ON THE EVE OF WORLD WAR III
The barbarians are not at the gates, they are inside the gates – and have academic tenure, judicial appointments, government grants, and control of the movies, television, and other media. The question of the hour – and of the next century – is whether all this can be turned around.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, 1994
"I am in favor of Bolshevism.”
So spoke David Ben-Gurion (born David Gruen in Lodz, Poland in 1886), the first prime minister of the new state of Israel. In a revealing article, “Whose Country Is It?” in the January 1998 American Spectator, Tom Bethell puts those stirring words in their proper context. Bethell had just returned from a week in Jerusalem, which may or may not become the first capital city of the World. Bethell writes that when the British controlled Palestine after World War I, Chaim Weizmann and the Zionist collaborated with quotas that prevented most religious or Oriental Jews from immigrating. 1
“Fifty years ago exactly,” Bethell informs us, “the Soviet Union cast its crucial United Nations vote in favor of the new state.” He also quotes Yosef Lapid, an editorial writer for Ma’ariv, a left-wing newspaper, whose column bore the header: “It Just Isn’t My Country Anymore.”
This begs the question, just whose country is it – this land once called Palestine? There is a simple answer, but we can feel for the perplexity of this man, Yosef Lapid, as he sees within his country, the steady encroachment of Orthodox and religious Jews, “most of the newer faces from Russia,” Bethell says, “almost a million strong” since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They brought with them “a new faith, which is to say the old faith; the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.”2
Although he doesn’t say it, Bethell intertwines several exceptionally close alliances in his article, the United Nations, Bolshevism, the Soviet Union, Zionism, Palestine, the new state (Israel), David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann.…
They are all of a set piece. We will discover in this work just how they interconnect, and how a relatively small band of evil gangster-statesmen contrive unceasingly to erect a world empire under the blue and white banners of the secular humanist governments of the United Nations and the mini-state of Israel.
The cunning tactics and terror techniques of Lenin and Stalin and their Zionist (say Bolshevist) Comrades, headed by such historically significant thugs as “Iron Felix” Dzerzinsky and Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), are today being implemented with a vengeance right here in our own country – the United States of America – once the citadel of liberty and freedom; now, fast becoming the premier fascist police state.
We too may ask the question: just whose country is it?
These latter-day Bolshevists, dedicated conspirators with a fanatical will to power, are seizing the critical levers of government and straining for the ultimate brass ring – a one-world United Nations of absolute despotism.
The Korean War was the first large-scale war in American history that began and ended without a declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. It was the first war to be fought under the aegis of the United Nations.
We rushed into Korea with no advance planning, and we stumbled into the ground war in Vietnam with uncertain footing. In neither case did we have any fully thought-out ideas concerning our objectives or the means we would be willing to expend to attain them… There was some excuse for our precipitate action in Korea, but little or none for our somewhat aimless drift into deep involvement in Vietnam. We must not let such situations develop again. 3
J. Lawton Collins stressed this point in his book, War in Peacetime, published in 1969. Known as “Lightning Joe” for his heroic exploits as commander of the VII Corps from D-Day until Germany surrendered, General Collins was Chief of Staff of the US Army from 1950-53. During that time, those brave men doing the actual fighting for the US Army in Korea looked upon Lightning Joe as “The Boss.” This author was a young combat infantry troop commander in Korea, who had served proudly as a soldier in World War II, a latterday Sir Lancelot on a quest. It was one of his heroes of World War II, General of the Army Omar Bradley, who stated in 1951, “Korea is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
After the Korean debacle, the author began to develop serious doubts about the people who were running our country. He thought then… did we do this… officers such as Generals Ridgway, Collins, Taylor, Williams and Clarke, as well as those of us of lesser rank? But that thought has been tempered by time; we were the soldiers who carried out the orders; we were in effect the architects and executioners of a failed policy.
Today, the doubts persist.
Here, the author makes his key point, for without it, this book in its entirety is meaningless and a mere exercise in polemics. We are in fact at war. We have an enemy, which can and must be defined from a political standpoint, for war and politics have a symbiotic relationship. While such factors as economic domination, religious differences and ideological disjunction may have a bearing in the political arena, they can never of themselves generate the intensity of mutual antipathy between opposing forces to cause a war to break out.
To wage war, one must have a well-defined enemy. That enemy must constitute a threat to our survival as a nation-state with a clearly understood way of life. This condition leads to the defense of a specific territory.
We can also wage offensive war against an enemy. The purpose must be political gain or an increase in political power. The net result may be an increase in land, booty, slaves and women (as defined in the Old Testament), but concomitantly, there must also be an increase in political power. Otherwise, you may emerge from a war victorious, but suffer a net loss in political power; witness France and Britain after both world wars.
And it is to these two world conflagrations we must now look back, in order to grasp the realities of why they were fought and who actually benefited from the ensuing peace.
We must be able to discern the nature of the propaganda that we are constantly being fed in order to convince the unthinking that a particular war is necessary. Always ask the question: necessary for whom, or for what?
We will be incessantly hammered with atrocities and the barbarous behavior of a supposed enemy; and/or appealed to for humanitarian reasons to gain our support in sending our armed forces to some distant shore to protect some defenseless peoples (usually suffering women and children – Bill Clinton and his handlers perfected this emotional appeal), or to wage war against a personal enemy, a madman, or a dictator (George Bush developed this to an art form, slavering in public over his personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein). These emotional reasons of themselves are meaningless, and are usually based on lies and damned lies, which are propagated on a daily basis by a controlled and compliant media. In every instance, ask Cui bono?
Let’s not drift from Gen Collins’ major point that we are at war.
It is the thesis of this work that those overt wars in which we engaged for whatever reason since the end of World War II have not only been waged unconstitutionally in the truest sense, but that we, the people, as a sovereign nation-state (meaning the United States of America) have suffered a net loss in political power.
And each one was waged in order to divert our time and energies and thoughts away from the true Enemy within and toward a contrived enemy outside our borders.… Cui bono?
That same “nation” with which we have been actively at war, albeit covertly, since 1933. It was best defined by Theodor Herzl, the “father of International Zionism,” in 1902:
I will give you my definition of a nation, and you can add the adjective ‘Jewish’. A nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of a recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. That is in my view a nation. Then if you add to that the word ‘Jewish’ you have what I understand to be the Jewish nation 4
The planning for this ideological conflict goes back much further. It makes use of the ancient formula, Knowledge equals Wealth equals Power to further its intent of absolute gain which equates to absolute despotism over all of us…men, women, children, suckling babes, as well as a net gain in land, booty, slaves, sheep, goats and cattle.
A quick overview will reveal that this ideological conflict is purposely embodied in the “constitution” of the United Nations.
LEAGUE TO “ENFORCE” PEACE
The United Nations Charter was purposely designed as an instrument of force. Patterned after the Soviet constitution, it even allowed for a Soviet commander-in-chief of the UN forces. Those who fought in Korea served under that commander. They thought Gen Collins, the chief of staff of the US Army, was “the Boss.” He was not. A Soviet Bolshevik was.
The UN Undersecretary for Political and Security Affairs from 1949 through 1953, Konstantin E. Zinchenko of the USSR occupied that position. He was in fact “the Boss” and orchestrated the defeat of the UN forces in Korea. None of the men fighting in Korea realized that. Not even Gen Collins or Gen MacArthur was aware until after the “peace” negotiations that our politicians – including Presidents Truman and Eisenhower – had sold us out to a twin-headed monster, the Zionist-Bolshevist and the Fabian Socialist, whose heads occasionally snarl and spit at each other, but in fact are joined to the same body.
Bear in mind that it is not “Jewish,” although many of its individual components are in fact Zionist-Bolshevist Jews. Neither is it “Christian,” although an equivalent number purport to be Christians. That two-headed monster is comprised of “Jews who are not Jews” and of “Christians who are not Christian,” for this Bicephalous Monster is in fact satanic. We will go through the courting, the conception, the gestation and the Caesarean delivery of this illegitimate child of Lucifer… the god of light.… O, yes!
The late Representative Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota knew who was in charge. Burdick operated a big cattle ranch in western Dakota. He delivered a scathing speech on 17 Jan 1957 on the floor of the House in which he said:
The Russians are and will continue to be on the Inside of any Military Action taken by the Security Council of the United Nations. 5
This is still not general knowledge, for the mainstream press has suppressed it over the years; yet, today, the UN Security Council is the prime instrument for global conquest and establishment of the New World Order. And this, of course, is exactly the way the UN founders intended it to be.
Let’s look back briefly to a statement by the first Secretary General for the UN, Trygve Lie, who said in his book, Cause for Peace:
Vyshinski was the first to inform me of an understanding which the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet national as Assistant Secretary-General for Political and Security Affairs. 6
Who sold us out to the Soviets? We can cite the litany of our country’s traitors, starting with FDR and those who surrounded him, such as Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins, Henry Morganthau, Jr., Bernard Baruch, Samuel Rosenmann, Harry Dexter White (Weiss), et al, but it was Edward Stettinius who had agreed in London that the USSR would get that post.
The “Ultimate Dictator” gets his marching orders in Chapter VII of the Charter that says in part under Article 47:
The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council.
This is why we went into Korea without Congressional authority. That august body had, in fact, abdicated their constitutional responsibility (Section Eight, Article I: “…Congress shall have power to declare war”).
What does this really mean? It means simply that the UN Security Council – not the Congress of the United States – has now the supreme authority to declare war.
The US Congress ratified that charter, which had been authored by known communists and traitors in FDR’s cabinet, including Alger Hiss, Leo Pasvolsky and Phillip Jessup. They are gone. Others have taken their place, such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger, Robert Rubin, and many others who seem to have that same irreverence for the US Constitution and love for the United Nations Charter.
DEFINING THE ENEMY WITHIN
FLASHBACK - February 1991: George Bush’s greatest triumph as President was also his greatest failure; that was the fiasco of “Desert Storm.” Some of us who at one time were “insiders” in the true sense of the word disengaged ourselves from a corrupt and failing federal government, not because we were Democrat or Republican or independent, but because we saw the nature of the Enemy within. Some of us retired into serenity, senility and pastoral pursuits, while others tried to sound the alarm, most to little avail, for they were reluctant – for whatever reason – to explicitly define the Enemy.
Why did the United States deliberately set out in 1990 to destroy the viability of the once-sovereign nation of Iraq? We can find an answer in the superb work by George Knupffer, The Struggle for World Power. Knupffer had the foresight to predict a war with Iraq such as Desert Storm. He wrote:
Before leaving the subject of the enemy’s foreign policy, we should note that the significance of Israel and of Jerusalem, the intended capital of the world, is very great. Now it may seem that the Soviets are opposed to Zionist conquests and are backing the Arabs. In fact the Communists play their usual role of agent-provocateur, and they give the Arabs enough arms and encouragement to fight without real hope of victory, thereby justifying further Israeli conquests until they have what they have always wanted – the whole area from the Nile to the Euphrates... But should Israel ever be in real danger then both the USA and the USSR would come to its rescue, being always in collusion. The sooner the Arabs understand the facts the better for them. Their only chance of survival is to work on the lines we propose, while abandoning policies which, for over fifty years, have brought nothing but defeats. 7
It is perhaps time that we too understand the facts. It is also time to identify and to know our enemy. It is the purpose of this series of papers to identify that enemy. We know that he is already inside the gates.
Another soldier of an earlier era, Colonel Robert R. McCormick, distinguished himself in the Battle of Cantigny in France in 1918. He came home to Chicago and took over the family newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, and built it up to be the nation’s largest-circulation broadsheet. The Barnes Review (Mar- Apr 1998) honored the Colonel in its section “Profiles in History” 8
In an address at Notre Dame University in 1941, McCormick recalled his World War I experiences and said that American intervention in Europe would bring about a most unfortunate repetition: “The use of our power to strengthen one side of a quarrel – at our expense.” For 45 of his 75 years, Col McCormick imparted his message of patriotism and nationalism in the Chicago Tribune. He was a brave and fearless messenger.
He was both an American nationalist and an avid midwestern sectionalist. He saw in the power centers of the East a paradoxical alliance of “international capital and international communism.” Like Colonel McCormick, others view the United Nations, and its international Declaration of Human Rights, as threats to America’s sovereignty. As reported in The Barnes Review cited above, McCormick considered the Nuremberg “war criminal” trials to be a lynching rite staged to justify the newly conceived ex post facto crime of “waging aggressive war.” We will address these fraudulent, and indeed criminal, trials in Chapter 7.
There is an ancient fable that asks the question: Who will bell the cat? It is the intent of this book to bell the cat. By belling the cat, the author will naturally step on a few toes and will probably be accused of being both “anti-Christian” and “anti- Jewish.” There will be those who, rather than addressing the issues, will hurl the poison spear of “anti-Semitism” at the messenger.
A standard Zionist-Bolshevist modus operandi is to scream anti-Semite at anyone who exposes any of their nefarious plans, and to seek the “sympathy factor” by staging “incidents,” such as desecration of their own cemeteries or torching their own synagogues and blaming it on “neo-Nazis.” They are masters at this kind of deception, dissimulation and propaganda. Because they control 90% of the mainstream media here in the US, as well as in many other countries, they have the added advantage of mass outlets for their deception and outright lies. Two remarkable writers addressed the political potency of the pejorative, “anti- Semite.”
That great American scholar and author of Jewish heritage, Alfred M. Lilienthal, in The Other Side of the Coin, said:
Neither the religious nor the lay leaders of the many Jewish organizations wish to lose this potent weapon. Remove prejudice and lose adherents to the faith... This is the conspiracy of the rabbinate, Jewish nationals and other leaders of organized Jewry to keep the problems of prejudice alive. 9
Ivor Benson, writing in The Zionist Factor, said that we would do well “never to forget that it is a chauvinist Zionist ambition that is edging mankind toward the brink of another global catastrophe, and that its most potent weapon is the mind-paralyzing lie of antisemitism.” 10
Israel Shahak, whom Gore Vidal calls “the latest – if not the last – of the great prophets,” resides in Israel. In his seminal work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, he concentrated on this great and driving need for prejudice and outright hostility toward non-Jews on the part of chauvinist Zionists. In a chapter appropriately titled “Political Consequences,” he wrote:
US support for Israel, when considered not in abstract but in concrete detail, cannot be adequately explained only as a result of American imperial interests. The strong influence wielded by the organized Jewish community in the USA in support of all Israeli policies must also be taken into account in order to explain the Middle East policies of American administrations.… It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form, is totalitarian in nature. The behavior of supporters of other totalitarian ideologies of our times was not different from that of organized American Jews.…
Any support of human rights in general by a Jew which does not include support of human rights of non-Jews whose rights are being violated by the ‘Jewish State’ is as deceitful as the support of human rights by a Stalinist. 11
Shahak concludes his monumental work by stating:
The real test facing both Israeli and Diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past.…The extent of the persecution and discrimination against non-Jews inflicted by the ‘Jewishized’ Diaspora Jews is also enormously greater than the suffering inflicted on Jews by regimes hostile to them.
The quadripartite countries involved in the Mideast takeover (the US, the USSR, Britain and Israel) continue to use destabilization as a principal weapon. It has destroyed the oncebeautiful city of Beirut, known as the “Paris of the Mideast”; the most advanced country, Iraq; and wreaked havoc on the country with the highest per capita income, Kuwait.
The culprit has been and continues to be international Zionism wedded to Fabian Socialism – both with direct ties to Soviet Bolshevism.
Zionism was established as a world political force in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland. Its aims since then have been centered on setting up a one-world government with Zionism in control of worldwide finance and therefore “Lord of the World.” Knupffer points out in The Struggle for World Power that the driving force is “Messianic Finance Capitalism that actually brought about Soviet Bolshevism.”
A quote from Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is pertinent: “The enslavement of man usually begins in the economic sphere.”
Dr. Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, stated in a proposal to the Rothschild family council in 1881:
“We are a people – one people. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise there rises also our terrible power of the purse.” 12
Bolshevist Zionism is but one of two heads. The other – Anglo-Saxon – is Fabian Socialism. The victims – those who are mauled and devoured by this monster – are both gentile and Jew, that make up the patriotic and freedom-loving peoples of America, England, Israel, Russia, and, in fact, of the world over. This is not a religious issue, but one of power politics which is built on the foundation of money monopoly, coupled to monopoly of the media for monetary and mind control. Ask yourself a simple question: who – or what group – controls both money and the media, as well as other levers of power, in the United States?
That’s what it’s all about. It doesn’t matter who is backing whom in the Mideast or other regions around the world; the end result, after destabilizing the region, is control of the resources and the real estate, especially the choke points. We saw this so clearly when we dispatched our troops into Somalia in 1993. Check your world atlas, and notice that Somalia and its tiny neighboring country of Djibouti are separated from the Arabian Peninsula by the strategically vital strait of Bab el Mandeb. Another critical choke point which the US and Britain control with carrier task forces is the Strait of Hormuz, separating the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman. In fact, we have had a naval task force stationed at Bahrain, off the north coast of Saudi Arabia, since 1973. The choke point most threatening to the US is that of the Panama Canal. Under a Panamanian 50-year lease beginning on January 1, 2000, China took possession of the ports of Cristobal on the Atlantic and Balboa on the Pacific. “Doomsday” proclaims Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Joint Chief of Staff, now retired. “The Chinese are in a position today to…use Panama as a launching point for missiles to attack the US.”
BEATING THE KETTLE DRUMS OF WAR
In a Time magazine report, “As Washington Burns…” (9 Feb 1998), Bruce Nelan writes about Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s trip to Europe and the Mideast to seek “allied” support in the bombing – one more time – of the Islamic country of Iraq, and to persuade Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to allow US planes based there to take part in any anti-Saddam offensive. “So far,” Nelan says, “only Britain, which has sent an aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, stands firmly with the US on the use of force.” 13
Nelan explains that the US has plenty of land and carrier based planes and missiles in the Gulf to give Saddam’s military a pounding. He continues, “But such attacks would not wipe out all of Iraq’s hidden poisons and gases, because the US does not know where they are.”
Therein is the heart of the dilemma; we have had UN inspection teams combing the backwaters of Iraq for over seven years looking for what Madeleine and others call “weapons of mass destruction.” These teams have found nothing even remotely resembling “weapons of mass destruction”; no rockets, no poisons, no gases, no nothing… zip… zilch… still we look – and demand the right to continue to look. Saddam, in effect, has said, “enough is enough” and balked at further checking. Even the so-called leaders of the Grand Old Party in Congress shook the mailed fist, wanting to go in and kill somebody, if not Saddam himself, then his Republican Guard; if not the Iraqi military, then the civilians, including women, children and suckling babes. As Sen John McCain pontificated: “If we can take him [Saddam], out clearly we want to take him out. That’s far different from assassination.” 14
Yes, far different. In fact, it would be mass murder. President George Bush performed similar surgery on Iraqi women, children and suckling babes in 1991 during Desert Storm. Our public loved it, by jingo!
In his article Nelan stated that Clinton has a double standard:
He relentlessly pursues Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction while saying nothing about the atom bombs everyone assumes Israel has stashed in its basement.
This is a courageous statement on Nelan’s part, albeit an understatement. As Seymour Hersh revealed in his book, The Samson Option, Israel has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in underground caverns in the Negev Desert for at least 30 years; weapons equipped with not only nuclear, but chemical and bacteriological warheads, all ready to go.
Do they have the will or power actually to use these weapons? Perhaps they already have. There is the danger, however – certainly recognized by Hersh – that they, like Samson, could pull the temple down upon themselves. In order to grasp this concept fully, we must turn once more to Israel Shahak’s monumental work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion. Shahak, who arrived in Palestine in 1945, became an admirer of David Ben- Gurion. He explains how he became his dedicated opponent:
In 1956, I eagerly swallowed all of Ben-Gurion’s political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he (in spite of being an atheist, proud of his disregard of the commandments of Jewish religion) pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of the war, that the real reason for it is ‘the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon’ to its Biblical borders. 15
Shahak defines those borders as being all of Sinai and a part of northern Egypt; all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia; all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; all of Lebanon and all of Syria; together with a huge part of Turkey; and the island of Cyprus.
Is this vast territory still the ultimate goal of Israeli expansionism? Shakak further states that in May 1993 Ariel Sharon formally proposed in the Likud Convention that Israel should adopt the Biblical borders concept as its official policy. Shahak sees the alternatives that face Israeli-Jewish society:
It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its nuclear power, or it can become an open society.
The second choice is dependent on an honest examination of its Jewish past, or the admission that Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism exist, and on an honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards the non-Jews. 16
BARBARIANS INSIDE THE GATES
In a sidebar, also in Time (9 Feb 1998), Lisa Beyer writes under a banner “Getting Ready for War” that Israel has developed plans for battling the Palestinians anew, including one code-named Field of Thorns, which calls for the retaking of the West Bank cities:
Both sides know two things in advance of another fight: Israel will win it, and it will be horribly painful. ‘It’ll be much bigger than last September,’ says an Israeli commander. ‘Much crueler, much bloodier, much more complicated’. 17
Therein, in that succinct statement, is the heart of the troubles and misery of “civilization” over the past 3,000 years, all perpetrated by a biblical band of outcasts which history records as the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with their maniacal thirst for destruction and revenge forever.
A prolific American writer, Robert Kaplan, whose prose appears in the liberal Atlantic Monthly as well as the conservative Wall Street Journal, produced a superlative book in 1996, The Ends of the Earth, in which he argues that “democracy” is the source of many problems affecting third world nations. Kaplan claims that “the barbarians are not only at the gates, but may already be inside the gates in the shape and form of faceless gigantic multi-national corporations.” 18
The shape and form of the Barbarians Inside the Gates is actually that of a bicephalous monster – two heads, one body. Far from being faceless, it is in fact two-faced, one being branded “Zionist Bolshevism,” the other, “Fabian Socialism.”
This then is the Barbarian Inside the Gates. Has he in fact taken over?
HAS THERE BEEN A DE FACTO COUP?
Edward Luttwak, formerly a student at the London School of Economics, published Coup d’État - A Practical Handbook, first in England in 1968 and later by the Harvard University Press (1979). This work has since been published in all major languages and received wide distribution about the globe. The Times Literary Supplement stated that Coup d’État was “an extraordinarily competent and well-written work, displaying very wide knowledge of the ways in which coups, both successful and unsuccessful, have actually been organized.”
Writing the foreword for this amazing piece, Walter Laqueur stated:
Once upon a time the commander of a tank brigade in a Middle Eastern country was at least a potential contender for political power. This is no longer so, partly as a result of centralization in military command, partly because the political police have become more effective. But if in these parts coups have become less frequent they are still the only form of political change that can be envisaged at the present time. 19
Which brings us to the here and now, not only in the Middle East, but especially here in the United States. We must ask the question: Have the Barbarians already pulled off a de facto coup?
Here is a most pertinent passage from Luttwak’s Coup d’État:
If we were revolutionaries, wanting to change the structure of society, our aim would be to destroy the power of some of the political forces, and the long and often bloody process of revolutionary attrition can achieve this. Our purpose, however, is quite different: we want to seize power within the present system, and we shall only stay in power if we embody some new status quo supported by those very forces which a revolution may seek to destroy. Should we want to achieve fundamental social change we can do so after we have become the government. This perhaps is a more efficient method (and certainly a less painful one) than that of the classic revolution.
Though we will try to avoid all conflict with the political forces, some of them will almost certainly oppose a coup. But this opposition will largely subside when we have substituted our new status quo for the old one, and can enforce it by our control of the state bureaucracy and security forces. This period of transition, which comes after we have emerged into the open and before we are vested with the authority of the state, is the most critical phase of the coup. We shall then be carrying out the dual task of imposing our control on the machinery of state, while at the same time using it to impose our control on the country at large. Any resistance to the coup in the one will stimulate further resistance in the other; if a chain reaction develops the coup could be defeated. 20
Our major point to ponder as we go through Barbarians Inside the Gates is that if a de facto coup has already taken place, then, in order to avoid a bloody revolution for change, a countercoup may be necessary in order to restore the machinery of state and gain control once more of the critical levers of power.
Think about it seriously, for time is fast running out.
LAUNCHING A MILITARY OPERATION
It is always wise before launching a military operation to review where you have been in a particular campaign. Here, briefly, is a “thumbnail sketch” of certain momentous events we will enlarge upon in the following chapters of Barbarians Inside the Gates.
There were two gigantic propaganda campaigns launched in 1945; one was designed to make the people throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom aware of something called “anti-Semitism.” The other, closely related to the first, was to seek the sympathy of these peoples for the Nazi crime of “Jewish extermination.” The staging of the Nuremburg Trials was the instrument used to accomplish both.
Each of these campaigns was based on a colossal blitz of such astounding proportions that, had it been any other group in the world, save Talmudic Zionism, each of these hoaxes would have been laughed out of existence.
These events of 1945 are now culminating in the ongoing campaign, which is really the third and final phase of world conquest on the part of Talmudic Zionism wedded to Fabian Socialism. At this writing, we have the major effort concentrated in three geographic areas and centered in Russia, Israel and the United States. This in fact is a major military operation, with command headquarters occupying two principal locations – New York City and Washington, DC.
The groundwork was laid by the mathematical manipulation of the election process in order to place Bill Clinton in the White House by setting up a “three-way” race. An identical ploy was used to get the Princeton Professor, Woodrow Wilson, in as the first Bolshevik “premier-dictator” in 1912.
Wilson was maneuvered and manipulated on a daily basis, from 1911 until his death, by Edward Mandell House (Huis), Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis, Chaim Weizmann, Stephen Weiss, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. The go-between for most of the political intrigue was House’s brother-in-law, Sidney Mezes, who worked with Theodor Marburg of Baltimore, Maryland on the details of a “League to Enforce Peace.”
The goal (Phase One) was three-fold, all predicated on a world war: (1) to destroy the Russian monarchy and Christianity in Russia; (2) to establish a “world government”; and (3) to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a Jewish “homeland” in Palestine.
The goal of Phase Two (World War II) was also three-fold: (1) to occupy Palestine; (2) to set up the “United Nations”; (3) to spread “Communism” throughout Eastern Europe.
The financial/political operations center shifted from Europe to the United States during and after Phase One. A quadrilateral of “premier-dictators” was chosen to bring the goals of Phase Two to fruition: Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. The “advisers” shifted somewhat, with the “elder statesman,” Bernard Baruch, playing the lead and supported by Herbert Lehman, Felix Frankfurter, Samuel Rosenmann, and James Warburg.
As was the case during Phase One, the “advisers” were actually running the government of the United States, but in concert with the Supreme Soviet and the Fabian Socialists in Britain. This “orchestration” continued after World War II and was enlarged by bringing in the newly created Jewish “Nation of Israel.” Thereafter, by shifting crises and chaos from the Middle East to Eastern Europe at will over the next four decades; i.e., playing “Zionism” against “Bolshevism,” the “elder statesmen” created confusion, economic instability and political unreliability in the countries of Europe and especially in the United States.
While a rather quick thumbnail sketch of the momentous events of this century, this sets the scene for what is currently happening. In the ensuing chapters we will get a closer look at these events and the people who purposely and cunningly brought them about, i.e., the traitors – several at the highest pinnacle of government – who deliberately sold us out to the bicephalous monster with one head labeled Bolshevist Zionism, and the other, Fabian Socialism.
WHAT IS A TRAITOR?
A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against PROLOGUE xxvii the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
Cicero - 45 BC