporations represented in the C.F.R. are National Broadcasting Corporation, Columbia Broadcasting System, Time, Life, Fortune, Look, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, Denver Post, Louisville Courier Journal, Minneapolis Tribune, the Knight papers, McGraw-Hill, Simon & Schuster, Harper Bros., Random House, Little Brown & Co., Macmillan Co., Viking Press, Saturday Review, Business Week and Book of the Month Club. Surely the C.F.R. could get a few blurbs of publicity if publicity were desired. If it seems impossible that one entity could control such a vast array of firms, it is because most people do not know that the so-called founders of such giants as the New York Times and NBC were chosen, financed and directed by Morgan, Schiff and their allies. The case of Adolph Ochs of the Times and David Sarnoff of RCA are examples of this control. Both were given early financial aid by Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Morgan Guaranty.
These are the Establishment’s official landscape painters whose jobs it is to make sure the public does not discover the C.F.R. and its role in creating a world socialist dictatorship.
You will recall that “Colonel” House believed we should have two political parties but only a single ideology-One World socialism. This is exactly what we have in this country today. (See Chart 8) Although there are philosophical differences between the grass roots Democrats and the grass roots Republicans, yet as you move up the party ladders these differences become less and less distinguishable until finally the ladders disappear behind the Establishment’s managed news curtain and come together at the apex under the control of the C.F.R. In 1968, when George Wallace maintained that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, he may not have known how right he was or why.
Chart 8 -Control Of Political Parties
The following are so-called Democrats who have been or now are C.F.R. agents: Dean Acheson, Alger Hiss, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Edward Kennedy, * Averell Harriman, George Ball, Henry Fowler, Dean Rusk, Adam Yarmolinsky, Huber Humphrey and John Lindsay.
It is interesting to note that rewards of cushy jobs were given by the international bankers to many men high in the LBJ administration for their services. Undersecretary of State George Ball went with Lehman Brothers; Secretary of the Treasury Henry Fowler was taken in by Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Budget Director Peter Lewis, Undersecretary of the Treasury Frederick Deming and former Secretary of Commerce C. R. Smith all avoided the bread lines by being picked up by Lazard Freres (Rothschilds). Fowler and Deming were largely responsible for policies which led to European nations claiming half of our gold (and having potential claims on the rest) as well as denuding the U.S. Treasury of all of the silver reserves it had built up over a century of time. Did the international bankers take pity on these men for their incompetence or were they rewarded for a job well done?
Controlling the Republican Party for the C.F.R. have been Dwight D. Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, Thomas E. Dewey, Jacob Javits, Robert McNamara, Henry Cabot Lodge, Paul Hoffman, John Gardner, the Rockefeller clan, Elliott Richardson, Arthur Burns, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon. **
Footnotes:
* Boston Committee ** Richard Nixon now claims that he no longer belongs to the C.F.R., having dropped out when the organization became an issue in his primary campaign for the governorship of California in 1962. Nixon has never said why he dropped out, but the fact that he has appointed over 110 C.F.R members to important positions in his administration speaks for itself. It should come as no surprise that the very same Richard Nixon who campaigned in 1968 as a conservative had already made his real position very clear to the Insiders of the C.F.R. by authoring an article in the C.F.R. magazine, Foreign affairs, in October 1967. The title of this article, “Asia after Vietnam,” revealed how the aspiring President Nixon would open a new policy toward Red China and bring “realism” to our Asian foreign policy.
The C.F.R.’s Annual Report for 1952, admitted that sometimes members in sensitive positions were forced to go underground and keep the membership secret.
While it is true that every administration since FDR has been dominated by the C.F.R., the Nixon Administration has set the all-time record by appointing over 110
C.F.R. members to key positions. Henry Kissinger, the “Colonel” House of the Nixon Administration, came to his job directly from employment on the C.F.R. staff. Kissinger represents the very opposite of everything Nixon said he stood for in his campaign. Both Liberals and Conservatives admit Kissinger is by far the most important man in the Nixon Administration. Administrations, both Democrat and Republican, come and go-but the C.F.R. lingers on. This is why the more things seem to change, the more they remain the same. The fix is in at the top, where the same coterie of Insiders, bent on control of the world, runs the show. As Professor Quigley admits:
“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international … network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.”
Yes, the Insiders have no aversion to working with the Communists whose ostensible goal is to destroy them. While the Insiders are serving champagne and caviar to their guests in their summer mansions at Newport, or entertaining other members of the social elite aboard their yachts, their agents are out enslaving and murdering people. And you are next on their list.
Clearly, the Chicago Tribune’s editorial of December 9, 1950, on the C.F.R. still applies:
“The members of the council [On Foreign Relations] are persons of much more than average influence in their community. They have used the prestige that their wealth, their social position, and their education have given them to lead their country toward bankruptcy and military debacle. They should look at their hands. There is blood on them-the dried blood of the last war and the fresh blood of the present one [the Korean War].”
It goes without saying that the C.F.R.’s hands are bloodier now with the gore of 50,000 Americans in Vietnam. Shamefully the Council has succeeded in promoting, as American policy, the shipment of American aid and trade to the East European arsenal of the Viet Cong for the killing of our sons in the field.
It should not be surprising to learn that there is on the international level an organizational equivalent of the C.F.R. This group calls itself the Bildersbergers. If scarcely one American in a thousand has any familiarity with the C.F.R., it is doubtful that one in five thousand has any knowledge of the Bilderbergcrs. Again, this is not accidental.
The strange name of this group is taken from the site of the first meeting in May, 1954-the Hotel de Bilderberg-in Oostebeek, Holland. The man who created the Bilderbergers is His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The Prince is an important figure in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil) and the Societe General de Belgique, a huge conglomerate cartel with worldwide holdings. The Bilderbergers meet once-or sometimes twice-a year. Those in attendance include leading political and financial figures from the United States and Western Europe. Prince Bernhard makes no effort to hide the fact that the ultimate goal of the Bilderbergers is a world government. In the meantime, while the “new world order” is being built, the Bilderbergers coordinate the efforts of the European and American power elites.
Prince Bernhard’s counterpart among the American Bilderbergers is David Rockefeller, chairman of the board of the C.F.R., whose economic base is the giant Chase Manhattan Bank and Standard Oil. Among the other Bilderbergers from the world of ultra-high finance are Baron Edmund de Rothschild of the House of Rothschild, C. Douglas Dillon (C.F.R.) of Dillon Read & Co., Robert McNamara of the World Bank, Sir Eric Roll of S. G. Warburg & Co., Ltd., Pierce Paul Schweitzer of the International Monetary Fund, and George Ball (C.F.R.) of Lehman Brothers.
Not everyone who attends one of the Bilderbergers’ secret meetings is an Insider, but only men of the Left are allowed to attend the private meetings following the general sessions. The avowedly Socialist Parties of Europe are well represented … another example of the tie-in between the Insiders of high finance and the ostensible leaders of the proletariat. Bilderberg policy is not planned by those who attend the conferences, but by the elite steering committee of Insiders composed of 24 Europeans and 15 Americans. Past and present Americans of the Bilderberger Steering Committee include George W. Ball, Gardner Cowles, John H. Ferguson, Henry J. Heinz II, Robert D. Murphy, David Rockefeller, Shepard Stone, James D. Zellerbach, Emelio G. Collado, Arthur H. Dean, Gabriel Hauge, C. D. Jackson, George Nebolsine, Dean Rusk and General Walter Bedell Smith. Those who adhere to the accidental theory of history will claim that it is sheer coincidence that every single
one of those named as past and present members of the Bilderberger Steering Committee is or was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Bilderberger Advisory Committee forms an even more “inner circle” than the Steering Committee. Americans on the Advisory Committee include Joseph E. Johnson, Dean Rusk, Arthur H. Dean, George Nebolsine, John S. Coleman, General Walter Bedell Smith and Henry J. Heinz II. Again, all are members of the C.F.R.
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, head of the secret, one world Bilderberger movement, confers with President Nixon, A former Nazi SS storm trooper (“We had a lot of fun”), Bernhard now works with the Rothschilds and Communists to promote a World Super State of the elite. Bernhard holds yearly secret meetings with high U.S. officials, bankers and industrialists to map plans for merging the U.S. and the Soviet Union into a world government. After last meeting, Nixon devalued the dollar and opened up trade with Red China.
Edmond and Guy de Rothschild, leaders of the French Rothschild clan. The Rothschilds are closely connected with Prince Bernhard in business (Royai Dutch shell) and in the building of a one world super-government with the Soviets. Time of Dec. 20. 1963, says of Guy: “Guy is every inch a Rothschild. He personifies much of what the family name stands for … He is a friend and confidante of some of France’s politicians. … Most of all, he is dedicated to enlarging the fortune of his bank … Guy heads a versatile clan of modern day Rothschilds.” Edmond, reputedly the richest of the French Rothschilds, is worth $500 million personally, according to estimates.
One would assume (that is, if one had not read this book) that when the world’s leading parliamentarians and international tycoons meet to discuss the planning of their various nations’ foreign policies, that the newshawks from papers and televisionland would be screaming to high heaven that such an event held in secret makes a mockery of the democratic process. One might expect Walter Cronkite to be thundering in wrath about an elite clique meeting to plan our lives; or the New York Times editorialists to be pounding their smoking typewriters, fuming about “the public’s right to know.” But, of course, the landscape painters merely brush the Bilderbergers right out of existence and focus the public’s attention on something like the conditions in the prisons or coke bottles littering the highways. Since the Bilderbergers are a group of the Left (or, as the Liberals in the media might say, but don’t, “a group of progressives”) they are allowed to go on in peace and quiet planning for 1984. The fact that there is heavy Rockefeller (Chase Manhattan Bank and C.F.R.) influence in the media might also have something to do with the fact that while everybody has heard of, say, The John Birch Society (and almost always in a derogatory manner from the Eastern Establishment media), practically nobody has heard of the Bilderbergers.
As this is written, there have been 29 Bilderberger meetings to date. They usually last three days and are held in remote, but plush quarters. The participants are housed in one location and are protected by a thorough security network. Decisions are reached, resolutions adopted, plans of action initiated, but only Bilderbergers ever know for sure what occurred. We must assume that these people did not congregate merely to discuss their golf scores. The press, naturally, is not allowed to be present, although occasionally a brief press conference is held at the end of the meeting at which time the news media are given in very general terms the Bilderberger version of what was discussed. Why all the secrecy if there is really nothing to hide? Why do the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations finance the meetings if they are not important? Yes, why?
The most recent meeting took place at Laurance Rockefeller’s Woodstock Inn at Woodstock, Vermont, April 23, 24, 25, 1971. Apparently the only newspaper to carry a substantial story on the meeting was the Rutland, Vermont, Herald, whose reporter could acquire only sketchy information about what the meeting was all about. The April 20, 1971 issue of the Herald reported:
“A rather tight lid of secrecy was being kept on the conference. … A closed-door meeting was held in Woodstock last week to brief a handful of local officials on some phases of the conference. One participant of the meeting insisted Monday that the officials were told the meeting would be an ‘international peace conference.’ However, other reliable sources said the conference will deal with international finance. …
The Woodstock Inn will apparently be sealed up like Fort Knox. … No press coverage will be allowed, with the exception of issuing a statement at the close of the meeting on Sunday.”
When Prince Bernhard arrived at Boston’s Logan Airport, he did admit to reporters that the subject of the conference would be the “change in the world-role of the United States.” Isn’t it nice to have changes in America’s role in the world decided upon by Bernhard, Rothschild and Rockefeller? There is real democracy in action, as they say. Present at the scene to carry back orders to Mr. Nixon was C.F.R.Rockefeller errand boy, the President’s Number One advisor on foreign affairs, Henry Kissinger. Shortly after the Woodstock meeting, two ominous and “role changing” events occurred: Henry Kissinger went to Peking and arranged for the acceptance of Red China as a member of the family of trading nations; and an international monetary crisis developed after which the dollar was devalued. As the British statesman and Rothschild confidante Benjamin Disraeli wrote in Coningsby: “So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
The most important American of those “different personages” who run the world from behind the scenes are the Rockefellers. The Rockefeller clan reportedly has worked with the Rothschilds and their agents since the 188O’s when the original John D. arranged to get a rebate on every barrel of oil he and his competitors shipped over Kuhn, Loeb & Co.-controlled Pennsylvania and Baltimore & Ohio railroads. It has been a profitable partnership ever since, although there appear to have been areas in which the two financial dynasties competed.
The involvement of the Rockefellers with their supposed blood enemies, the Communists, dates back to the Bolshevik Revolution. During the 1920’s Lenin established his New Economic Policy (the same name Mr. Nixon applied to his wage- price control package), when the supposedly hated capitalists were invited back into Russia.
The Federal Reserve-CFR Insiders began pushing to open up Communist Russia to U.S. traders soon after the revolution. However, at that time public opinion ran so high against the Bolsheviks because of their barbarism that it was official U.S. government policy not to deal with the outlaw government. The U.S. did not officially recognize the Bolsheviks until 1933. In the meantime, the Soviet economy was in a shambles and the people were starving to death. Communism would have collapsed had it not been aided by the Insiders. The Bolsheviks were originally saved from collapse by Herbert Hoover (CFR) who raised money to buy food which was appropriated by Lenin and his gangsters. They used it as a tool to subdue starving peasants who had been resisting their newly imposed slave masters. While Hoover’s “humanitarian” gesture saved the Soviet regime, the Russian economy was still in total chaos. In came the Vanderlips, Harrimans and Rockefellers. One of the first to jump in was Frank Vanderlip, an agent of the Rockefellers and one of the Jekyl Island conspirators, president of the Rockefeller First National City Bank, who compared Lenin to George Washington. (Louis Budenz, The Bolshevik Invasion Of The West, Bookmailer, p. 115) The Rockefellers assigned their public relations agent, Ivy Lee, to sell the American public the idea that the Bolsheviks were merely misunderstood idealists who were actually kind benefactors of mankind.
Professor Antony Sutton of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, notes in his highly authoritative Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development:
“Quite predictably, 180 pages later, Lee concludes that the communist problem is merely psychological. By this time he is talking about ‘Russians’ (not Communists) and concludes ‘they are all right.’ He suggests the United States should not engage in propaganda; makes a plea for peaceful coexistence; and suggests the United States would find it sound policy to recognize the USSR and advance credits.” (Antony Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Calif., 1968, p. 292)
After the Bolshevik Revolution, Standard of New Jersey bought 50 per cent of the Nobel’s huge Caucasus oil fields even though the property had theoretically been nationalized. (O’Connor, Harvey, The Empire Of Oil, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1955, p. 270.) _ In 1927, Standard Oil of New York built a refinery in Russia, thereby helping the Bolsheviks put their economy back on its feet. Professor Sutton states: “This was we first United States investment in Russia since the Revolution.” (Ibid, Vol. 1, p. 38)
Shortly thereafter Standard Oil of New York and its subsidiary, Vacuum Oil Company, concluded a deal to market Soviet oil in European countries and it was reported that a loan of $75,000,000 to the Bolsheviks was arranged. (National Republic, Sept. 1927.)
We have been unable to find out if Standard Oil was even theoretically expropriated by the Communists. Sutton writes:
“Only the Danish telegraph concessions, the Japanese fishing, coal and oil concessions, and the Standard Oil lease remained after 1935.” (Ibid, Vol. II, p. 17.)
Wherever Standard Oil would go, Chase National Bank was sure to follow. (The Rockefeller’s Chase Bank was later merged with the Warburg’s Manhattan Bank to form the present Chase Manhattan Bank.) In order to rescue the Bolsheviks, who were supposedly an archenemy, the Chase National Bank was instrumental in establishing the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in 1922. President of the Chamber was Reeve Schley, a vice-president of Chase National Bank. (Ibid, Vol. II, p. 288) According to Professor Sutton: “In 1925, negotiations between Chase and Prombank extended beyond the finance of raw materials and mapped out a complete program for financing Soviet raw material exports to the U.S. and imports of U.S. cotton and machinery. (Ibid, Vol. II, p. 226) Sutton also reports that “Chase National Bank and the Equitable Trust Company were leaders in the Soviet credit business.” (Ibid, p. 277)
The Rockefeller’s Chase National Bank also was involved in selling Bolshevik bonds in the United States in 1928. Patriotic organizations denounced the Chase as an “international fence.” Chase was called “a disgrace to America. … They will go to any lengths for a few dollars profits.” (Ibid, Vol. II, p. 291) Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintained in a speech to his fellow Congressmen:
“The Soviet government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks acting through the Chase Bank and the Guaranty Trust Company and other banks in New York City. …
… Open up the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet Trade Organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and you will be staggered to see how much American money has been taken from the United States’ Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out what business has been transacted for the State Bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York; …” (Congressional Record, June 15, 1933.)
But the Rockefellers apparently were not alone in financing the Communist arm of the Insiders’ conspiracy. According to Professor Sutton “… there is a report in the State Department files that names Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the long-established and important financial house in New York) as the financier of the First Five Year Plan. See U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, 811.51/3711 and 861.50 FIVE YEAR PLAN/236.” (Sutton, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 340n.)
Professor Sutton proves conclusively in his three volume history of Soviet technological development that the Soviet Union was almost literally manufactured by the U.S.A. Sutton quotes a report by Averell Harriman to the State Department in June, 1944 as stating:
“Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprise in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.” (Sutton, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 3.)
Remember that this was at a time when the Soviets had already established an extensive spy network in the U.S. and the Communist Daily Worker newspaper regularly called for the destruction of our liberty and the Sovietizing of America.
Sutton shows that there is hardly a segment of the Soviet economy which is not a result of the transference of Western, particularly American, technology.
This cannot be wholly the result of accident. For fifty years the Federal Reserve-CFRRockefeller- Insider crowd has advocated and carried out policies aimed at increasing the power of their satellite, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, America spends $75 billion a year on defense to protect itself from the enemy the Insiders are building up.
What has been true of the past is even more valid today. The leader in promoting the transfer of technology and increasing aid and trade with the Communists is the Council on Foreign Relations.
On October 7, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson, a man who had appointed a C.F.R. member to virtually every strategic position in his administration, stated:
“We intend to press for legislative authority to negotiate trade agreements which could extend most-favored-nation tariff treatment to European Communist states. …
We will reduce export controls on East-West trade with respect to hundreds of nonstrategic items. …”
The New York Times reported one week later on -October 13, 1966:
“The United States put into effect today one of President Johnson’s proposals for stimulating East-West trade by removing restrictions on the export of more than four hundred commodities to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. . . .
Among the categories from which items have been selected for export relaxation are vegetables, cereals, fodder, hides, crude and manufactured rubber, pulp and waste paper, textiles and textile fibers, crude fertilizers, metal ores and scrap, petroleum, gas and derivatives, chemical compounds and products, dyes, medicines, fireworks, detergents, plastic materials, metal products and machinery, and scientific and professional instruments.”
Virtually every one of these “non-strategic” items has a direct or indirect use in war. Later, items such as rifle cleaning compounds, electronic equipment and radar were declared “non-strategic” and cleared for shipment to the Soviet Union. The trick simply is to declare almost everything “non-strategic.” A machine gun is still considered strategic and therefore may not be shipped to the Communists, but the tools for making the machine guns and the chemicals to propel the bullets have been declared “non-strategic.” Meanwhile, nearly 50,000 Americans have died in Vietnam. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese receive 85 percent of their war materials from Russia and the Soviet bloc nations. Since their economies are incapable of supporting a war, the Communist arm of the conspiracy needed help from the Finance Capitalist arm. The United States has been financing and equipping both sides of the terrible Vietnamese war, killing our own soldiers by proxy. Again, the landscape painters in the mass media have kept the American public from learning this provable fact.
Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers have been leaders in championing this bloody trade. On January 16, 1967, one of the most incredible articles ever to appear in a newspaper graced the front page of the Establishment’s daily, the New York Times. Under the headline “Eaton Joins Rockefellers To Spur Trade With Reds” the article stated:
“An alliance of family fortunes linking Wall Street and the Midwest is going to try to build economic bridges between the free world and Communist Europe.
The International Basic Economy Corporation, controlled by the Rockefeller brothers, and Tower International, Inc., headed by Cyrus S. Eaton Jr., Cleveland financier, plan to cooperate in promoting trade between the Iron Curtain countries, including the Soviet Union. …”
International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC) is run by Richard Aldrich, grandson of Federal Reserve plotter Nelson Aldrich, and Rodman Rockefeller (CFR), Rocky’s son. On October 20, 1969, IBEC announced that N. M. Rothschild & Sons of London had entered into partnership with the firm.
Cyrus Eaton Jr. is the son of the notoriously pro-Soviet Cyrus Eaton, who began his career as secretary to John D. Rockefeller. It is believed that Eaton’s rise to power in finance resulted from backing by his mentor. The agreement between Tower International and IBEC continues an old alliance. Although Eaton’s name does not appear on the CFR’s membership rolls, the Reece Committee which investigated foundations for Congress in 1953, found that Eaton was a secret member.
Among the “non-strategic” items which the Rockefeller-Eaton axis is going to build for the Communists are ten rubber goods plants, including two synthetic rubber plants worth $200 million. Mr. Eaton explains in the Times article: “These people are setting up new automobile plants and know they have got to have tire factories.” Under the Nixon Administration which, contrary to campaign promises, has multiplied trade with the Reds tenfold, American concerns are building the world’s largest track factory for the Communists. Trucks are necessary for a nation’s war machine and truck factories can be converted to the production of tanks as was done during WWII. The U.S. will provide the Soviets with both the facilities to build the trucks and the tires (or tank treads) for them to roll on.
In addition, the Rockefellers and Eatons are constructing a $50 million aluminum producing plant for the Reds. Aluminum for jet’ planes is considered “non-strategic” under Johnson-Nixon doctrine.
Nelson Rockefeller greets Khrushchev, the infamous “Butcher of Budapest.”‘ The Rockefeller and Eaton families have now joined forces to build war production plants behind the Iron Curtain so that the Communists can become a bigger threat to U.S. survival. America spends $70 billion a year ostensibly on defense and then the Rockefellers build aluminum mills for the Communists. Only the absence of a formal declaration of war in Vietnam keeps the Eatons and Rockefellers from being actionable for treason. They have the blood of nearly 50,000 American servicemen on their hands.
When Communist dictators visit the U.S. they do not visit laborers or union leaders, but hobnob with industrial leaders. There is little, if any, attempt by the Red dictators to identify with the working class. Here Nikita Khrushchev greets the avowedly pro- Communist industrialist Cyrus Eaton. Eaton started his Business career as secretary to John D. Rockefeller and the Rockefeller family is believed to be largely responsible for his fortune.
Even more incredibly, the Times reveals:
“Last month, Tower International reached a tentative agreement with the Soviet patent and licensing organization, Licensintorg, covering future licensing and patent transactions. Until now, Mr. Eaton said, the Russians have left the buying and selling of licenses and patents to the Amtorg Trading Corporation, the official Soviet agency in this country for promoting Soviet-American trade.”
This means that the Rockefellers and Eatons have a monopoly on the transfer of technological capability to the supposed enemies of the super-rich, the Soviet Union. According to the Times:
“Mr. Eaton acknowledged the difficulties that Amtorg’s representatives had encountered here in trying to arrange licensing agreements with American companies. ‘As you can imagine,’ he said, ‘it is almost impossible for a Russian to walk into the research department of an American aerospace company and try to arrange the purchase of a patent’.”
Certainly every loyal American will say to himself, “Well, I would hope to God the Soviets couldn’t walk into our defense plants and buy a patent.” The Rockefellers and the Eatons have solved that problem for the Communists. Now, instead of dealing with an official agency of the Soviet government, American concerns will be dealing with the Rockefellers. Meanwhile, nearly 50,000 Americans have died in Vietnam, many of them killed by weapons which the Rockefellers directly or indirectly supplied to our avowed enemies. Only the technicality of the lack of a formal declaration of war prevents the Rockefellers’ trading in the blood of dead Americans from being actionable as treason.
Thus by the purchase of patents for the Communists the Rockefellers are virtually in charge of research and development for the Soviet military machine, allowing the Soviets to mass produce American developments. The transfer of such knowledge is even more important than the sale of weapons. A process that may have taken an American corporation a decade to develop is transferred in toto to the Communists. Does it make sense to spend $75 billion a year on national defense and then deliberately increase the war-making potential of an avowed enemy? It does to Mr. Rockefeller and the Insiders.
Since the Rockefellers have contracted to arrange for patents for the Soviets, they are by dictionary definition Communist agents. Would it not be more accurate to define the Communists as Rockefeller agents?
Indicative of this was a strange event which occurred in October of 1964. David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, took a vacation in the Soviet Union. This is a peculiar place for the world’s greatest “imperialist” to take his vacation since much of Communist propaganda deals with taking all of David’s wealth away from him and distributing it to “the people.” A few days after Rockefeller ended his “vacation” in the Kremlin, Nikita Khrushchev was recalled from a vacation at a Black Sea resort to learn that he had been fired. How strange! As far as the world knew, Khrushchev was the absolute dictator of the Soviet government and, more important, head of the Communist Party which runs the USSR. Who has the power to fire the man who was supposedly the absolute dictator? Did David Rockefeller journey to the Soviet Union to fire an employee? Obviously the position of premier in the Soviet Union is a figurehead with the true power residing elsewhere. Perhaps in New York.
For five decades the Communists have based their propaganda on the theme that they were going to destroy the Rockefellers and the other super-rich. Yet we find that for five decades the Rockefellers have been involved in building the strength of the Soviets. We are supposed to believe those international cartelists do this because they are foolish or greedy. Does this make sense? If a criminal goes up and down the streets shouting at the top of his lungs that as soon as he gets hold of a gun he is going to kill Joe Doaks, and you learn that Doaks is secretly giving guns to the criminal, one of two things must be true. Either Doaks is a fool or all the shouting is just “show biz” and the criminal secretly works for Doaks. The Rockefellers are not fools.
While David runs the financial end of the Rockefeller dynasty, Nelson runs the political. Nelson would like to be President of the United States. But, unfortunately for him, he is unacceptable to the vast majority of the grass roots of his own party. The next best thing to being President is controlling a President. Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon are supposed to be bitter political competitors. In a sense they are, but that still does not preclude Rockefeller from asserting dominion over Mr. Nixon. When Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rockefeller competed for the Republican nomination in 1968, Rockefeller naturally would have preferred to win the prize, but regardless of who won, he would control the highest office in the land.
You will recall that right in the middle of drawing up the Republican platform in 1960, Mr. Nixon suddenly left Chicago and flew to New York to meet with Nelson Rockefeller in what Barry Goldwater described as the “Munich of the Republican Party.'” There was no political reason why Mr. Nixon needed to crawl to Mr. Rockefeller. He had the convention all sewed up. The Chicago Tribune cracked that it was like Grant surrendering to Lee.
In The Making of the President, 1960, Theodore White noted that Nixon accepted all the Rockefeller terms for this meeting, including provisions “that Nixon telephone Rockefeller personally with his request for a meeting; that they meet at the Rockefeller apartment. . . that their meeting be secret and later be announced in a press release from the Governor, not Nixon; that the meeting be clearly announced as taking place at the Vice President’s request; that the statement of policy issuing from it be long, detailed, inclusive, not a summary communique.”
The meeting produced the infamous “Compact of Fifth Avenue” in which the Republican Platform was scrapped and replaced by Rockefeller’s socialist plans. The Wall Street Journal of July 25, 1960, commented: “… a little band of conservatives within the party … are shoved to the sidelines. … [T]he fourteen points are very liberal indeed; they comprise a platform akin in many ways to the Democratic platform and they are a far cry from the things that conservative men think the Republican Party ought to stand for. …” As Theodore White put it:
“Never had the quadrennial liberal swoop of the regulars been more nakedly dramatized than by the open compact of Fifth Avenue. Whatever honor they might have been able to carry from, their services on the platform committee had been wiped out. A single night’s meeting of the two men in a millionaire’s triplex apartment in Babylon-by-the-Hudson, eight hundred and thirty miles away, was about to overrule them; they were exposed as clowns for all the world to see.”
The whole story behind what happened in Rockefeller’s apartment will doubtless never be known. We can only make an educated guess in light of subsequent events. But it is obvious that since that time Mr. Nixon has been in the Rockefeller orbit.
After losing to Kennedy by an eyelash, Mr. Nixon, against his wishes, and at the request (or order) of Rockefeller, entered the California gubernatorial race and lost. (For further details see the author’s Richard Nixon: The Man Behind The Mask.) After losing to Pat Brown in the California gubernatorial race in 1962, Nixon had universally been consigned to the political trash heap. He left his practice as an attorney in California and went to New York, where he moved in as a neighbor of Nelson Rockefeller, the man who is supposedly his archenemy, in a $100,000-a-year apartment in a building owned by Rockefeller. Then Mr. Nixon went to work for the law firm of Mr. Rockefeller’s personal attorney, John Mitchell, and in the next six years spent most of his time touring the country and the world, first rebuilding his political reputation and then campaigning to get the 1968 Republican nomination. At the same time, according to his own financial statement, his net worth multiplied many times and he became quite wealthy. Nelson Rockefeller, (and his colleagues of the Eastern Liberal Establishment), who helped make Nixon acceptable to Conservatives by appearing to oppose him, rescued Nixon from political oblivion and made him President of the United States. Does it not make sense that Mr. Nixon, the man of passionate ambition whose career had sunk to the bottom, had to make some deals in order to reach his goal? And did he not acquire massive political debts in return for being made President by the Eastern Liberal Establishment?
When Nixon left Washington, he, by his own claim, had little more than an old Oldsmobile automobile, Pat’s respectable Republican cloth coat, and a government pension. While in law practice Nixon had an income of $200,000 per year, of which more than half went to pay for the apartment in Rocky’s building. By 1968, he reported his net worth as $515,830, while assigning a value of only $45,000 to his partnership in his increasingly flourishing law firm. It may be that the frugal Mr. Nixon acquired the after-tax investment capital that mushroomed into $858,190 in assets by faithfully plugging his change into a piggy bank. Then again, it may have been part of Nixon’s deal with Rockefeller and the Insiders that Mr. Nixon’s personal poverty problems should be solved. The President is obviously an un-free agent.
The man most observers agree is the most powerful man in the Administration on domestic policy matters is Attorney General John Mitchell. Mitchell, who had been a Nixon law partner, served as campaign manager in 1968, and reportedly will serve in that capacity in 1972. The Wall Street Journal of January 17, 1969, revealed that Mitchell was Rocky’s personal lawyer. The Establishment’s landscape painters have etched a picture of Mitchell as a tough cop-type conservative bent; it appears that in reality Mitchell is but another Rockefeller agent.
Richard Nixon was elected President on a platform which promised to stop America’s retreat before world Communism. Yet he appointed Henry Kissinger, a man who represented the opposite of the stands Mr. Nixon took during his campaign, to a position which is virtually Assistant President. Is it surprising then that Mr. Nixon has done just the opposite of what he promised he would do during his 1968 campaign?
How did Mr. Nixon come to pick an ultra-liberal to be his number one foreign policy advisor? We are told by Time magazine that Mr. Nixon met Kissinger at a cocktail party given by Clare Boothe Luce during the Christmas holidays in 1967. Mr. Nixon is supposed to have been so impressed by Dr. Kissinger’s cocktail party repartee that he appointed him to the most powerful position in the Nixon Administration. Mr. Nixon would have to be stupid to have done that; and Mr. Nixon is not stupid. The Kissinger appointment was arranged by Nelson Rockefeller. (Salt Lake City Desert News, March 27, 1970.) Kissinger had served for five years as Rockefeller’s personal advisor on foreign affairs and at the time of his appointment he was serving as a paid staff member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Nixon’s fantastic about face was praised by LBJ in the Washington Star of Dec. 1, 1971. The paper states:
“Former President Lyndon B. Johnson acknowledges that Richard Nixon, as a Republican President, has been able to accomplish some things that a Democratic President could not have. …
“‘Can’t you just see the uproar,’ he asked during a recent interview, ‘if I had been responsible for Taiwan getting kicked out of the United Nations? Or if I had imposed sweeping national controls on prices and wages?’
“‘Nixon has gotten by with it,’ he observed, an appreciative tone in his voice. ‘If I had tried to do it, or Truman, or Humphrey, or any Democrat, we would have been clobbered.'”
Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon are theoretically political enemies, but Rocky arranged ’68 election so that if he could not be President, someone whom he controlled would be. The Rockefeller family, through their Chase Manhattan Bank and other entities, have been great benefactors of the Soviet Union ever since Communist Revolution in Russia, During campaign Nixon promised to halt shipment of war materials from America to North Vietnam via European Communist bloc because these supplies were being used to kill American soldiers. But much of this bloc trade is controlled by Rockefellers and Nixon has reversed himself and greatly multiplied such trade. The press, quite naturally, remains silent about killing American soldiers by proxy.
The boss and his two employees-the three musketeers of the CFR-Rocky, President Nixon and Henry Kissinger confer. Kissinger of Harvard was made virtual Assistant President by Rockefeller on whose staff he had served for a dozen years. Kissinger also had been on the staff of the CFR just prior to joining the Nixon Administration. Kissinger was the very embodiment of everything Nixon denounced during his ’68 campaign. This explains why Nixon has reversed himself on so many stands. Among those to hail Mr. Nixon’s move to the Left is Alger Hiss, the Communist spy Richard Nixon helped convict. (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 25, 1971.) It was the Hiss Case which catapulted Nixon from obscurity into the Senate, the Vice Presidency and. eventually, the White House.
The Establishment’s official landscape artists have done a marvelous job of painting a picture of Richard Nixon as a conservative. Unfortunately, this picture is twenty years out of date. The very liberal Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania boasted to a reporter one day: “[Liberals] get the action and the Conservatives get the rhetoric.” Richard Nixon could not have been elected had he run as a Rockefeller liberal, but he can get away with running his Administration like one simply because the landscape painters fail to call the public’s attention to the fact. However, columnist Stewart Alsop in writing for a sophisticated audience of approving Liberals, reveals the real Nixon. Alsop claims that if Nixon were judged by his deeds instead of his ancient image, the Liberals’ attitude toward him would be different. If only the Liberals’ Pavlovian response to the Nixon name could be eliminated, says Alsop, they would realize how far Left he is. Therefore Alsop substitutes a hypothetical “President Liberal” for President Nixon:
“… If President Liberal were actually in the White House, it is not at all hard to imagine the reaction to his program. The right would be assailing President Liberal for bugging out of Vietnam, undermining American defenses, fiscal irresponsibility, and galloping socialism. The four basic Presidential policy positions listed above would be greeted with hosannas by the liberals. …
Instead, the liberals have showered the President with dead cats, while most conservatives have maintained a glum silence, and thus the Administration has been ‘little credited’ for ‘much genuine achievement.’ But there are certain special reasons, which Pat Moynihan omitted to mention, why this is so.”
Alsop further explains how having the reputation of being an enemy of the Liberal Democrats helps Nixon pass their program:
“For one thing, there is a sort of unconscious conspiracy between the President and his natural enemies, the liberal Democrats, to conceal the extent to which his basic program, leaving aside frills and rhetoric, is really the liberal Democratic program. Richard Nixon is the first professional politician and ‘real Republican’ to be elected President in 40 years -and it is not in the self-interest of the liberals to give credit to such a President for liberal initiatives. By the same token, it is not in the self-interest of the President to risk his conservative constituency by encouraging the notion that he is not a ‘real Republican’ after all, but a liberal Democrat at cut rates. . ..
There are plenty of examples of the mutual obfuscation which results from this mutual interest. The withdrawal of half a million men from Vietnam is quite obviously the greatest retreat in American history. But the President talks as though it were somehow a glorious advance, certain to guarantee a ‘just and lasting peace.’ When the President-like any commander of a retreat-resorts to spoiling actions to protect his dwindling rear guard, the liberals howl that he is ‘chasing the will-o’-thewisp of military victory.’
… When the President cuts back real military strength more sharply than in a quarter of a century, the liberals attack him for failing to ‘reorder priorities.’ The President, in his rhetoric about a ‘strong defense,’ plays the same game. The result, as John Kenneth Galbraith accurately noted recently, is that ‘most people and maybe most congressmen think the Administration is indulging the Pentagon even more than the Democrats,’ which is the precise opposite of the truth …”
Alsop continued what is probably the most damning column ever written about Richard Nixon by noting the role that the mass media have played in portraying to the public an image that is the reverse of the truth:
“… There is also a human element in this exercise in mutual obfuscation. To the liberals, especially the liberal commentators who dominate the media, Richard Nixon is Dr. Fell (‘The reason why I cannot tell, but this I know and know full well, I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.’). This is not surprising. Not too many years ago, Richard M. Nixon was one of the most effective-and least lovable-of the conservative Republican professionals of the McCarthy era.”
The columnist, himself a member of the socialist Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), speculated on what the “old Nixon” would have had to say about the “new Nixon”:
“… on his past record, it is not at all hard to imagine R. M. Nixon leading the assault on the President for his ‘bug-out,’ ‘fiscal irresponsibility,’ ‘galloping socialism,’ and all the rest of it. So how can one expect Mr. Nixon to defend President Liberal’s program with the passionate conviction that a President Robert Kennedy, say, would have brought to the defense of such a program?”
Alsop has revealed the real Nixon and is obviously pleased. Those who voted for Nixon shouldn’t be quite so happy. If you liked the Richard Nixon who ran for the Presidency, then you cannot, if you are consistent, like the Richard Nixon who is President. Nixon and his fellow moderates” have turned the Republican elephant into a donkey in elephant’s clothing. On June 19, 1959, Vice President Nixon gloated: “In summary, the Republican administration produced the things that the Democrats promised.” It looks as if it’s happening again! A year and a half earlier Nixon had been warbling a different tune:
“If we have nothing to offer other than a pale carbon copy of the New Deal, if our only purpose is to gain and retain power, the Republican Party no longer has any reason to exist, and it ought to go out of business.”
The Nixon “Game Plan,” as Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith gleefully points out, is SOCIALISM. The Nixon “Game Plan” is infinitely more clever and dangerous than those of his predecessors because it masquerades as being the opposite of what it is.
Mr. Nixon is aware that most Americans fear “big government.” An August 1968, Gallup Poll showed that 46 per cent of the American public believed that “big government” was the “biggest threat to the country.” Gallup commented: “Although big government has been a favorite Republican target for many years, rank and file democrats are nearly as critical of growing Federal power as are Republicans.” Recognizing this attitude, Mr. Nixon geared much of his campaign rhetoric to attacking Big Daddy government. However, the Nixon Administration has taken massive steps to further concentrate authority in the federal “power pinnacle.” (See Chart 3, p. 34)
While centralizing power at a rate which would have made Hubert Humphrey blush, Mr. Nixon has continued to pay lip service to decentralization. During the first year of his Administration Mr. Nixon announced his “New Federalism” (the name taken from the title of a book by Nelson Rockefeller). The first part of the “New Federalism” is the Family Assistance Program (FAP) which would, contrary to his campaign promises, provide a Guaranteed Annual Income. Based on suggestions from John Gardner of the C.F.R. and Daniel Moynihan, a member of the board of directors of the socialist ADA, the FAP would double the number on welfare and increase tremendously the power of the executive branch of the federal government. The Leftwing weekly, the New Republic, cheered the proposal as “creeping socialism.”
The second major segment of the President’s “New Federalism” is revenue sharing with the states, touted as a step hi the decentralization of power from the federal government. Actually, the program does just the opposite. The money must first go from the states to Washington before it can be shared. As columnist James J. Kilpatrick remarked: “… power to control follows the Federal dollar as surely as that famous lamb accompanied little Mary.” As soon as the states and local governments get hooked on the federal funds, the controls will be put on just as they were in education and agriculture. Every field the government attempts to take over it first subsidizes. You can’t decentralize government by centralizing the tax collections.
Mr. Nixon’s “power to the people” slogan really means “power to the President.”
House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills has called the revenue-sharing plan a “trap” that “could become a massive weapon against the independence of state and local government.” The plan, said Mills, “goes in the direction of centralized government.”
But, Mr. Nixon is very clever. In his 1971 State of the Union Message, the talk in which he used the Communist slogan “Power to the People,” the President said:
“We in Washington will at last be able to provide government that is truly for the people. I realize that what I am asking is that not only the Executive branch in Washington, but that even this Congress will have to change by giving up some of its power.”
That sounds reasonable doesn’t it? The Executive branch will give up some power and the Congress will give up some power and the people will gain by having these powers returned to them. Right? Wrong! That is nothing but verbal sleight of hand. Notice the precision of Mr. Nixon’s language. He speaks of the “Executive branch in Washington” giving up some of its power. Three days later it became obvious why Mr. Nixon added the seemingly redundant “in Washington” when it was announced that the country was being carved up into ten federal districts. These federal districts would soon be used to administer the wage and price controls which centralize in the federal government almost total power over the economy.
To many political observers the most shocking development of the past year was the admission by President Richard Nixon to newsman Howard K. Smith that he is “now a Keynesian in economics.” The jolted Smith commented later, “That’s a little like a Christian Crusader saying: ‘All things considered, I think Mohammed was right.’ ” Howard K. Smith was well aware that such a statement was tantamount to a declaration by Mr. Nixon that “I am now a Socialist.” John Maynard Keynes, the English economist and Fabian Socialist, bragged that he was promoting the “euthanasia of capitalism.”
It is generally believed in England among students of this conspiracy that John Maynard Keynes produced his General Theory of Money and Credit at the behest of certain Insiders of international finance who hired him to concoct a pseudo-scientific justification for government deficit spending-just as the mysterious League of Just Men had hired Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto. The farther a government goes into debt, the more interest is paid to the powerful Insiders who “create” money to buy government bonds by the simple expedient of bookkeeping entries. Otherwise, you can bet your last farthing that the Insiders of international banking would be violently opposed to inflationary deficits.
In his internationally syndicated column of February 3, 1971, James Reston (C.F.R.) exclaimed:
“The Nixon budget is so complex, so unlike the Nixon of the past, so un-Republican that it defies rational analysis. … The Nixon budget is more planned, has more welfare in it, and has a bigger predicted deficit than any other budget of this century.”
During 1967, while on the primary trail, Richard Nixon made exorbitant Democrat spending his Number Two campaign issue, just behind the failure of the Democrats to win the Vietnam War. Mr. Johnson’s 1967 Budget was $158.6 billion, which at the time seemed astronomical. Mr. Nixon claimed that if that amount were not sliced by $10 billion the country faced financial disaster. At a time when the Vietnam War was a far bigger financial drain than it is now, Richard Nixon argued that we should be spending around $150 billion. President Nixon is now spending $230 billion, and bills already introduced in Congress and likely to pass could push the 1972 Fiscal Budget (July 1, 1971 to July 1, 1972) to $250 billion.
The point is that the man who campaigned as Mr. Frugal in 1968 is, in his third year of office, out-spending by $80 to $100 billion what he said his predecessor should spend. And some experts are predicting that Mr. Nixon could spend as much as $275 billion next year.
This is the same Richard Nixon who in Dallas on October 11, 1968, declared that “America cannot afford four years of Hubert Humphrey in the White House” because he had advocated programs which would have caused “a spending spree that would have bankrupted this nation.” Candidate Nixon flayed the Johnson Administration for failing “to cut deficit spending which is the cause of our present inflation.” Budget deficits, he said, “lie at the heart of our troubles.” For his own part, he renounced any “massive step-up” in federal spending. “This is a prescription for further inflation,” said Nixon. “I believe it is also a prescription for economic disaster.”
While it took LBJ five years to run up a $55 billion deficit, Senator Harry Byrd notes that the accumulated deficit for Mr. Nixon’s first three years will reach at least $88 billion. Congressional experts are now predicting Richard Nixon could well pour on the red ink to a total of $124 billion in this term of office alone.
In order to halt inflation Mr. Nixon has now instituted wage and price controls. Most Americans, sick of seeing their paychecks shrink in purchasing power each month, have overwhelmingly approved. But this is because most people are not aware of the real causes of inflation. And you can be sure that the Establishment’s landscape painters will not explain the truth to them. The truth is that there is a difference between inflation’ and the wage-price spiral. When the government runs a deficit, brand new money in the amount of the deficit is put into circulation. As the new money percolates through the economy it bids up wages and prices. This is easy to understand if you think of our economy as a giant auction. Just as at any other auction, if the bidders are suddenly supplied with more money, they will use that money to bid up prices. Inflation, in reality, is an increase in the supply of money. It causes the wage-price spiral which is generally mislabeled inflation. You could not have a wage price spiral if you did not have an increase in the money supply with which to pay it. This is not just economics, it is physics. You can’t fill a quart bottle with a pint of milk. To say that the wage-price spiral causes inflation is like saying wet streets cause rain. Mr. Nixon, unlike the vast majority of the American public, is aware of the real causes of “inflation.” He explained it clearly on January 27, 1970:
“The inflation we have at the start of the Seventies was caused by heavy deficit spending in the Sixties. In the past decade, the Federal Government spent more than it took in-$57 billion more. These deficits caused prices to rise 25 percent in a decade.”
Business blames “inflation” on the unions, and unions blame “inflation” on business, but only the government can cause “inflation.”
Mr. Nixon has fastened wage and price controls on the economy supposedly to solve a problem which Mr. Nixon (and LBJ) created by running huge deficits. If he sincerely wanted to stop “inflation” he would have put wage and price controls on the government rather than on the rest of us and would have stopped deficit spending. People are cheering Nixon because he “did something.” This is akin to cheering for a motorist who shoots a pedestrian he has just run over.
Wage and price controls are at the very heart of Socialism. You can’t have a totalitarian government without wage and price controls and you can’t have a free country with them. Why? You cannot impose slavery upon people who have economic freedom. As long as people have economic freedom, they will be free. Wage and price controls are people controls. In his Phase II speech, Mr. Nixon made it clear that the 90-day wage and price controls are with us in one disguise or another from now on. They are a major step towards establishing an all-powerful Executive branch of the federal government.
After the Insiders have established the United Socialist States of America (in fact if not in name), the next step is the Great Merger of all nations of the world into a dictatorial world government. This was the main reason behind the push to bring Red China into the United Nations. If you want to control the natural resources, transportation, commerce and banking for the whole world, you must put everybody under the same roof.
The Insiders’ code word for the world superstate is “new world order,” a phrase often used by Richard Nixon. The Council on Foreign Relations states in its Study No. 7: “The U.S. must strive to: A. BUILD A NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER.” (Capitals in the original) Establishment spokesman James Reston (CFR) declared in his internationally syndicated column for the New York Times of May 21, 1971: “Nixon would obviously like to preside over the creation of a new world order, and believes he has an opportunity to do so in the last 20 months of his first term.”
A world government has always been the object of the Communists. In 1915, in No. 40 of the Russian organ, The Socialist Democrat, Lenin proposed a “United States of the World.” The program of the Communist International of 1936 says that world dictatorship “can be established only by victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which the Proletariat Republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system would expand … at length forming the world union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
One of the most important groups promoting the “world union” is the United World Federalists, whose membership is heavily interlocked with that of the Council on Foreign Relations. The UWF advocate turning the UN into a full-fledged world government which would include the Communist nations.
Richard Nixon is, of course, far too clever to actually join the UWF, but he has supported their legislative program since his early days in Congress. In the October 1948 issue of the UWF publication World Government News, on page 14, there appears the following announcement: “Richard Nixon: Introduced world government resolution (HCR 68) 1947, and ABC (World Government) resolution 1948.”
World government has a strong emotional appeal for Americans, based on their universal desire for world peace. The Insiders have the Communists rattling their sabers with one hand and dangling the olive branch with the other. Naturally everyone gravitates towards the olive branch, not realizing that the olive branch is controlled by another arm of the entity that is rattling the sabers.
In September of 1968, candidates for public office received a letter from the United World Federalists that stated:
“Our organization has been endorsed and commended by all U.S. presidents in the last 20 years and by the current nominees for the presidency. As examples we quote as follows:
Richard Nixon: ‘Your organization can perform an important service by continuing to emphasize that world peace can only come thru world law. Our goal is world peace. Our instrument for achieving peace will be law and justice. If we concentrate our energies toward these ends, I am hopeful that real progress can be made.’
Hubert Humphrey: ‘Every one of us is committed to brotherhood among all nations, but no one pursues these goals with more dignity and dedication than the United World Federalists.'”
There really was not a dime’s worth of difference. Voters were given the choice between CFR world government advocate Nixon and CFR world government advocate Humphrey. Only the rhetoric was changed to fool the public.
A world government requires a world supreme court, and Mr. Nixon is on record in favor of a world supreme court. And a world government must have a world police force to enforce the laws of the World Superstate and keep the slaves from rebelling. The Los Angeles Examiner of October 28, 1950, reported that Congressman Richard Nixon had introduced a “resolution calling for the establishment of a United Nations police force. …”
Not surprisingly, the Insiders have their pet planners preparing to administrate their world dictatorship. Under an immense geodetic dome at Southern Illinois University is a completely detailed map of the world which occupies the space of three football fields. Operating under grants from the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations (all extensively interlocked with the C.F.R.) a battery of scientists including everything from geographers, psychologists and behavioral scientists to natural scientists, biologists, biochemists and agronomists are making plans to control people. These elite planners conduct exercises in what they call “the world game.” For example: There are too many people in Country A and not enough people in Country B. How do you move people from Country A to Country B? We need so many males, so many females, so many of this occupation and so many of that occupation, so many of this age and so many of that age. How do you get these people from Country A and settle them in Country B in the shortest possible time? Another example: We have an uprising in Country C (or as it would now be called, District C) How long does it take to send in “peace” forces to stop the insurgency? The World Game people run exercises on global control. If you plan on running the world, you cannot go about it haphazardly. That is why the Insiders of the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations are making these plans. The real name of the game is 1984. We will have systematic population reduction, forced sterilization or anything else which the planners deem necessary to establish absolute control in their humanitarian Utopia. But to enforce these plans, you must have an all-powerful world government. You can’t do this if individual nations have sovereignty. And before you can facilitate the Great Merger, you must first centralize control within each nation, destroy the local police and remove the guns from the hands of the citizenry. You must replace our once free Constitutional Republic with an all-powerful central government. And that is exactly what is happening today with the Nixon Administration. Every action of any consequence, despite the smokescreen, has centralized more power in what is rapidly becoming an all-powerful central government.
What we are witnessing is the Communist tactic of pressure from above and pressure from below, described by Communist historian Jan Kozak as the device used by the Reds to capture control of Czecho-Slovakia. The pressure from above comes from secret, ostensibly respectable Comrades in the government and Establishment, forming, with the radicalized mobs in the streets below, a giant pincer around middle- class society. The street rioters are pawns, shills, puppets, and dupes for an oligarchy of elitist conspirators working above to turn America’s limited government into an unlimited government with total control over our lives and property.
The American middle-class is being squeezed to death by a vise. (See Chart 9) In the streets we have avowed revolutionary groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (which was started by the League for Industrial Democracy, a group with strong C.F.R. ties), the Black Panthers, the Yippies, the Young Socialist Alliance. These groups chant that if we don’t “change” America, we will lose it. “Change” is a word we hear over and over. By “change” these groups mean Socialism. Virtually all members of these groups sincerely believe that they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an indispensible ally of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us. The naive radicals think that under Socialism the “people” will run everything. Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and controlling all wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted. They are protected. If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped, how long do you think they would be tolerated?
Chart 9
Instead, we find that most of these radicals are the recipients of largesse from major foundations or are receiving money from the government through the War on Poverty. The Rothschild-Rockefeller-C.F.R. Insiders at the top “surrender to the demands” for Socialism from the mobs below. The radicals are doing the work of those whom they hate the most.
Remember Bakunin’s charge that Marx’ followers had one foot in the bank and the other in the Socialist movement.
Further indications of Establishment financing of the Communist S.D.S. are contained in James Kunen’s The Strawberry Statement: Notes of A College Revolutionary. Describing events at the 1968 S.D.S. national convention, Kunen says:
“Also at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables-the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government- tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and
they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.
They agreed with us on black control and student control. . . .
They want McCarthy in. They see fascism as the threat, see it coming from Wallace. The only way McCarthy could win is if the crazies and young radicals act up and make Gene look more reasonable. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago.
We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”
THAT IS THE STRATEGY. THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON THE KIDS IN THE STREET WHILE THE REAL DANGER IS FROM ABOVE.
As Frank Capell recently observed in The Review Of The News:
“Of course, we know that these radical students are not going to take over the government. What they are going to do is provide the excuse for the government to take over the people, by passing more and more repressive laws to ‘keep things under control.'”
The radicals make a commotion in the streets while the Limousine Liberals at the top in New York and Washington are Socializing us. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DICTATORSHIP OF THE ELITE DISGUISED AS A DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.
Now the Insiders of the Establishment are moving into a more sophisticated method of applying pressure from below. John Gardner, a “Republican” and member of the C.F.R., has established a grass roots proletarian organization called Common Cause. This may become the biggest and most important organization in American history. Common Cause’s goal is to organize welfare recipients, those who have not voted before, and Liberals to lobby for Socialism. That lobbying will not only be expressed in pressuring Congress to pass Socialist legislation but will also be expressed as ballot power in elections. Common Cause is supposedly the epitome of anti- Establishmentarianism, but who is paying the bills? The elite Insider radicals from above. The number one bankroller of this group to overthrow the super-rich and redistribute their wealth among the poor is John D. Rockefeller III. Other key financiers are Andrew Heiskell (CFR), chairman of the board of Time, Inc., Thomas Watson (CFR), chairman of the board of IBM, John Whitney (CFR) of the Standard Oil fortune, Sol Linowitz (CFR), chairman of the board of Xerox, and Gardner Cowles (CFR) of Cowles publications. In any organization, the man who pays the bills is the boss. The others are his employees.
What better proof could we have that Socialism is not a movement of downtrodden masses but of power hungry elitists? The poor are merely pawns in the game. Needless to say, the landscape painters hide Common Cause’s financial angels so that only those who understand that the Establishment’s game plan is SOCIALISM understand what is going on before their very eyes.
Many people cannot refrain from rationalizing. After reading this book, some will bemoan the fact that the situation is hopeless. These will be many of the same people who, before reading this book, really did not believe the problems facing us were serious. Some people wake up and give up in the same week. This is, of course, just exactly what the Insiders want you to do.
The conspiracy can be defeated. The Insiders are not omnipotent. It is true that they control important parts of the federal government, high finance and the mass media. But they do not control everything, or the vise would already have been closed. We might say the conspiracy controls everything but you. You are their Achilles heel if you are willing to fight. There is an old cliche in sports that quitters never win and winners never quit. We need a million Americans who are not quitters, but, “moreover, who have the will to win!
Of course, you can’t buck the conspiracy head on. … trying to fight it on its home grounds. But the Insiders are vulnerable to an end run. You, and thousands of others like you can make an end run if you want to. It is our intention in this closing chapter to show why it can be done and how you can do it.
The timing for an end run has never been better. What Barry Goldwater said in 1964, people were willing to believe in 1968. Most people who voted for Nixon did so because he promised to balance the budget, not establish wage and price controls; slash government spending, not multiply it; cut welfare, not push for a guaranteed annual income; stand firm against the Communists, not lead the Red Chinese into the
U. N.; build America’s defenses, not continue to unilaterally disarm us; and stop aid and trade with our avowed Communist enemies, not double it. These were the issues which supposedly differentiated Nixon from Humphrey. Now we see that Nixon has repudiated his own promises and carried out those of his opponent. By 1972, millions of Americans will have concluded that there is little difference between the leadership of the two major parties. And more and more people are beginning to realize that there is a tiny clique of conspirators at the top which controls both the Democrat and Republican Parties. The one thing these conspirators cannot survive is exposure. The Insiders are successful only because so few of their victims know what is being planned and how Insiders are carrying out those plans. Conspiracies can operate only in the dark. They cannot stand the truthful light of day. Once any sizeable minority of the American people becomes aware of the conspiracy and what it is up to, the many decades of patient planning and work by the Insiders in this country can be destroyed in an amazingly short period of time.
This job is largely a matter of getting others to realize that they have been conned and are continuing to be conned. You must become the local arm of the world’s largest floating university. But before you can go to work, pointing out these conspiratorial facts to others, you must know the facts yourself. This book is designed to give you these facts, and can be your greatest tool. It is available on tape casettes so that you can virtually memorize its contents by listening to it repeatedly while you are washing the dishes or driving to and from work. The concept of an army of individuals which is dedicated to exposing “the conspiracy” frightens the Insiders because it works outside the channels which they control.
Richard Nixon has said of the Republican Party: “We’ve got to have a tent everyone can get into.” The Democrats have obviously believed that for a long time. But a Party must be based on principles or it has no justification for existence. Bringing Socialists into the Republican Party theoretically may broaden the base, but, in reality, serves only to disfranchise those who believe in a Constitutional Republic and the free enterprise system.
In 1972, the Republicans will try to make you forget that Richard Nixon was elected on George Wallace’s platform but has been carrying out Hubert Humphrey’s. The pitch will be “party unity.” “If not Nixon then who?” will be the typical response to complaints about Nixon’s actions. But unity with evil is evil. During the campaign of 1972, Nixon will again talk conservatively while the C.F.R.’s Democrat candidate will sound frighteningly radical in order to stampede you into accepting Nixon as the lesser of two evils. The Establishment may even run its John Lindsay or Eugene McCarthy as a far Left third or fourth party candidate in order to split the Democratic Party and re-elect Richard Nixon with a comparatively small number of votes.
It is only logical that the Insiders will try to apply the coup de grace against America through a Republican President simply because most people cannot believe that a Republican could be “soft on Communism” or would jeopardize our liberty or sovereignty. The watchdogs tend to go to sleep with a Republican in office.
Democrats and Republicans must break the Insider control of their respective parties. The C.F.R.-types and their flunkies and social climbing opportunist supporters must be invited to leave or else the Patriots must leave.
It is up to you to put the politicians on the spot and make the C.F.K.-Insiders a campaign issue. This can be accomplished easily by creating the base of thinking that will oppose their positions. The Socialists must be forced to gather into one party. The conspiracy doesn’t want the resultant clear distinction between party ideologies. The Insiders want the issues between the parties to be cloudy and gray, centering on personalities, not principles. Neither party can come out strongly against Socialism as long as it is pushing Socialist programs. But that is the way the Insiders want it.
The issue, very simply, is the enslavement of you and your children. Just because many of these Insiders are theoretically Americans, don’t think they will spare this country the terror they have brought to thirty others through their hired Communist thugs. To the Insiders, the world is their country and their only loyalty is to themselves and their fellow conspirators. Being an American means no more to them than being an honorary citizen of Bali would mean to you. It has not bothered their consciences one iota that millions of your fellow human beings have been murdered, including 50,000 of your own sons in Vietnam. In order to solidify their power in the United States they will need to do here the same thing they have done in other countries. They will establish and maintain their dictatorship through stark terror. The terror does not end with the complete takeover of the Republic. Rather, then terror just begins … for total, all encompassing terror is an absolute necessity to keep a dictatorship in power. And terror does not mean merely punishing the enemies of the New Order. Terror requires the murdering and imprisoning of people at random … even many of those who helped them come to power.
Those who are complacent and hope to escape the terror because they were not involved in politics or resisted the New Order coming to power must be made, by you, to understand that this all-encompassing need for terror includes them especially. … that they cannot escape by doing nothing.
What can we expect from the conspiracy during the next few years? Here are fourteen signposts on the road to totalitarianism compiled some years ago by historian Dr. Warren Carroll and a refugee from Yugoslavian Communism, Mike Djordjevich. The list is not in any particular order nor is the order of any particular significance as given here. But the imposition of any one of these new restrictions on liberty (none of which was in effect when the list was compiled) would be a clear warning that the totalitarian state is very near; and once a significant number of them-perhaps five has been imposed, we can rationally conclude that the remainder would not be far behind and that the fight for freedom and the preservation of the Republic has been lost in this country.
Fourteen Signposts To Slavery
1. Restrictions on taking money out of the country and on the establishment or retention of a foreign bank account by an American citizen.
2. Abolition of private ownership of hand guns.
3. Detention of individuals without judicial process.
4. Requirements that private financial transactions be keyed to social security numbers or other government identification so that government records of these transactions can be kept and fed into a computer.
5. Use of compulsory education laws to forbid attendance at presently existing private schools.
6. Compulsory non-military service.
7. Compulsory psychological treatment for non-government workers or public school children.
8. An official declaration that anti-Communist organizations are subversive and subsequent legal action taken to suppress them.
9. Laws limiting the number of people allowed to meet in a private home. 10. Any significant change in passport regulations to make passports more difficult to obtain or use. 11. Wage and price controls, especially in a non-wartime situation
12. Any kind of compulsory registration with the government of where individuals work.
13. Any attempt to restrict freedom of movement within the United States. 14. Any attempt to make a new major law by executive decree (that is, actually put into effect, not merely authorized as by existing executive orders.) As you are no doubt aware President Nixon already has invoked numbers 1, 11 and
14. Steps 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 already have been proposed and some are actively campaigned for by organized groups. As of January 1, 1972, banks must report to the government any deposit or withdrawal over $5,000. The next step will be to restrict the taking of money out of the country. Big Brother is watching your bank account!
Increased government control over many kinds of private schools is proposed annually in many state legislatures. Compulsory non-military service-a universal draft of all young men and women, with only a minority going into the armed services has been discussed by the Nixon Administration as an alternative to the draft. Sensitivity training is already required for an increasing number of government workers, teachers and school children. As long ago as 1961, Victor Reuther proposed that anti- Communist groups and organizations be investigated and placed on the Attorney General’s subversive list. The propaganda war in progress to force registration or confiscation of firearms is the number one priority of all the collectivists-an armed citizenry is the major roadblock to a totalitarian takeover of the United States.
You are in this fight whether you want to be or not. Unless you are an Insider, you are a victim. Whether you are a multimillionaire or a pauper you have an enormous amount at stake.
The Insiders are counting on your being too preoccupied with your own problems or too lazy to fight back while the chains of slavery are being fastened on you. They are counting on their mass media to con you, frighten you, or ridicule you out of saving your freedom, and, most of all, they are counting on your thinking you can escape by not taking part in opposing their takeover.
They are also counting on those of you who recognize the conspiracy becoming so involved with watching all moves that you become totally mesmerized by their machinations, and thus become incapable of acting.
The choice is yours. You can say, “It can’t happen here!” But nearly every one of the one billion people enslaved by the Communists since 1945 doubtless said the same thing. Or you can end run this whole conspiratorial apparatus.
The choice you must make was enunciated by Winston Churchill when he told the people of England:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”
Because we have ignored warning after warning, we are now at that place in history. Unless you do your part now, you will face a further choice, also described by Mr. Churchill. He said:
“There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”
What Will You Do?
If you are unwilling to get involved because you feel it may be bad for business or may jeopardize your social respectability, just look into the eyes of your children and tell them that making a buck and climbing the social ladder are more important to you than they are.
This is the end of our case.
If you have decided not to do anything about it, then you can close this book, read no further, and turn out the light. That is just what you will be doing for the United States of America, and may God help us. And may He have mercy on your soul.
If you decide that you will do something-that you at least are not yet controlled-read on-pick up the ball we are tossing you and with thousands of others, let’s “end run” the conspiracy.
Here’s how: The four keys in this program are:
1. You. What you do now is, of course, the key to this whole operation. If you delay, your motivation will wane, your concern will recede, but the danger will increase. Remember, the Insiders don’t care how much you know about their conspiracy so long as you don’t do anything about it. So keep reading and then act.
2. This book: None Dare Call It Conspiracy. In writing this book we have tried to give a concise overall picture of the nature of the conspiracy. We wrote it not only to explain the conspiracy, but to give you a complete program of action now, so that the many “You’s” around the country would not necessarily have to be articulate salesmen to make your “end run.” You can simply pass this book out and let it do the job for you. The conspiracy may be able to stifle publicity on this book and keep it off the magazine rack at your local supermarket, but they can’t stop you from distributing it to friends, neighbors, relatives and business associates and especially in your precinct. With a potential 30 million distribution of this book to those mentioned above (and in a manner yet to be described), you will create a base of opinion that will throw the Insiders out. It is quite possible that in distributing this book, questions will come up concerning certain statements and conclusions with which you are not able to deal. There are a number of organizations that have well documented material on all subjects raised in this book. But after considerable personal research the author has concluded that the organization which is the leader in this field, has had the most experience, and is doing the best job of exposing the conspiracy is The John Birch Society. *
Footnote:
* The Berkeley Gazette stated in an editorial of August 26, 1971, commenting on The John Birch Society’s 1958 ten point predictions for the United States, “Whatever Else, Call Him [Robert Welch] ‘Correct.'” Write Box 8352, San Marino, Ca. 91108, for copy of editorial. Doesn’t it appear strange that this organization which works toward decentralization of political power and the exposure of the Insiders should be so vilified by the mass media, while the Council On Foreign Relations, which promotes centralization of power in the hands of a few within a world government, is practically never mentioned? So contact The John Birch Society for further back-up information (Belmont, Massachusetts 02178-San Marino, California 91108-or check your telephone directory for the nearest American Opinion Bookstore)
3. Your Precinct. The precinct is the lowest denominator in our political structure. Any politician will agree that whoever reaches and influences the most people in the precinct wins the election. When you break down the job to be done to this least common denominator, it doesn’t seem to be nearly as big a job as when you look at those millions of votes that need to be switched. Many elections are won or lost by less than five votes per precinct. Remember that every vote-switch you can accomplish (by planting the seed with your book) really amounts to two votes, as it takes one from the other side. Start your “end run” in your own precinct now. Lists of registered voters are available from your County Registrar. With everyone working within his own precinct, the hit and miss efforts of prior years will be avoided and organization will be added to this effort. A blanket coverage of your precinct will create talk between neighbors on this subject and thereby greatly increase the number of persons reading this book.
4. Your Congressman. You have now completed the three simple basic moves in your “end run.” Barring a wholesale awakening by the American people, it is probably wishful thinking to believe that the C.F.R.’s hold on the Presidency can be broken in 1972. But it is possible to block the Insiders’ men in the House of Representatives. Congress can still lift a powerful voice against the conspiracy if only it would. It can also throw a searchlight on to the C.F.R.’s stranglehold on the executive branch of the government. No burglar tries to rob a house when a spotlight is on him. With your effort Congress can be that spotlight. It is at the Congressional level that the conspiracy can be delayed at least until there is sufficient strength to rout it. But your local Congressional candidates must be forced to take a public stand on the Council on Foreign Relations, its goals, and its power in the federal government. And once your candidate is elected you must make sure that he does not submit to the incredible pressure which will be put upon him in Washington to compromise his principles. The Congressman for whom you are laying the base for election must be as steadfast in Washington as he is at home in personal conversation with you. Keep in mind that a Congressman must return to his constituents every two years for re-approval.
How would you like to be a Congressman who had voted for any one of the 14 Signposts to Slavery, asking to be elected by constituents who had read None Dare Call It Conspiracy? It is therefore easier to keep a Congressman on the straight and narrow than a Senator or the President. The latter run less frequently than Congressmen and represent tremendously larger geographical areas. Although it is not easy, it is still possible for a good Congressman to finance his campaign from within his district and not be dependent on the Insiders for campaign contributions.
If there are no Congressional candidates worth supporting in your area at this time, support one or more in other areas. Never contribute money to the Republican or Democratic National Committee. That money, except in token amounts, will never reach anti-C.F.R.-Establishment candidates, most of whom suffer from a severe shortage of funds, at least until they are well established. Only contribute your campaign dollars to those who are committed to fighting the conspiracy. A candidate running on good conservative principles is not enough. We’ve had many such candidates, and although most of them are very good men, they never come to grips with the real problems-exposing those behind the World Socialist Movement.
So, organize your “end run,” pass out your books and then keep your eagle eye on your Congressman and his voting record.
This “end run” concept we are suggesting is not just a game we are playing even though we use a football term.
To summarize: You do not necessarily have to be an articulate salesman to make this “end run.” You do not necessarily have to know all the in’s and out’s of the total conspiracy-the book is intended to do this for you.
All you have to do is find the wherewithal to purchase the books and one way or another see that you blanket your precinct with them. Then force your Congressman to stand up to the C.F.R. Establishment.
It is simple. It is straightforward. It is a workable plan.
With 30 million “end runs” being made during 1972, you can, and will, rout the conspiracy, turn the tide of history and prevent the enslavement of yourself and your family.
Remember, seeds planted in 1972 will pay off not only this year, but in 1974 and 1976. If we do not build a large counter-revolutionary base in 1972 the ball game will be lost by 1976.
¤ Adm. George W. Anderson, JR., Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
¤ Dr. George P. Baker, Advisory Council on Executive Organization
¤ George Ball, Foreign Policy Consultant to the State Department
¤ Jacob D. Beam, Ambassador to the Soviet Union
¤ David E. Bell, Member of the National Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
¤ Lt. Gen. Donald V. Bennett, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
¤ C. Fred Bergsten, Operations Staff of the National Security Council
¤ Robert O. Blake, Ambassador to Mali
¤ Fred J. Borch, Member, Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy
¤ Dr. Harold Brown, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and senior member of the U.S. delegation for talks with the Soviet Union on Strategic Arm Limitations (S.A.L.T.)
¤ William B. Buffum, Deputy Representative to the United Nations; Ambassador to Lebanon
¤ Ellsworth Bunker, Ambassador to South Vietnam
¤ Frederick Burkhardt, Chairman, National Commission on Libraries and Information Service
¤ Dr. Arthur Burns, Counsellor to the President-later Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve, succeeding C.F.R. member William McChesney Martin
¤ Henry A. Byroade, Ambassador 10 the Philippines
¤ Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Member, President’s Commiss on for the Observance of the 25th Anniversary of
¤ Courteney C. Brown, Member, Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy
¤ David K.E. Bruce, Chief of the U.S. Delegation to the Paris Talks
¤ Harlan Cleveland, Ambassador to N.A.T.O. ¤ Richard N. Cooper, Operations, Staff of the National Security Council
¤ Philip K. Crowe, Ambassador to Norway ¤ Gardner Cowles, Board of Directors of National Center for Voluntary Action
¤ William B. Dale, Executive Director of International Monetary Fund
¤ Nathaniel Davis, Ambassador to Chile
¤ C. Douglas Dillon, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
¤ Seymour M. Finger, Alternate to the 25th Session of the General Assembly of the U.N.
¤ Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Governors, United Service Organization, Inc.
¤ William C. Foster, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
¤ Thomas S. Gates, Chairman, Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force
¤ Carl J. Gilbert, Special Representative for Trade Negotiations
¤ Gen. Andrew I. Goodpaster, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (succeeding C.F.R. member Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer)
¤ Kermit Gordon, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency
¤ Joseph Adolph Greenwald, U.S. Rep. to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development
¤ Gen. Alfred M. Gruenther, Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force
¤ John W. Gardner, Board of Directors, National Center for Voluntary Action
¤ Richard Gardner, Member, Commission on International Trade and Investment
Policy
¤ T. Keith Glennan, U.S. Rep., International Atomic Energy Agency
¤ Gordon Gray, Member, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; Member,
Civilian Defense Advisory Council
¤ Morton Halperin, Operations Staff of the National Security Council
¤ Christian A. Herter, Jr., Commissioner on the part of the U.S. on the International
Joint Commission-U. S. and Canada
¤ Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights;
Member of Commission on All-Volunteer Armed Force
¤ Samuel P. Huntington, Task Force on International Development
¤ John N. Irwin II, Special Emissary to Discuss Current U.S. Relations with Peru
¤ J.K. Jamieson, Member National Industrial Pollution Control Council
¤ Sen. Jacob K. Javits, Rep. to 25th Session of General Assembly of U.N.
¤ Joseph E. Johnson, Alternate Rep. to the 24th Session of the General Assembly of
the U.N.
¤ Howard W. Johnson, Member, National Commission on Productivity
¤ James R. Killian, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency
¤ William R. Kintner, Member of Board of Foreign Scholarships
¤ Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Chief
Foreign Policy Advisor
¤ Antonie T. Knoppers, Member of Commission on International Trade and
Investment Policy
¤ Gen. George A. Lincoln, Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness
¤ Henry Cabot Lodge, Chief Negotiator at the Paris Peace Talks
¤ George Cabot Lodge, Board of Directors, Inter-American Social Development
Institute
¤ Henry Loomis, Deputy Director of the United States Information Agency
¤ Douglas MacArthur II, Ambassador to Iran
¤ Robert Mcclintoc, Ambassador to Venezuela
¤ John J. Mccloy, Chairman, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency
¤ Paul W. Mccracken, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
¤ Edward S. Mason, Task Force on International Development
¤ Charles A. Meyer, Assistant Secretary of State
¤ Bradford Mills, President of Overseas Private Investment Corporation
¤ Franklin D. Murphy, Member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board
¤ Robert D. Murphy, Special Consultant on International Affairs
¤ Paul H. Nitze, Senior member, U.S. Delegation for Talks with the Soviet Union on
Strategic Arms Limitations (S.A.L.T.)
¤ Gen. Lauris Norstad, Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force; ” Member,
General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
¤ Alfred C. Neal, Member, Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy
¤ Roderic L. O’connor, Assistant Administrator for East Asia of the Agency for
International Development
¤ Robert E. Osgood, Operations Staff of the National Security Council
¤ Frank Pace, Jr., Member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
¤ Richard F. Pedersen, Counselor of the State Department
¤ John R. Petty, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs
¤ Christopher H. Phillips, Deputy Rep. in the U.N. Security Council
¤ Alan Pifer, Consultant to the President on Educational Finance
¤ Sen. Claiborne Pell, Rep. to 25th Session of the General Assembly of the U.N.
¤ Isidor I Rabi, Consultant-at-Large to the President’s Science Advisory Committee
¤ Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army
¤ Elliot L. Richardson, Undersecretary of State-now head of the Dept. of Health,
Education and Welfare
¤ John Richardson, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural
Affairs
¤ James Roche, Board of Directors, National Center for Voluntary Action; Member,
National Commission on Productivity
¤ David Rockefeller, Task Force on International Development
¤ Nelson A. Rockefeller, Head of a Presidential Mission to Ascertain the Views of
Leaders in the Latin American countries
¤ Rodman Rockefeller, Member, Advisory Council for Minority Enterprise
¤ Robert V. Roosa, Task Force on International Development
¤ Kenneth Rush, Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany
¤ Dean Rusk, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency
¤ John D. Rockefeller III, Chairman, National Commission on Population Growth and
the American Future
¤ Nathaniel Samuels, Deputy Undersecretary of State
¤ Adolph William Schmidt, Ambassador to Canada
¤ Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East and South Asia
¤ Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission
¤ Gerard Smith, Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament
¤ Henry DeW. Smyth, Alternate Rep. of the 13th Session of the General Conference
of the International Atomic Energy Aggency
¤ Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Operations Staff of the National Security Council
¤ John R. Stevenson, Legal Advisor of the State Department
¤ Frank Stanton, U.S. Advisory, Commission on Information
¤ Robert Strausz-Hupe, Ambassador to Ceylon and the Maldive Republic
¤ Leroy Stinebower, Member, Commission on International Trade and Investment
Policy
¤ Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
¤ Llewellyn Thompson, Senior Member U.S. Delegation for talks with the Soviet
Union on Strategic Arms Limitations (S.A.L.T.)
¤ Philip H. Trezise, Assistant Secretary of State
¤ Cyrus Vance, General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency
¤ Rawleigh Warner, Jr., Board of Trustees Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars
¤ Arthur K. Watson, Ambassador to France
¤ Thomas Watson, Board of Directors, National Center for Voluntary Action
¤ John Hay Whitney, Board of Directors, Corporation for Public Broadcasting
¤ Francis O. Wilcox, Member of President’s Commission for the Observance of the
25th Anniversary of the U.N.
¤ Franklin Haydn Williams, President’s Personal Representative for the Negotiation of
Future Political Status with the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
¤ Walter Wriston, Member, National Commission on Productivity
¤ Charles W. Yost, Ambassador to the United Nations
I think this may be one of the most important and timely articles on this website as far as physical health is concerned. Because YouTube has a nasty habit of censoring truth tellers, removing their YouTube videos, and banning their YouTube channels, I took the trouble to transcribe the text from a video on YouTube. As I expected, the channel and the video were in fact later removed. I found another YouTube with the same title. It may not be the same video from which I transcribed the text.
(From https://www.corbettreport.com/about/)
The Corbett Report is an independent, listener-supported alternative news source. It operates on the principle of open source intelligence and provides podcasts, interviews, articles and videos about breaking news and important issues from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state, eugenics, geopolitics, the central banking fraud and more.
The Corbett Report is edited, webmastered, written, produced and hosted by James Corbett.
An award-winning investigative journalist, James Corbett has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
Lady interviewer: Ten billion dollars. I mean, just speak about the magnitude of that. That is by far the biggest commitment of the foundation, isn’t it, Bill? I mean, this is by far the largest.
Bill Gates: That’s right, we’ve been spending a lot on vaccines. With this commitment, over eight million additional lives will be saved. So it’s one of the most effective ways that health in the poorest countries can be dramatically improved.
James Corbett: In January of 2010, Bill and Melinda Gates used the World Economic Forum at Davos to announce a staggering $10 billion commitment to research and develop vaccines for the world’s poorest countries, kicking off what he called a “Decade of Vaccines.”
Bill Gates: Today we’re announcing a commitment over this next decade, which we think of as a decade of vaccines having incredible impact. We’re announcing that we’ll spend over $10 billion on vaccines.
James Corbett: Hailed by the Gates-funded media…
Newscaster: For the record, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a NewsHour underwriter.
James Corbett: … and applauded by the pharmaceutical companies who stood to reap the benefits of that largesse, the record-setting commitment made waves in the international community, helping to underwrite a Global Vaccine Action Plan coordinated by the Gates-funded World Health Organization. But contrary to the Gates’ own PR spin that this $10 billion pledge was an unalloyed good and would save eight million lives, the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global health economy was part of a much bigger agenda. An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for Big Pharma companies, greater control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health, and greater power for Bill Gates to shape the course of the future for billions of people around the planet.
This is Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World.
You’re tuned into The Corbett Report.
Bill Gates with Anthony Fauci
Given Gates’ pledge to make this a “Decade of Vaccines,” it should come as no surprise that, since the dawn of this coronavirus crisis, he has been adamant that the world will not go back to normal until a vaccine has been developed.
Bill Gates: We’re gonna have this intermediate period of opening up, and it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world.
Bill Gates: The vaccine is critical, because, until you have that, things aren’t really going to be normal. They can open up to some degree, but the risk of a rebound will be there until we have very broad vaccination.
Bill Gates: They won’t be back to normal until we either have that phenomenal vaccine or a therapeutic that’s, like, over 95% effective. And so we have to assume that’s going to be almost 18 months from now.
Bill Gates speaking to interviewer: And then the final solution—which is a year or two years off—is the vaccine. So we’ve got to go full-speed ahead on all three fronts.
Interviewer: Just to head off the conspiracy theorists, maybe we shouldn’t call the vaccine “the final solution.” Maybe just “the best solution.”
Bill Gates: (Laughs) Good point!
James Corbett: More interestingly, since Gates began delivering this same talking point in every one of his many media appearances of late, it has been picked up and repeated by heads of state, health officials, doctors and media talking heads, right down to the scientifically arbitrary but very specific 18-month time frame.
Newscaster: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
Health minister: The hard fact is, until we have a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.
Health minister: This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.
Health minister: The only thing that will really allow life as we once knew it to resume is a vaccine.
President Trump: Obviously, we continue to work on the vaccines, but the vaccines have to be down the road by probably 14, 15, 16 months. We’re doing great on the vaccines.
James Corbett: The fact that so many heads of state, health ministers and media commentators are dutifully echoing Gates’ pronouncement about the need for a vaccine will not be surprising to those who saw last week’s exploration of How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health. As we have seen, the Gates Foundation’s tentacles have penetrated into every corner of the field of public health.
Billions of dollars in funding and entire public policy agendas are under the control of this man, an unelected, unaccountable software developer with no medical research experience or training. And nowhere is Gates’ control of public health more apparent than in the realm of vaccines.
Gates launched the Decade of Vaccines with a $10 billion pledge. gates helped develop the Global Vaccine Action Plan administered by the Gates-funded World Health Organization.
Gates helped found Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, aiming to develop “healthy markets” for vaccine manufacturers.
Gates helped launch Gavi with a $1 billion donation in 2011, going on to contribute $4.1 billion over the course of the “Decade of Vaccines.”
Bill Gates: And so I’m pleased to announce to you that we’re pledging an additional billion dollars to— [APPLAUSE]
Thank you.
[CONTINUED APPLAUSE]
Alright, thank you.
[CONTINUED APPLAUSE]
It’s not everyday we give away a billion dollars.
James Corbett: One of the Gates Foundation’s core funding areas is “vaccine development and surveillance,” which has resulted in the channeling of billions of dollars into vaccine development, a seat at the table to develop vaccination campaigns in countries around the globe, and the opportunity to shape public thinking around Bill Gates’ pet project of the past five years: preparing rapid development and deployment of vaccines in the event of a globally spreading pandemic.
Bill Gates at a TED Talk: If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus.
Bill Gates: Whether it occurs by a quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists show through their models that a respiratory-spread pathogen would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year. And there is a reasonable probability of that taking place in the years ahead.
Lady news announcer: Many high-profile personalities have been gathering at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, which aims to discuss the globe’s most pressing issues. Amongst them is the Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose foundation is investing millions in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to help combat infectious diseases. Here’s some of what he had to say about his push to develop new vaccines.
Bill Gates: Unfortunately, it takes many years to do a completely new vaccine. The design, the safety review, the manufacturing; all of those things mean that an epidemic can be very widespread before that tool would come along. And so after Ebola the global health community talked a lot about this, including a new type of vaccine platform called DNA/RNA that should speed things along.
And so this Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiative, CEPI, is three countries—Japan, Norway, Germany—and two foundations— Wellcome Trust, who we work with on a lot of things, and our foundation, the Gates Foundation— coming together to fund… actually trying to use that platform and make some vaccines. And so that would help us in the future.
TV ad promoting vaccines: We know vaccines can protect us. We just need to be better prepared. So, “Let’s come together. Let’s research and invest. Let’s save lives. Let’s outsmart epidemics.”
James Corbett: Given Gates’ mammoth investment in vaccines over the past decade, his insistence that…
Bill Gates: “Things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.”
James Corbett: … is hardly surprising. What should be surprising is that this strangely specific and continuously repeated message —that we will not go “back to normal” until we get a vaccine in 18 months— has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Medical researchers have already conceded that a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 may not even be possible, pointing to the inability of researchers to develop any kind of immunization against previous coronavirus outbreaks, like SARS or MERS. But even if such a vaccine were possible, serious concerns remain about the safety of developing, testing and delivering such an “amazing vaccine” to “the entire world” in this remarkably short timeframe.
Even proponents of vaccine development openly worry that the rush to vaccinate billions of people with a largely untested, experimental coronavirus vaccine will itself present grave risks to the public. One of these risks involves “disease enhancement.”
It has been known for over a decade that vaccination for some viral infections —including coronaviruses—actually enhances susceptibility to viral infection or even causes infections in healthy vaccine recipients.
Dr. Anthony Fauci: Now, the issue of safety. Something that I want to make sure the American public understand: It’s not only safety when you inject somebody and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction, they get a little allergic reaction, they get pain. There’s safety associated. “Does the vaccine make you worse?” And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you’re trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection.
James Corbett: This is no mere theoretical risk. As researchers who were trying to develop a vaccine for the original SARS outbreak discovered, the vaccine actually made the lab animals subjected to it more susceptible to the disease.
Dr. Peter Hortez, Co-director of Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development: One of the things that we are not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problems of coronavirus vaccines. This was first found in the 1960s with the Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccines, and it was done in Washington with the NIH and Children’s National Medical Center. Some of those kids who got the vaccine actually did worse, and I believe there were two deaths in the consequence of that study. Because what happens with certain types of respiratory virus vaccines, you get immunized, and then when you get actually exposed to the virus, you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon, and what—and we don’t entirely understand the basis of it. But we recognize that it’s a real problem for certain respiratory virus vaccines. That killed the RSV program for decades. Now the Gates Foundation is taking it up again. But when we started developing coronavirus vaccines—and our colleagues— we noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology that resembled what had happened 50 years earlier.
James Corbett: This specific issue regarding coronavirus vaccines is exacerbated by the arbitrary and unscientific 18-month timeframe that Gates is insisting on for the vaccine’s development. In order to meet that deadline, vaccine developers are being urged to use new and largely unproven methods for creating their experimental immunizations, including DNA and mRNA vaccines.
American lady news announcer: For a self-described wartime president, victory over COVID-19 equals a vaccine.
President Trump: I hope we can have a vaccine, and we’re going to fast-track it like you’ve never seen before.
American lady news announcer: Adding Trump-style branding, the administration launched “Operation Warp Speed,” a multi-billion-dollar research and manufacturing effort to shorten the typical year-plus vaccine development timeline.
Dr. Anthony Fauci: We’re gonna start ramping up production with the companies involved, and you do that at risk. In other words, you don’t wait until you get an answer before you start manufacturing. You at risk, proactively. start making it, assuming it’s gonna work.
Lady intervierer: You’re thinking 18 months even with all the work that you’ve already done to this point and the planning that you are taking with lots of different potential vaccinations and building up for that now?
Bill Gates: Yeah, so there’s an approach called RNA vaccine that people like Moderna, CureVac and others are using that in 2015 we’d identified that as very promising for pandemics and for other applications as well. And so, if everything goes perfectly with the RNA approach, we could actually beat the 18 months. We don’t want to create unrealistic expectations.
Male virologist: So the concept of an RNA vaccine is: Let’s inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.
Lady virologist: It’s making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.
Male virologist: Our bodies won’t make a full-fledged infectious virus. They’ll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us. It’s a relatively new, unproven technology. And there’s still no example of an RNA vaccine that’s been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.
Lady virologist: There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.
Another lady virologist: So this is all new territory. Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.
James Cobett: Rushing at “Warp Speed” to develop a new vaccine using experimental technology and then mass-producing and delivering billions of doses to be injected into “basically the entire world” before adequate testing is even done amounts to one of the most dangerous experiments in the history of the world, one that could alter the lives of untold numbers of people.
That an experimental vaccine —developed in a brand new way and rushed through with a special, shortened testing regime— should be given to adults, children, pregnant women, newborn babies, and the elderly alike, would be, in any other situation, unthinkable. To suggest that such a vaccine should be given to the entire planet would have been called lunacy mere months ago. But now the public is being asked to accept this premise without question.
Even Gates himself acknowledges the inherent risks of such a project. But his concern is not for the lives that will be irrevocably altered in the event that the vaccines cause damage to the population. Instead, he is more concerned that the pharmaceutical companies and the researchers are given legal immunity for any such damage.
Bill Gates: You know, if we have, you know, one in 10,000 side effects, that’s, you know, way more —700,000—you know, people who will suffer from that.
So really understanding the safety at gigantic scale across all age ranges —you know, pregnant, male, female, undernourished, existing comorbidities—it’s very, very hard. And that actual decision of, “OK, let’s go and give this vaccine to the entire world,” ah, governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on.
James Corbett: As we have already seen, in the arena of global health, what Bill Gates wants is what the world gets. So it should be no surprise that immunity for the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers and the vaccination program planners is already being worked on.
In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration that retroactively provides “liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19,” including manufacturers, distributors and program planners of “any vaccine, used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19.”
The declaration was issued on March 17th but retroactively covers any activity back to February 4th, 2020, the day before the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced an emergency $100 million to fund treatment efforts and to develop new vaccines for COVID-19.
The plan to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental vaccine is no aberration in Bill Gates’ envisioned “Decade of Vaccines.” It is its culmination.
The “Decade of Vaccines” kicked off with a Gates-funded $3.6 million observational study of HPV vaccines in India that, according to a government investigation, violated the human rights of the study participants with “gross violations” of consent and failed to properly report adverse events experienced by the vaccine recipients.
After the deaths of seven girls involved in the trial were reported, a parliamentary investigation concluded that the Gates-funded Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), which ran the study, had been engaged in a scheme to help ensure “healthy markets” for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, the manufacturers of the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines that had been so generously donated for use in the trial:
“Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunization program of the concerned countries, this would have generated windfall profit for the manufacturers by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses.
It is well known that once introduced into the immunization program it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.”
Chandra M. Gulhati, editor of the influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, remarked that “it is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods to establish itself in India,” and Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India lamented that “this is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”
Throughout the decade, India’s concerns about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its corporate partners’ influence on the country’s national immunization programs grew. In 2016, the steering group of the country’s National Health Mission blasted the government for allowing the country’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation —the primary body advising the government on all vaccination-related matters— to be effectively purchased by the Gates Foundation.
As one steering group member noted: “The NTAGI secretariat has been moved out of the government’s health ministry to the office of Public Health Foundation of India and the 32 staff members in that secretariat draw their salaries from the Bill and Milinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).
There is a clear conflict of interest—on one hand, the BMGF funds the secretariat that is the highest decision making body in vaccines and, on the other, it partners the pharma industry in GAVI. This is unacceptable.
In 2017, the government responded by cutting all financial ties between the advisory group and the Gates Foundation.
Similar stories play out across the Gates Foundation’s “Decade of Vaccines.”
There’s the Gates-founded and funded Meningitis Vaccine Project, which led to the creation and testing of MenAfriVac, a $0.50-per-dose immunization against meningococcal meningitis. The tests led to reports of between 40 and 500 children suffering seizures and convulsions and eventually becoming paralyzed.
There’s the 2017 confirmation that the Gates-supported oral polio vaccine was actually responsible for the majority of new polio cases and the 2018 follow up showing that 80% of polio cases are now vaccine-derived.
There’s the 2018 paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluding that over 490,000 people in India developed paralysis as a result of the oral polio vaccine between 2000 and 2017.
There’s even the WHO’s own malaria chief, Dr. Arata Kochi, who complained in an internal memo that Gates’ influence meant that the world’s leading malaria scientists are now “locked up in a ‘cartel’ with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group” and that the foundation “was stifling debate on the best ways to treat and combat malaria, prioritizing only those methods that relied on new technology or developing new drugs.”
Kochi’s complaint, written in 2008, highlights the most common criticism of the global health web that Gates has spun in the past two decades: that the public health industry has become a racket run by and for Big Pharma and its partners for the benefit of big business.
At the time that Kochi was writing his memo, the executive director of the Gates Foundation’s Global Health program was Tachi Yamada. Yamada left his position as Chairman of Research and Development at GlaxoSmithKline to take up the position at the Gates Foundation in 2006 and left the foundation five years later to become Chief Medical and Scientific Officer at Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Yamada’s replacement as head of Gates’ Global health program, Trevor Mundel, was himself a clinical researcher at Pfizer and Parke-Davis and spent time as Head of Development with Novartis before joining the foundation.
This use of foundation funds to set public policy to drive up corporate profits is not a secret conspiracy. It is a perfectly open one.
When the Center for Global Development formed a working group to “develop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge,” they concluded that the best way to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to produce more vaccines for the third world was for governments to promise to buy vaccines before they were even developed. They titled their report “Making Markets for Vaccines.”
Alice Albright, CEO, Global Aliance for Vaccines and Immunization: The project “Making Markets for Vaccines” was really designed to address a problem that’s existed for a long time, which is insufficient research and development budgets as well as investment capacity in vaccine development and production for the third world. How do you create better incentives to get the pharma community —the vaccine community—to produce products that are specifically dedicated for the developing world?
Another lady: Michael Kramer, a professor at Harvard, had been thinking about this problem for many years.
Owen Barder, Director Global Developement Effectiveness: He realized that if the rich countries of the world were to make a promise that they would buy a malaria vaccine if somebody produced it, that that would give an incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to go and do the research and development needed to make one. But this idea was unfamiliar. No government had made a commitment to buy a product that didn’t already exist.
James Corbett: When the first such “Advanced Market Commitment” was made in 2007 —a $1.5 billion promise to buy yet-to-be-produced vaccines from Big Pharma manufacturers— there was the Gates Foundation as the only non-nation sponsor.
The Gates-founded Gavi Vaccine Alliance is an open partnership between the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, the World Bank and vaccine manufacturers. Their stated goal includes “introducing new vaccines into the routine schedules of national immunization programmes” and engaging in “market shaping efforts” to ensure “healthy markets for vaccines and other immunization products.”
If “introducing new vaccines” and ensuring healthy markets for them was the aim of Gates’ “Decade of Vaccines,” there can be no doubt that COVID-19 has seen that goal realized in spectacular fashion.
UK lady news announcer: Let’s start the pledging. The EU kicked off its fundraising drive with 1 billion euros. In the hours that followed, pledges were beamed in from across the globe.
Saudi man: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has pledged 500 million dollars.
Lady news announcer: Even pop icon Madonna made a last-minute donation of a million euros.
Lady CEO: By combining the world’s expertise and brainpower and resources, we can attack this disease in the way it’s attacking us: globally. Our foundation is proud to partner with you and I’m pleased to announce today that we will pledge a hundred million dollars towards this effort.
Lady news announcer: Germany was one of the leading donors, pledging over five hundred million euros. The money is earmarked for international health organizations and research networks in a bid to speed up the development of a vaccine.
James Corbett: And there, at the center of this web, is the Gates Foundation, connected to every major organization, research institution, international alliance and vaccine manufacturer involved in the current crisis.
Certainly, the Gates —like the Rockefellers— have profited from their years as “the most generous people on the planet.”
As curious as it might seem to those who don’t understand the true nature of this monopoly cartel, despite all of these grants and pledges —commitments of tens of billions of dollars— Bill Gates’ personal net worth has actually doubled during this “Decade of Vaccines,” from $50 billion to over $100 billion.
But once again we come back to the question: Who is Bill Gates? Is he motivated simply by money? Is this incessant drive to vaccinate the entire population of the planet merely the result of greed? Or is there something else driving this agenda?
As we shall see next time, money is not the end goal of Gates’ “philanthropic” activities. Money is just the tool that he is using to purchase what he really wants: control. Control not just of the health industry, but control of the human population itself.
Bill Gates: So Melinda and I wondered whether providing new medicines and keeping children alive would create more of a population problem.
Unknown man: Researchers are now developing a vaccine that is delivered using a dissolvable patch, called a micro-needle array.
Unknown man: In Gates’vision, these digital identities will be tied to all of our actions and transactions.
Bill Gates: Once you have that digital infrastructure,the whole way you think about government benefits can be done differently. So it’s too bad if somebody thinks that creates a privacy problem.
The full title of this book is, “The Dawkins DELUSION? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine” by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. It is a commentary of Richard Dawkins’s book, The God Delusion.
The main thing I got from this book other than increasing my vocabulary is to learn that Richard Dawkins’s rants against God and religion are not considered to be a threat by the Intelligent Design movement. On the contrary, some academics who are leaders of this movement actually consider Dawkins’s work to be an asset to them! And yet other academics who are atheists consider his arguments to be weak and unscientific. And some them distance themselves from him saying, “Don’t judge the rest of us by this (Dawkins’s) pseudointellectual drivel.”
I also learned it was Dawkins who first coined the word “meme”. Now I understand why it rhymes with gene; it is based on that word. Dawkins’s worldview causes him to try to connect everything with Darwinian evolution.
Some of my favorite quotes from the book:
(Page 24) Dawkins’s inept engagement with (Martin) Luther shows how Dawkins abandons even the pretense of rigorous evidence-based scholarship. Anecdote is substituted for evidence; selective Internet trawling for quotes displaces rigorous and comprehensive engagement with primary sources. In this book, Dawkins throws the conventions of academic scholarship to the winds; he wants to write a work of propaganda and consequently treats the accurate rendition of religion as an inconvenient impediment to his chief agenda, which is the intellectual and cultural destruction of religion. It’s an unpleasant characteristic that he shares with other fundamentalists.
(Page 41) Science has, in Dawkins’s view, wrecked faith in God, relegating God to the margins of culture, where he is embraced by deluded fanatics. There’s an obvious problem, of course—namely, that rather a lot of scientists do believe in God. The God Delusion was published in 2006. In that same year three other books were published by leading research scientists. Owen Gingerich, a noted Harvard astronomer, produced God’s Universe, declaring that “the universe has been created with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise.”17 Francis Collins published his Language of God, which argues that the wonder and ordering of nature points to a Creator God, very much along the lines of the traditional Christian conception. In this book Collins describes his own conversion from atheism to Christian faith. This hardly fits Dawkins’s rigid insistence that real scientists are atheists.
17Bruce E. Blaine, The Psychology of Diversity: Perceiving and Experiencing Social
Difference (Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield , 2000).
(Page 49) …the intelligent design movement … now regards Dawkins as one of its greatest assets. Why? Because his hysterical and dogmatic insistence on the atheist implications of Darwinism is alienating many potential supporters of the theory of evolution. William Dembski, the intellectual architect of this movement, constantly thanks his intelligent Designer for Dawkins.27 As he put it recently in a somewhat sarcastic e-mail to Dawkins: “I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God’s greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!” I suspect that he’s delighted by The God Delusion28
26The God Delusion, pp. 131-34, with reference to Michael Behe; William Dembski is not
mentioned. For a somewhat more informed engagement with the movement,
see Niall Shanks, Cod, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
27For Dembski’s approach, see William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge
Between Science & Theology (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1999).
28See Madeleine Bunting’s perceptive article “Why the Intelligent Design
Lobby Thanks God for Richard Dawkins,” The Guardian [London], March
27, 2006.
(Page 51) One of the most melancholy aspects of The God Delusion is how its author appears to have made the transition from a scientist with a passionate concern for truth to a crude antireligious propagandist who shows a disregard for evidence. This was evident in the TV series The Root of All Evil? which served as a pilot for The God Delusion. Here, Dawkins sought out religious extremists who advocated violence in the name of religion, or who were aggressively antiscientific in their outlook. No representative figures were included or considered. Dawkins’s conclusion? Religion leads to violence and is antiscience.
Unsurprisingly, the series was panned by its critics, who saw it as intellectually risible (deserving to be laughed at). As one senior atheist scientific colleague at Oxford said to me afterward, “Don’t judge the rest of us by this pseudointellectual drivel.” Yet The God Delusion simply continues this flagrantly biased approach to evidence, mocking and excoriating alternatives, refusing to take them seriously. Yes, there are religious people who are deeply hostile to science. And that number will, if anything, simply increase due to Dawkins’s polemical use of science in his epic struggle against religion. Perhaps it’s time that the scientific community as a whole protested against the abuse of their ideas in the service of such an atheist fundamentalism.
(page 56) Where’s the science? What’s the evidence for such a belief? We find speculation and supposition taking the place of the rigorous evidence-driven and evidence-based arguments that we have a right to expect. Dawkins’s theories of the biological origins of religion, though interesting, must be considered to be highly speculative. His arguments about the psychological origins of religion are littered with “maybes” and “mights,” verbal signposts that there is no substantial evidence for the highly tenuous and speculative ideas he explores with his readers.
On reading this section, I felt that 1 was being bludgeoned into submission to his ideas by the sheer force of his assertions rather than led along willingly on account of the weight of the evidence on the one hand and Dawkins’s skill in presenting it on the other. The arguments begin with cautious “could be” statements, advancing tentative hypotheses for consideration. Yet they rapidly become bold “is” statements, making assertions without the firm evidence normally thought to be required for rigorous scientific argument.
(page 58) Yet there is a much deeper question here, one that Dawkins does not even begin to address. What is the difference between a worldview and a religion? The dividing line is notoriously imprecise and, many would say, is constructed by those with vested interests to defend. A worldview is a comprehensive way of viewing reality that tries to make sense of its various elements within a single, overarching way of looking at things. Some, of course, are religious; many are not. Buddhism, existentialism, Islam, atheism and Marxism all fall into this category. Some worldviews claim to be universally true; others, more in tune with the postmodern ethos, view themselves as local. None of them can be “proved” to be right. Precisely because they represent “big picture” ways of engaging with the world, their fundamental beliefs ultimately lie beyond final proof. And here is the point: worldviews can easily promote fanaticism. Dawkins treats this as a defining characteristic of religion, airbrushing out of his account of violence any suggestion that it might be the result of political fanaticism—or even atheism. He is adamant that he himself, as a good atheist, would never fly airplanes into skyscrapers or commit any other outrageous act of violence or oppression. Good for him. Neither would I. Yet there are those in both our constituencies who would. Dawkins and I may both disavow violence and urge all within our groups to do so. But the harsh reality is that religious and antireligious violence has happened, and is likely to continue to do so.
(Page 61) Dawkins identifies “wish fulfilment” as a global feature of religion. Now, there is a grain of truth in his analysis. The way human beings perceive the world is indeed colored by our agendas and expectations. “Cognitive bias” is indeed a fundamental characteristic of human psychology.16 Yet in general this unconscious bias is manifested not so much in our believing what we would like to be true as in maintaining the status quo of our beliefs. The driving force is not wishful thinking but conservative thinking—that is, thinking that conserves an existing worldview.
(Page 62) We thus have a built-in resistance to change our position—a resistance that is underpinned by cognitive biases that predispose us to fail to notice or to discount data that are inconsistent with our view On the whole we do this because it is efficient—it takes effort and is upsetting to have to change one’s mind—even if the change is in a positive direction. The God Delusion is a wonderful case study of exactly this kind of unconscious bias. Without full awareness that he is doing so, Dawkins foregrounds evidence that fits his own views and discounts or distorts evidence that does not.
While cognitive bias helps us cope with a complex world, there are some situations where it is very important to minimize its effects. Scientific investigation is one of these. The entire point of the scientific method is to reduce, and where possible eliminate, such bias, to strive to give as objective and fair an account as possible. Dawkins does not apply this method to his consideration of religion.
Do cognitive biases play a part in religious belief? The evidence is that they are as important here as in any other area of life. An understanding of this aspect of cognitive processing may well shed light on the conservatism of established religion—the factors that maintain it in the face of threat.17 But they are less important in understanding the origins of religion and new religious movements, which are characterized by opposition to the status quo rather than conservatism.
17A classic study of this theme is Robert P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive
Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury, 1979).
You can order the Dawkins Delusion from Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism/dp/0830837213 No, I will not get a penny if you buy it.