11/11/11 Introduction to the Israel Lobby

Nov 11th 2011

Introduction to the Israel Lobby

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad” Aldous Huxley

The Council for The National Interest

The Israel Lobby is one of the most powerful and pervasive special interest groups in the United States. It began its activities many decades ago and played a major role in the creation of Israel.

It consists of a multitude of institutions, many of them extremely well-funded, that work to influence Congress, the Presidency, academia, the media, religious institutions, and the American public on behalf of Israel. It also includes influential individuals.

Below are a few examples.

AIPAC Policy Conference 2010

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, Former Presidential Candidate

Eric Cantor, Republican House Majoirty Leader

Steny Hoyer, Democratic House Minority Whip

AIPAC: The most prominent governmental lobbying organization is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Fortune Magazine typically rates this as the second most powerfully lobbying organization in the U.S. AIPAC frequently writes the legislation that members then introduce, and that extraordinarily large majorities of both parties then endorse.

AIEF: A subsidiary of AIPAC is the American Israel Education foundation (AIEF), which takes Congressional Representatives on all-expense-paid trips to Israel. In August 2011 they took 81 representatives on trips led by the leaders of both parties to Israel. (The legality of this is being challenged.)

WINEP: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) works to influence media coverage of Israel.

ADL:The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) regularly works to promote Israeli interests.Jewish Community Relations Councils, Jewish Federations, Hillels, Hadassahs (Click on each title to see an example), and similar organizations regularly promote Israeli interests in virtually every city in the United States.

Political Action Committees (PACs): There are numerous PACs around the money that raise money for candidates based on their stands on Israel. Almost all have deceptive names that hide their focus, and combined they raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates. One of the best books on the topic reports “in 1988, Israel’s lobby had 78 PACs spending more than $5.5 million to bribe Congress to vote more aid for Israel. That was more than total contributions together of the two next largest special interests in the United States—the real estate lobby and the teamsters.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reports on this topic frequently. To learn more see their list of pro-Israel PAC contributions to candidates in 2010.

The Emergency Committee for Israel: The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretzreports: “Washington observers may feel there is no obvious shortage of pro-Israel lobbyists in the city – but a group of leading American conservatives thinks otherwise and has set up a new campaign group to attack President Obama over his “anti-Israel” stance, U.S. website Politico reports.

Support for Israel drives all US policies — U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro
The Emergency Committee for Israel presents a potent combination of Republican Party neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.”

Influential pro-Israel Individuals: An example of such an individual is the current US Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, who gave a speech in which he detailed his extremely close, life-long ties to Israel, concluding:

“… as a committed Jewish American, with deep roots in the American Jewish community and warm bonds of affection with Israel, I will have an opportunity to draw on those associations to help make the U.S.-Israel relationship, strong as it is, even stronger in the years ahead.”

He stated that “ensuring Israel’s future” drives all US policies.

Alison Weir, President of The Council for The National Interest on Al Jazeera discussing AIPAC during their annual policy conference

ABOUT CNI: The Council for the National Interest (CNI) is a 501 (c) 4 non-profit, non-partisan organization that advocates for Middle East policies that serve the national interest; that represent the highest values of our founders and our citizens; and that work to sustain a nation of honor, decency, security, and prosperity.

CNI seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values, protects our national interests, and contributes to a just solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is CNI’s goal to restore a political environment in America in which voters and their elected officials are free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries and their partisans.

Purchase Book on Amazon.com: The Israel Lobby and U.S Foreign Policy

Edited by: Debbie Menon


AIPAC: The Voice of America — Part 1: The Orange and the Pea


John P. Allen
AIPAC is simply a major part of the corruption of our Federal Government that no longer represents the interest of the American people. AIPAC is a major enemy of the American people. They ripoff of our taxpayers is 100,000 times larger than anything Al-Qaeda has done! We need to collectively figure this out and get our country back!
Reply · 4 · Like· 16 hours ago

Johnny Punish · Top Commenter · University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Committed to Israel? What country do our U.S.Veterans fight for? Whom to our Policians work for? I must go now and throw up! Signed, the 99%.
Reply · 4 · Like· 17 hours ago

Vincent Passiatore · Central Texas College
Israel is behind all the trouble in the middle east. to have a country that controls Washington D.C and our POLITICIANS. we don’t have a Democracy, we have a DICTATORSHIP. bought and paid for by the zionist STATE OF ISRAHELL. ( America needs a REBELLION. wake up SHEEP. Your country is going to hell.) ALL THESE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ISRAHELL ASS —— KISSERS BELONG IN JAILS. Lock them up for life.
Reply · Like· 8 hours ago

George Socrates Kazolias We need to find a way to make ending aid to Israel and issue in the upcoming campaign. Any ideas on how to do that?
Reply · Like· 2 hours ago
Add a Reply… ..
Patricia Halalilo · University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu
They fight and die for Isreal of course.


November 12, 2011 – 5:32 am
The key to remember is where the funding for the Lobby comes. Great majority of funding for AIPAC, for instance, comes from Wall Street. You can see who is who of Wall Street at AIPAC organized fund raisings at the Cipriani midtown dinner. However, this is of course very small part of their fund raising. They also act as the funnel for diverting Wall Street money to AIPAC “chosen” congress members or senators for their election campaigns and don’t have to register as the donor. Congress and the Senate, in turn, does all it can to assure that the fraud on Wall Street can continue because this is where the money is coming from. This is not just about the safety of Israel (in fact this system has created the complete isolation of today’s Israel). This is about the zionist supremacist power play. The nature of these people were well described by Gilad Atzmon’s new book. The way the election fraud is committed is well documented by Dr. Waltz and Mersheimer’s book, The Lobby. The crime on Wall Street cannot be more in the open. Also, just watch the recent interviews with Jack Abramoff, a major AIPAC operative in DC who is now slowly repenting.
This is not about some conspiracy. This system developed well over 100 years by finding loopholes in our republic system. There are many other “lobby systems” and special interest groups that are hurting our country. The zionist supremacist system, though, is by far the worst. It has brought us into wars based on lies costing us well over $5.5 trillion, it has collapsed our financial system costing us well over $9 trillion, etc., etc. Our “empire” is falling apart and the zionist supremacist is playing a big part in this decline. Not because it is so smart. Actually, the opposite. It is like the parasitic disease that eats the host body until both the body and the parasite die.

Log in to Reply endtimes
November 12, 2011 – 8:15 am
UN-Masking the Demons is easy ,once the Real American’s turn off the TV /Radio of the Propagandist and wake up its going to be chaos the Zionist are at risk all the needed is another Hitler type figure ,maybe David Duke is the MAN for these times he has a large following,also they fear Him.

Log in to Reply 60sstreetpunk
November 12, 2011 – 8:28 am
Until things really change and AIPAC gets revealed for the predator that it is, the only part I can play is to convince young people not to ever fight a war on the behalf of Israel. I would work my ass off day and night to convince locals not to fight a war against Iran.
I just read about GD’s time in Vietnam-yes, those young Marines were really on their own, and now I read about these rich Israeli firsters most of whom have never done hard labor, and I can only laugh at the likes of these AIPAC sissies.

Log in to Reply endtimes
November 12, 2011 – 8:33 am
anti -antisemitism is a Shield of Defense for people who are NOT Semitic but base Racism of Zionist polices is Historical and Powerful..This is a Christian Country lets keep it that way.

Log in to Reply DaveE
November 12, 2011 – 8:36 am
Fine analysis, except that you missed the biggest and most powerful Israeli propaganda “lobby” of all, the MSM lobby. The one that so graciously gives you 130 channels of lying Jews in High Definition Stereo, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, countless Israeli propaganda rags like the NY Times and Washington Post and so-called “alternative” media like Alternet and Alex Jones and MSNBC whose only “alternative” is to find alternative scapegoats like “the corporations” and “Big Oil” and “the elite” to blame for the crimes of the zionists, Jews or whatever they are.

Log in to Reply
Bob Loblaw
November 12, 2011 – 9:00 am
Glad to see I ain’t the only one who has figured out what a rat Jones is. Tarpley is another one. I also include Jones’s buddy Ron Paul. Yes, I do. Does he actually speak the whole truth? No he doesn’t. Because he knows if he did his whole act as faux rebel would come crashing down in about two seconds. He would rather brag about wanting to throw honest tax-paying citizens out on the street to starve and die so he can pander to the 1% and keep himself on the political gravy train.

These bastards are Judas Goats, leading the simple-minded up the ramp to the slaughterhouse.. and they are doing it for the basest of motives: money. Treason for money.

Well, to paraphrase some old limey geezer.. “when you want to barbecue an American, you can always find another one to turn the spit!” That’s the shits alright but you can draw up a long long list of creeps that have sold out to a foreign power for money. It was ever thus.

Log in to Reply
November 12, 2011 – 9:59 am
Yeah, no kidding. Ron Paul would have been “disappeared” long ago if he were legit. He can talk about “ending the Fed” because he knows it has ZERO chance of actually happening, given our filthy Congress and the even filthier Rothschild / Rockefeller lobby, but it’s a great little propaganda trick.

Log in to Reply bahmi
November 12, 2011 – 3:05 pm
Junior Stormfront blabbing again. Quite frankly, Bobby, you should be glad Ron Paul utters some truth for truth starved whiners like you. Who could possibly be as truthful as you are?

Log in to Reply jimmythefish
November 12, 2011 – 12:25 pm
Once you open pandoras box there is no going back. Speaking the truth today is considered “hate speech” but unless you are willing to speak it completely you are nothing more than a “border guard” that “steer away” anyway who is approaching the truth. Most people wont name the Jew.

There is a reason they have been kicked out of over 200+ countries over the years, the problem is not zionism (otherwise this wouldnt have happend over 200 times).

Log in to Reply
November 12, 2011 – 3:38 pm
True, but zionism is the direct result of a 2,000+ year old Jewish-supremacy movement, designed to make an Old Testament fairy tale of world domination come to fruition. Just read the Torah and the Old Testament if you need proof of the Jewish superiority complex and/or agenda. Then tackle the Talmud, the most vile and degenerate racist garbage ever written. (Makes Mein Kampf read like “Cinderella”.) There are many who think Judaism and Zionism are the SAME thing and you can add me to that list, if you feel the need. With apologies to all 437 Jews who disagree and/or fight for decency.

Log in to Reply endtimes
November 12, 2011 – 9:08 am

Log in to Reply Ken Rechtstein
November 12, 2011 – 11:56 am
The REAL US Govt, behind the scenes-in the shadows, is able and capable of ACHIEVING prowesses, the ‘constitutionally elected’ Govt can’t:

1) It can PRINT MONEY at will. That’s what the Federal Reserve is there for,

2) It controls the poppy fields in Afghanistan and Colombia, from producers to whole distributors, That’s what the US Armed Forces and NATO are there for,

3) It owns the Circus Maximus or Casino, better known as Wall Street, the BIS in Zurich,

4) It BUYS politicians by the truck load, financing their campaign and, silencing any candidate not sympathetic and/or totally controlled by the Zion Talmudic Mafia,

5) It controls the Financial and Monetary Policy of ANY Central Bank through its affiliated BANKS (Bank of England-BIS-WB-IMF-CLUB de PARIS, etc.),

6) It decides who is going to be the US president, for how long and, who are going to be his Secretaries, their Deputies and the heads of the most important Institutions of the country, including the Supreme Court Justices,

7) It even creates NEW Institutions, to further limit the constitutional rights of the US citizens and bully them into submission. It makes sure that the heads of said Institutions are fervent Zios, working for the Rogue States of Israel,

It has an IRON GRIP on the majority of Congress-Senate members and holds the US president by the b…s, directly, through proxies or through whoever is in power in Tel Aviv,

9) It decides and coordinates with Israel the Foreign Policy of the USA and EU…

This is just to name few of the PRIVILEGES the Zion Talmudic Mafia indisputably has obtained, by infiltration and deceit over the last 100 years, specially since the 23rd December 1913…

Log in to Reply
Debbie Menon
November 12, 2011 – 11:16 pm

Log in to Reply foo
November 12, 2011 – 2:55 pm
@ Ken Rechtstein

“2) It controls the poppy fields in Afghanistan and Colombia…”

…and now Iraq, too.





One response to “11/11/11 Introduction to the Israel Lobby

  1. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/11/introduction-to-the-israel-lobby/ GERMANY …..AMERIKA….WITNESS TO HISTORY CHAPTER 3 THE JEWS IN GERMANY After the great war (1914-18) had come to an end, the distress prevalent in Eastern Europe, coupled with other causes, induced large numbers of those of Jewish race to cross the German frontiers and to take up residence in Prussia, where a Herr. Badt – himself a Jew – managed to obtain an official position authorising him to control all matters relative to immigration and naturalisation. He saw to it that those sharing his race secured easy access to Germany, whilst at the same time the West European and overseas countries imposed far-reaching restrictions on immigration. These newcomers began to concentrate themselves in the major cities and organised from them the systematic infiltration and control of the German nation. A few statistics may be helpful to show the extent to which these non-Germans gradually succeeded in spreading their influence upon important professions and in various allied domains. In reading these statistics it is important to remember that those of Jewish race formed just 1% of the total population. UNIVERSITY TEACHERS BERLIN and GOTTINGEN: Medicine 45% Jewish, Mathematics 34% Jewish, Medicine 34% Jewish BRESLAU: Arts 40% Jewish, Law 47% Jewish, Arts 25% Jewish, Medicine 45% Jewish. KONIGSBERG: Law 48% Jewish, Arts 7% Jewish, Law 14% Jewish, Medicine 25% Jewish. JEWISH LAWYERS (1928) DORTMUND 29%, HAMBURG 25%, STUTTGART 26%, DUSSELDORF 33%, KARLSRUHE 36%, BEUTHEN 60%, FRANKFURT 64%, STETTIN 36% JEWISH LAWYERS (1933) BERLIN 55%, BERLIN CHAMBER OF ATTORNEYS 66%, BRESLAU 67% JEWISH MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (1928) WIESBADEN 20%, KARLSRUHE 26%, COLOGNE 27%, MAINZ 30%, GOTHA 31%, BEUTHEN 36%, BERLIN 52% BERLIN HOSPITALS IN JEWISH HANDS MOABIT 56%, FRIEDRICHSHAIN 63%, NEUKOLLN 67% THE THEATRE AND FILM INDUSTRY “1931, of 234 theatre managers 50.4% were members of the Jewish race. In Berlin the figure rises to 80%. Jews wrote not less than 75% of all plays prior to Hitler’s election. In the film industry too, the Jewish influence predominated.” (The periodical ‘Schönere Zukunft’ – A Brighter Future – February, 3rd, 1929) This was the period when Berlin had an international reputation for theatrical seediness, debasement and pornography. “The share of Jews in the modern film industry is so decisive that a very slight percentage is left available for non-Jewish undertakings.” “One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence from which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. . . It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of Jews seemed specially designed by Nature to play this shameful part.” (Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf. Ibid.42) “The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation – that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there. It had to be admitted.” (Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf. Ibid.42) THE STOCK EXCHANGE COMMITTEES ON THE BERLIN STOCK EXCHANGE Stocks and Shares 69%, Metal Exchange 83%, Produce Exchange 75%, Futures 83%, Administration 80%, Official List 87% In 1928, it was revealed that just fifteen Jews between them had occupied 718 board positions. Of leading positions in industry there were ten Jews to every five non-Jews. LEADING POSITIONS IN COMMERCE (EMPLOYED AS WORKERS) BERLIN: 49.4% (2.4%) FRANKFURT: 48.9% (1.9%) COLOGNE: 49.6% (2.9%) BRESLAU: 57.1% (1.8%) POLITICAL INFLUENCE: Of the Social Democratic Party’s 39 Representatives, 38 were of Jewish race. The Workers Educational Institutes comprised 81% of Jewish. Karl Marx (real name Karl Modecai Levi) and Friedrich Engels, the godfathers of Communism were Jewish, as was Leon Trotsky (real name Lev Bronstein). GOVERNMENT: In November, 1918, Jews had seized control of the following states; Hirsch, (Haase and Herzfeld. Prussia), Eisner (Bavaria), Lipinsky and Gradnauer (Saxony), Heymann (Wurttemberg) and Haas (Baden). The Government of the Revolution included among others, Haase, Cohn, Herzfeld, Schiffer, Bernstein, Cahen and Preuss. The latter was given the task of drawing up the new German Constitution. “The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine.” (The Daily Mail, July, 10th, 1933) JEWISH VOICES: Dr. Manfred Reifer, the well-known leader of the Jews in Bukowina, published an article in September, 1933 (Czernowitzer Allgemeine Zeitung) in which he wrote: “Whilst large sections of the German nation were struggling for the preservation of their faith, we Jews filled the streets of Germany with our vociferations. We supplied its Press with articles on the subject of its Christmas and Easter festivities and administered to its religious beliefs in the manner we considered suitable. We ridiculed the highest ideals of the German nation and profaned the matters which it holds sacred.” Dr. Nahum Goldmann, President. World Zionist Organisation: “No Jewish minority in any other country, not even that in America could possibly compete with the German Jews. They were involved in large-scale banking, a situation unparalleled elsewhere, and, by way of high finance, they had also penetrated German industry. A considerable proportion of the wholesale trade was Jewish. They controlled even such branches of industry, which is in general not in Jewish hands. Examples are shipping or the electrical industry, and names such as Ballin and Rathenau do confirm this statement. I hardly know of any other branch of emancipated Jewry in Europe or the American continent as deeply rooted in the economy, as was Germany Jewry. American Jews of today are absolutely as well as relatively richer than the German Jews were at the time, it is true, but even in America with its unlimited possibilities, the Jews have not succeeded in penetrating into the centre spheres of industry (steel, iron, heavy industry, high finance, shipping) as was the case in Germany.” “Their position in the intellectual life of the country was equally unique. In literature, they were represented by illustrious names. The theatre was largely in their hands. The daily Press, above all its internationally influential sector, was essentially owned by Jews or controlled by them. As paradoxical as this may sound today, after the Hitler era, I have no hesitation to say that hardly any section of the Jewish people has made such extensive use of emancipation offered to them in the nineteenth-century as the German Jews. In short, the history of the Jews in Germany from 1870 to 1933 is probably the most glorious rise that has ever been achieved by any branch of the Jewish people.” (Goldmann, Mein Leben als Deutscher Jude) HITLER: “If the question is still asked why National Socialism combats the Jewish element in Germany so fanatically, the answer can only be, because National Socialism wishes to establish a real community of the people. Since we are National Socialists, we cannot permit an alien race to impose itself upon our working people as their leaders.” – Adolf Hitler “Nearly all Bolshevist agitators in Germany and elsewhere were Jews.” (Adolf Hitler) FRENCH AGREEMENT: On May, 29th, 1934, a Paris newspaper, ‘L’ami du Peuple’ carried an article against the anti-social ‘machinations’ of the Jewish refugees from Germany: “These people fled from Germany because they attempted to set up a rule of fire and blood and to let loose the horrors of civil war and universal unrest.” AN AMERICAN VOICE: E.B Pierce, the President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Berlin, stated on the occasion of a meeting held at the end of May, 1934, that “it would be impossible to speak any longer of orderly economic conditions in Europe if Germany had not succeeded in saving Europe from the dangers of Bolshevism.” Clearly the German nation had fallen to an alien racial minority that in the words of the Daily Mail had ‘insinuated themselves’ into a position whereby they effectively controlled Germany as they did Russia. Adolf Hitler determined on a course that would recover German control; of German interests, which many would agree under the circumstances was a perfectly legitimate and noble aim. This however is now dressed up as ‘virulent anti-Semitism.’ One might reflect on the horrors that would have been spared the peoples of Russia and scores of other Christian nations had they taken a similar course of action. Adolf Hitler’s national recovery program was however extremely lenient, and is best illustrated by his Act for the Restoration of the Professional Status of Civil Servants, (Act.3, published April, 7th, 1933: “Officials of non-Aryan descent are to be pensioned. Those of them acting in an honorary capacity are to be removed from their office. This provision is not applicable to officials whose appointments date from August 1st, 1914, or from an earlier date; nor to those who fought during the World War in the front line either in Germany or for her allies, nor to those whose fathers or brothers were killed in the World War.” Thus, those Jews who had ‘insinuated themselves into key positions’ were not summarily dismissed but were placed on the retirement list. “They now receive the same rates of retired pay as an other German official, in conformity with legal provisions.” “I have nothing against the Jews themselves. But the Jews are all Communists, and these are my enemies. . . it is these I am fighting. . . all Jews stick together like burrs. . . it is up to the Jews themselves to draw a dividing line between these different kinds. But they have not done that, and therefore, I must proceed uniformly against all Jews.” (Max Planck quoting from a conversation held with Adolf Hitler) Hitler regularly attended concerts; one of his favourite composers being Gustav Mahler (1860-1911), who is of course Jewish. HITLER NOT ANTI-SEMITIC BUT ANTI-TALMUDIC “. . . in that the Third Reich treated Christianised Jews preferentially. The National Socialist Third Reich carefully distinguished between Talmudic and Christianised Jews.” (Philip Freedman, ‘Their Brothers Keepers’ N.Y 1957) “In early 1938, Jewish doctors and dentists were still participating in the German State compulsory insurance program (Ortskrankenkassen) which guaranteed them a sufficient number of patients.” “In 1938, 10% of the practicing lawyers in Germany were Jews, although the Jews constituted less than 1% of the population.” (United States Ambassador Hugh Wilson to Secretary of State Hull) “The United States took exception to a German law on March, 30th, 1938, which removed the Jewish church from the established German church roll which deprived it of state funds. In fact, this brought German law into line with English Law.” (Daniel L. Hoggan. Historical Revisionist) On February, 27th, 1943, when 10,000 Jews were being deported from Berlin: “The Christian wives of those arrested were able to wring concessions from the Nazis, who released the men.” (Philip Freedman. Their Brothers Keepers. NY 1957) One may also wonder that as late as 1943, three and one half years into the war and eleven years after Hitler was elected, there were still 10,000 Jews living openly and freely in the German capital, and married to German wives. Such facts disprove allied propaganda and so they are hidden carefully from sight. It is also interesting to note that whilst in Hitler’s capital city, such numbers of Jews were allowed to go about their business freely, had they been of Japanese descent and living in the United States, all would have been rounded up; men, women and children; orphans and the offspring of mixed marriages, and confined to concentration camps. Clearly it was healthier to be a Jew in Berlin, 1943 than it was to be the unfortunate child product of a Japanese-American marriage! “In 1939, six years after Hitler was elected, there were still 120,000 Jews living voluntarily in Germany.” (Heinz Roth. Why Are We Being Lied To?) The question increasingly being asked is, if Hitler’s intention was to exterminate the Jews, why had he given them every assistance to emigrate throughout his years of government, and how does it explain that years after the alleged program of extermination was begun, 120,000 having had every opportunity and assistance to leave the country had refused to do so? http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness1.htm#3 INSTEAD OF WATCHING TV….READ BOOKS! Douglas Reed and the Jews By Knud Eriksen In Dronten no. 4 (“The Dodo” at the address Patriot.dk) I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled and completely forgotten person. Why was he “forgotten”? It was simply because he wrote about “The Jewish Question!” International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem with total censorship, so that his new books could no longer be printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores and even from the library shelves. After a short period of slandering he was no longer mentioned at all in the world’s media. As the author Ivor Benson (who has himself written a book on this subject: The Zionist Factor) says in the foreword to Douglas Reeds masterpiece The Controversy of Zion, which had to wait 22 years before it could be published, “the adversity, which Reed encountered, would have made a lesser personality give up. But not he“. After his expulsion from the zionist-controlled media-world, he found himself free to start this most outstanding work, which all the years as a foreign correspondent in Europe and his earlier books had only been a preparation and an education for. His vision expanded from year to year and from book to book. It was an education, which was not available in any university.” He spent more than three years away from his family in the early fifties in New York Central Library or in front of his typewriter in modest surroundings in New York and in Montreal. He rewrote the whole book with an epilogue i 1956, where the uprising in Hungary and the Suez-war were scrutinized as further examples of the talmudic co-operation between communism and zionism. Then, as mentioned, the book had to wait 22 years for a possibility of getting published! It is instructive to observe how Douglas Reed gradually penetrates deeper and deeper into the Jewish problem from that time, when he had hardly even thought about it in 1935 (as he writes in The controversy of Zion) until he delivers his harsh judgement in the shape of The controversy of Zion. The mood of gloom and doom is not his own, but due to the gloomy character of the subject, as he says in the epilogue to the book. In the cause of his work he has felt the evil as an almost physical presence in the plans, he reveals. As “forces from some dinosaur-lair projected into the twentieth century.” But, he says, it is not for him to judge, what is evil. God must have had an intention, in his wisdom, to allow this evil to exist, possibly for the progress of the soul. But in that case he, himself, feels like being also a part of God’s creation, who has the duty to reveal this evil, so that human beings can be set free from it. Ivor Benson follows this line of thought in the epilogue to his own book on the subject (1986) The Zionist Factor, as follows: “There is no Jewish problem per se, only a gigantic 20th century problem, in which the fate and responsibility of Jews and Christians are inseperably intertwined”. The irresponsible world power, built on money and dominated by Jews, is, in its outstretched cob-web something, that we have all allowed to grow big and strong through our irresponsibility. But if this power has now grown so strong, that it cannot be stopped, but must be allowed to continue its predestined course, until, finally, it devours itself like a worldwide wolf, what use is it then to us to get to know and fully understand what goes on in the world?” Ivor Benson answers this as follows: “a short answer is given in a christian concept with even older sources: “Thou shalt know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” In 1938 Reed wrote his first major – and world famous – book, Insanity Fair, which was published in at least 35 editions in English and published in danish, also in 1938, in 5 editions. In Danish the title was “Galskabens Kavalkade” (can still be ordered from the library). It is scarcely 400 pages and is a mixture of an autobiography and a political description of Europe up to- and during the Second World War. His predictions of major political events were for many people surprisingly accurate at a time, when the “responsible politicians” of the West were acting in direct opposition to his advice and interpretations, and the unifying principle of the book is one long warning against the threat from Hitler-Germany. But simultaneously he had, among other things, a few critical remarks about the jews, which he had observed and come to know during his many travels as a reporter in Europe. In his second book he deals with the subject of the jews a great deal more thoroughly. All of two chapters out of 37 are dedicated to his “becoming clear as crystal“ on the subject, as he says. This book from 1939 had the english title “Disgrace Abounding” and in danish (also 1939) “Grænseløs Skændsel”. (It can still be procured from deposit libraries). The book – almost 500 pages – was also a description of the prewar conditions, as he knew them in his capacity of being one of the leading foreign correspondents in Southeastern Europe, and through his close personal acquaintanceship with many of the leading politicians of the time. It was yet another long warning against Hitler-Germany and a reproach of the erroneous Western politics, in which he could not find the logic. As far as the Jews are concerned, he is definitely far more crystally clear in this book than in the previous one, where there were actually just a few good-natured teasing remarks about them. I have, in Dronten no. 6, (danish) reproduced both of these two chapters and a couple of other interesting descriptions of the Jews in Europe, seen through his eyes, under the menu (in Dronten): “Grænseløs Skændsel” (“Disgrace Abounding”). By this time he no longer holds any doubt, that there is most certainly a serious Jewish problem. From the on he would get to study the problem thoroughly through the following ten years. His well-intentioned advice, that the Jewish problem could only be solved by the Jews getting their own nation (but not by killing arabs), was abandoned by him again, when his studies of talmudic zionism, and the eventual establishment of Israel, demonstrated to him, that the Jewish question implied much more than just that, and was now so much bigger. Also, he discovered, it had in reality been laid down in an ancient plan for world-conquest. He wrote a few more books which he managed to get published somehow (see the list in Dronten no. 4, under the menu “Bibliography”- and now (in english) the homepage Douglas Reed Books, red.). After the books Somewhere South of Suez (1949) and Far and Wide (1951), which are not translated into danish, Reed was practically banned by the most important publishers and bookstorechains because of his ever more clear description of the Jewish problem. He does not end up by being optimistic concerning the solution to the problem, as he actually thinks that only God can solve it – in time. Nevertheless, it is also his opinion, that the suffering of mankind, including the Jews, which will result in the meantime, until this solution will appear, may be reduced and shortened by people learning the truth about “The Contorversy of Zion”. In this issue of Dronten (no. 6), I have translated, into danish, two more chapters of this – in my opinion – vital work. With the knowledge, which the book gives the reader, he understands the real background of the invasion of foreigners in The West, the globalisation and the break-down of nations, culture and morals. Here, finally, I will relay Douglas Reeds own description of the problems of the banning of Disgrace Abounding – “Aftertale” in the book), and in this way introduce this, his encyclopaedic masterpiece, The Controversy of Zion”: ………”Chance, and possibly my own sense of timing, enabled me to write additional chapters for Insanity Fair immediately after publication, and this time the same thing has happened again. But on this occasion chance has enabled me, in the additional chapter, to give you the best possible example of the way organized world-Jewry works and of the immense power it wields in goading world-opinion against Germany. I imagine anybody who has read these two books will realize that I hold Germany to be a menace to England, but that I do not identify the cause of England with that of the foreign Jews. After I wrote Insanity Fair I was swamped by offers from American publishers for my next book. I signed a contract with one firm. When I began Disgrace Abounding I did not know that it would be an anti-Semitic book. The anti-Semitic part is the result of my observation of the Jews in the last year and of my conviction that the mass influx of Jews to England is a political mistake and a national misfortune. The American publisher, after reading Disgrace Abounding, declined to publish on the ground that the Semitic part was ‘slanderous and libellous’. Read the Jewish part for yourself and see if this is true. I, for my part, declined to have the book published anywhere without the Jewish chapters. The real meaning of that decision is that, in America, you may ‘slander and libel’ Germany as much as you like, and be paid for it, but you must not discuss the Jewish problem, you must not assert that there is a Jewish problem. Other American publishers declined the book on the grounds that they could not publish the Jewish chapters. One of them, not a Jew, said that an American publisher would court misfortune by publishing it, because 90 per cent of the American newspapers are Jewish, and the Jewish influence extends in similar proportion throughout the whole ring of trades connected with publishing. I see very little difference between the Jewish and the Hitlerist method, in this matter of free speech and free discussion. The Jews are for free attacks on Germany, nothing else. The same thing happened in some of the Scandinavian countries, where Insanity Fair had great success and where publishers were clamouring for the next book – until they saw the Jewish chapters. They asked to be allowed to publish the book without them. I refused. The same thing happened in France even with Insanity Fair, where a publisher contracted for the book who apparently could not read English and only realized when he saw the French translation that there was a few passages in it which he did not consider sufficiently favourable to the Jews. He demanded their excision, I refused, and he sold the contract to another firm. So only in England, as yet, and possibly in France — although I do not yet know whether this book will appear in France — may a non-Jew openly discuss the for and against of the Jewish question. The importance of this, for you, is that you should realize that what is presented to you as ‘American approval’ or ‘American disapproval’ of this or that action of British policy is not American but Jewish opinion, and that this puts quite another face on the matter. If you are to fight Germany again, you must do it for England’s sake. You must not allow yourselves to be egged on by Jews masquerading to-day as ‘German public opinion’, to-morrow as ‘Czechoslovak public opinion’, the day after as ‘English public opinion’, and the next day as ‘American public opinion’. If England suffers disaster in coming years, the Jews who have come to England in these latter years will not suffer that misfortune in like measure; they will not feel it as Englishmen will feel it, they will prosper in chaos, and when they feel that a lean time is coming for them they will make up their minds to sail away. As I came up the Thames I wondered what my own future would be. I had promised myself to decide within a very few days whether I would continue to write about the daily European scene or whether I would cut loose [ed: altogether?] together, go to Polynesia, Patagonia or Peking, write about other things than Hitler’s eternal invasions. I wondered whether, the next time I left England, I should go in one of those steamers white and gold to some far distant foreign clime. The decision lay before me. I had a few days’ time. While I was locked up in the Legation at Prague, Disgrace Abounding was published – the most curious things happen to my books. After my departure from Prague I read the first reviews of it. Somebody spoke compassionately of my inferiority complex. I never knew, until I wrote Insanity Fair, what an inferiority complex was, or that I had one. To understand these things you have to sit at the feet of some venerable Jewish professor in Vienna, who soothes you by telling you that your faults are not your own but the products of your ancestors’ hereditary alcoholism, or something of that sort, and this wise counsel gives you new strength. The gins of the fathers. – Kraft durch Freud. I have no inferiority complex, but only the most normal longings for England to be better. I have a heavy foreboding for England, whose rulers have made every mistake they could. I want to see England safe at home and abroad. Safe at home for the British Derelict Aryans, not for the Foreign Non-Aryans. Safe abroad from Germany. Neither of these things is being done. The danger of a German ultimatum has been drawing daily nearer. What shall it profit Britain if she lose her whole Empire and gain only the Jews? Now, at the last moment, a faint hope offers that a stand will be made – over Poland. Then why not for Czecho-Slovakia? Why have we handed over the Czech Army, the Czech Air Force, the Skoda Works, the Czech gold, to Germany? If we were from the beginning prepared to make this stand, we should have made it years ago. Then you would have had none of this trouble. You could have satisfied Germany’s just grievances – but you could have compelled her to keep the peace…….” Knud Eriksen, feb. 1998 (A translation from a danish article in my internet-site Dronten, no. 6 (“The Dodo”) – a sub-site on Patriot.dk Home THE BOOK http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/index.html BET YOU THOUGHT THE WEST WAS FIGHTING COMMUNISM AND NOT AIDING IT…THINK AGAIN The Iron Curtain Over America By John Beaty First Printing, December, 1951 Eleventh Printing April 1954 To the mighty company of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines whose graves are marked by white crosses far from home this book is dedicated with the solemn pledge that the Christian civilization of which they were the finest flower shall not die. Vice Admiral T. G. W. Settle, U.S.N. (ret.), says: “The Iron Curtain Over America” is a most pertinent and excellently presented treatise on the cancer on our national set-up. “I hope this book has had, and will have, the widest possible dissemination, particularly to our leaders-in Washington, and in industry and the press, — and that our leaders who are “uncontaminated” will have their serious attention engaged by it.” Lt, General P. A. Del Valle, USMC (ret), says: ” I am impelled to write to you to express my admiration of your great service to the Nation in writing this truly magnificent book. No American who has taken the oath of allegiance can afford to miss it, and I heartily recommend it as an honest and courageous dispeller of the fog of propaganda in which most minds seem to dwell.” John Beaty The author of The Iron Curtain Over America has written, or collaborated on, a dozen books. His texts have been used in more than seven hundred colleges and universities, and his historical novel, Swords in the Dawn, published originally in New York, had London and Australian editions, and was adopted for state-wide use in the public schools of Texas. His education (M.A., University of Virginia; Ph.D., Columbia University; post-graduate study, University of Montpellier, France), his travel in Europe and Asia, and his five years with the Military Intelligence Service in World War II rounded out the background for the reading and research (1946-1951) which resulted in The Iron Curtain Over America. The American soldier is not the only one who wondered and is still wondering about the purposes of World War II.” Winston Churchill has called it “The Unnecessary War.” In view of our legacy of deaths, debt, and danger, Churchill’s term may be considered an understatement. YET TODAY THE MEDIA SHOUTS OUT- THIS WAR WAS ESSENTIAL…. http://iamthewitness.com/books/John.Beaty/Iron.Curtain.Over.America.htm CONTENTS To the Reader…………………………………. 4 I. The Teutonic Knights and Germany………………… 7 II. Russia and the Khazars…………………………..….. 16 III. The Khazars Join the Democratic Party……………. 35 IV. “The Unnecessary War”………………………………. 46 V. The Black Hood of Censorship…………………………. 60 VI. The Foreign Policy of the Truman Administration..… 80 VII. Does the National Democratic Party Want War….….. 112 VIII. Cleaning the Augean Stables……………………….….. 122 IX. America Can Still Be Free……………………………. 136 Acknowledgements…………………………………… 164 BLEED EUROPE TO DEATH….WHO DOES THAT SUIT… THE KHAZARS JOIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY The triumphant Khazars, aided by other “converts” to Communism, strengthened their grasp on prostrate Russia by a succession of “purges” in which many millions of Russians lost their lives, either by immediate murder or in the slow terror of slave labor camps. These purges do not concern us here except as a sample of what Soviet rule would bring to America, namely, the slaying of 15,000,000 persons on a list already prepared by name and category (statement to the author by a former-high ranking international Communist who has deserted “Stalinism”). The lecture, Matt Cvetic, a former F. B. I. undercover agent, gives, more recently, a much higher figure; he states that almost all men and women over thirty, having been found too old for “re-education,” would be slaughtered. For details, write to Borger News-Herald, Borger, Texas, asking reprint of “We Owe a Debt” (April 16, 1952) by J.C. Phillips. Even as they subjected the Russian people to a rule of terror, the new rulers of Russia promptly and effectively penetrated the countries of Western Europe and also Canada and (as shown in Chapter II) the United States. For their fateful choice of our country as a goal of their major though not yet completely and finally successful endeavor, there were several reasons. In the first place, with its mutually advantageous capital labor relations, its enormous productivity, and its high standard of living, the United States of America was an existing visible refutation of the black Soviet lie that their Communist dictatorship did more than our Republic for the workingman. The idea that the “capitalistic” democracies (Britain and America) were formidable obstacles to the spread of Communism and had to be destroyed was expressed, many times by Soviet leaders and notably by Stalin in his great address (Moscow, March 10, 1939) to the 18th Congress of the Communist Party. This elaborate official statement of Soviet policy was made before the outbreak of World War II, and nearly three years before our involvement, and was trumpeted rather than hidden under a bushel. It can therefore be safely predicated that our State Department, with its numerous staffs, offices, bureaus, and divisions, was promptly aware of the contents of this speech and of the Soviet goal of overthrowing our “capitalist democracy.” The second reason for large scale Communist exploitation of the United States was our traditional lack of any laws prohibiting or regulating immigration into the United States and our negligence or politics in enforcing immigration laws when they had been passed (Chapter II, above). “The illegal entry of aliens into the United States is one of the most serious and difficult problems confronting the Immigration and Naturalization Service. . . Since the end of World War II the problem of illegal entry has increased tremendously . . . There is ample evidence that there is an alarmingly large number of aliens in the United States in an illegal status. Under the alien registration act of 1940 some 5,000,000 aliens were registered “(The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, pp. 629,630). The third principal reason for the Communist exploitation of the United States was the absence of any effective policy regarding resident foreigners even when their activities are directed toward the overthrow of the government. Thus in 1950 several hundreds of thousands of foreigners, among the millions illegally in this country, were arrested and released for want of adequate provisions for deporting them. As shown in Chapter II, above, persons of Khazar background or traditions had entered the United States in large numbers in the waves of immigration between 1880 and the outbreak of World War I in 1914. The Soviet seizure of Russia took place in 1917, however, and the hey-day for Communist-inclined immigrants from Eastern Europe was the five-year period between the end of World War I (1919) and the passage of the 1924 law restricting immigration. Recorded immigrants to this country in that brief span of time amounted to approximately three million and large numbers of the newcomers were from, Eastern Europe. Most significantly, with Communism in power in Russia, many of the new immigrants were not only ideologically hostile to the Western Christian civilization of which America was the finest development, but were actual agents of the new Rulers of Russia Conspicuous among these was Sidney Hillman, who had turned from his “Rabbinical education” (Who Was Who in America, Vol. II, p. 254) to political activities if international scope. Twenty-two years before Franklin Roosevelt gave orders to “clear everything with Sidney,” similar orders were given American Communists by Lenin himself, Hillman being at that time President of the Russian-American Industrial Corporation at 103 E. Fourteenth St., New York (article by Walter Trohan and photostat in Washington Times-Herald, October 29, 1944). Surely a relatively small number of Khazar immigrants from Russia came as actual Soviet agents; not all of them came was confirmed Marxists; and some of them have doubtless conformed to the traditional American mores. The contrary is neither stated nor implied as a general proposition. The fact remains, however, that the newer immigrants, to an even greater degree than their predecessors of the same stock, were determined to resist absorption into Western Christian civilization and were determined also to further their aims by political alignment and pressure. In the first three decades of the twentieth century, few of the several million non-Christian immigrants from Eastern Europe were attracted to the Republican Party, which was a majority party with no need to bargain for recruits. The Democratic Party, on the contrary, was in bad need of additional voters. It had elected Woodrow Wilson by a huge electoral majority in 1912 when the Republican Party was split between the followers of William Howard Taft and those of Theodore Roosevelt, but the Democratic popular vote was 1,413,708 less than the combined Taft and Roosevelt votes. In fact, between 1892 (Cleveland’s election over Harrison) and 1932 (F.D. Roosevelt’s election over Hoover), the Democratic candidate had pooled more presidential popular votes than the Republican candidate (9,129,606 to 8,538,221) only once, when Woodrow Wilson was elected (1916) to a second term on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” In all the other elections, Republican majorities were substantial. Applying arithmetic to the popular vote of the seven presidential elections from 1904 to 1928 inclusive (World Almanac, 1949, p. 91), it is seen that on the average, the Democrats, except under extraordinary circumstances, could not in the first three decades of the twentieth century count on as much as 45% of the votes. In addition to its need for more votes, the Democratic Party had another characteristic which appealed to the politically minded Eastern European newcomers and drew to its ranks all but a handful of those who did not join a leftist splinter party. Unlike the Republican Party, which still had a fairly homogeneous membership, the Democratic Party was a collection of several groups. “The Democratic Party is not a political party at all; it’s a marriage of convenience among assorted bedfellows, each of whom hates most of the other” (William Bradford Huie in an article, “Truman’s Plan to Make Eisenhower President,” Cosmopolitan, July, 1951, p. 31). In the early part of the twentieth century the two largest components of the Democratic Party were the rural Protestant Southerners and the urban Catholic Northerners, who stood as a matter of course for the cardinal principles of Western Christian civilization, but otherwise had little in common politically except an opposition, chiefly because of vanished issues, to the Republican Party. The third group, which had been increasing rapidly after 1880, consisted of Eastern Europeans and other “liberals,” best exemplified perhaps by the distinguished Harvard Jew, of Prague stock, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, whom President Woodrow Wilson, for reasons not yet fully known by the people, named to the United States Supreme Court. This man, at once so able, and in his legal and other attitudes so far to the left for the America of 1916, deserves attention as a symbol of the future for the Democratic Party, and through that party, for America. According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, there was an “historical battle” in the Senate in regard to “Brandeis’ ‘radicalism’,” and “his alleged ‘lack of judicial temperament’.” These alleged qualities provoked opposition to the nomination by seven former presidents of the American Bar Association, including ex-Secretary of State Elihu Root and ex-President William Howard Taft. Despite the opposition, the nomination was confirmed by the Senate in a close vote on June 5, 1916. This was one of the most significant days in American history, for we had, for the first time since the first decade of the nineteenth century, an official of the highest status whose heart’s interest was in something besides the United States — an official, moreover, who interpreted the Law not as the outgrowth of precedent, but according to certain results desired by the interpreter. The entire article on Justice Brandeis in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. II, pp. 495-499) should be read in full, if possible. Here are a few significant quotations: During the World War, Brandeis occupied himself with a close study of the political phases of Jewish affairs in every country. Since that time his active interest in Jewish affairs has been centered in Zionism . . .In 1919, he visited Palestine for political and organizational reasons . . . he has financed various social and economic efforts in Palestine. As a justice, Mr. Brandeis: Never worried about such academic perplexities as the compatibility of Americanism with a minority culture or a Jewish homeland in Palestine. . . Breaking away from the accepted legal catechisms, he thoroughly and exhaustively probed the economics of each and every problem presented. . . The truth of his conviction that our individualistic philosophy could no longer furnish an adequate basis for dealing with the problems of modern economic life, in now generally recognized. . . he envisages a co-operative order. . . Brandeis feels that the Constitution must be given liberal construction. This may be taken as the beginning of the tendency of our courts to assume by judicial decisions the function of legislative bodies. There is testimony, also, to the influence of Brandeis over Wilson as a factor in America’s entry into World War I and its consequent prolongation with terrible blood losses to all participants, especially among boys and young men of British, French, and German stock. Although Britain had promised self-rule to the Palestine Arabs in several official statements by Sir Henry MacMahon, the High Commissioner for Egypt, by Field Marshal Lord Allenby, Commander in Chief of British Military forces in the area, and by others (The Surrender of An Empire, by Nesta H. Webster, Boswell Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd., 10 Essex St., London, W.C. 2, 1931, pp. 351-356), President Wilson was readily won over to a scheme concocted later in another compartment of the British government. This scheme, Zionism, attracted the favor of the Prime Minister, Mr. David Lloyd George, who, like Wilson, had with prominent Jews certain close relations, one of which is suggested in the Encyclopedia Britannica article (Vol. XIX, p. 4) on the first Marquess of Reading (previously Sir Rufus Daniel Isaacs). Thus, according to S. Landman, in his paper “Secret History of the Balfour Declaration” (World Jewry, March 1, 1935), after an “understanding had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes and Weizmann and Sokolow, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy and support in U.S.A. for the allied cause so as to bring about a radical pro-ally tendency in the United States.” An article, “The Origin of the Balfour Declaration” (The Jewish Chronicle, February 7, 1936), is more specific. According to this source, certain “representatives of the British and French Governments” had been convinced that “the best and perhaps the only way to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jewry by promising them Palestine.” In so doing “the Allies would enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful force of Zionist Jewry in America and elsewhere.” Since President Wilson at that time “attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of Mr. Justice Brandeis,” the Zionists worked through him and “helped to bring America in.” The strange power of Brandeis over President Wilson is indicated several times in the book, Challenging Years, The Autobiography of Stephen Wise (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1949). Rabbi Wise, for instance, spoke of Wilson’s “leaning heavily, as I well know he chose to do, on Brandeis” (p.187), and records a surprising remark by the supposedly independent minded World War I President. To Rabbi Wise, who spoke of Zionism and the plans for convening ” the first session of the American Jewish Congress,” Wilson said (p. 189): “Whenever the time comes, and you and Justice Brandeis feel that the time is ripe for me to speak and act, I shall be ready.” The authenticity of these statements, which are well documented in the sources from which they are quoted, cannot be doubted. Full evaluation of President Wilson will have to wait until the secret archives of World War I are opened to the Public. Meanwhile, however, the management of the war in such a way as to bleed Europe to death casts persistent reflections upon the judgment if not the motives of President Wilson and Prime Minister David Lloyd George of Great Britain. Their bloody victory and their failure in peace stand in strong contrast to Theodore Roosevelt’s dramatic success in ending, rather than joining, the great conflict (1904-1905) between Russia and Japan. OUR FABIAN COMMIE FRIENDS HERE!! 300 WERE IN THE LAST LABOUR ADMINISTRATION- SHIT KNOWS HOW MANY NOW IN CAMERONS MOB OF SOCIALISTS! But Franklin Roosevelt, piqued with the power of his new office, stimulated by the clique of Marxian and Fabian socialists posing as intellectuals and liberals — and by radicals in labor unions, universities, and his own sycophant bureaucracy — had signed his name to the Kremlin’s franchise. Without the approval of Congress, he made an actual treaty with the Soviets, giving them the right to establish a communist embassy and consulates in the United States, with full diplomatic hospitalities and immunities to Stalin’s agents, the bloody bolsheviki. . . November 16, 1933 – at midnight! That is a date in American history our children will long have tragic cause to remember. That was the day Soviet Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinov, plunderer of Estonia and the Kremlin’s first agent for socializing England, sat down with Franklin Roosevelt, after Dean Acheson and Henry Morgenthau had done the spadework of propaganda, and made the deal that has led the American people, and our once vast resources, into a social and economic calamity to the very brink, now, of national and international disaster. . . One of the greatest concentrations of factual information, wise analyses, police records and military intelligence ever to pile up spontaneously on one subject in Washington, all documenting the liabilities of dealing with the Kremlin, had no effect on Franklin Roosevelt. He had appointed Henry Morgenthau and Dean Acheson, both protégés of Felix Frankfurter, to “study” trade opportunities between the U.S.S.R. and the United States, and he praised their report of the benefits to come to all U.S. citizens from Soviet “friendship.” The government was infiltrated with “risks” from the above described groups of Eastern Europeans and with contaminated native Americans, but those were not all. After the beginning of World War II, so-called “refugees” immediately upon arrival in this country were by executive order introduced into sensitive government positions without the formality of having them wait for citizenship, and without any investigation of their reasons for leaving Europe. The way for this infiltration was paved by an executive order providing specifically that employment could not be denied on the grounds of race, creed, or national origin. Since no form of investigation could be made by the United Stated in the distant and hostile areas from which these refugees came, and since their number contained persons sympathetic to the Soviet Union, this executive order was a potential and in many instanced a realized death blow to security. http://iamthewitness.com/books/John.Beaty/Iron.Curtain.Over.America.htm#the khazars join the (Chapter III, above) by giving full diplomatic recognition to Soviet Russia on November 16, 1933, a day destined to be known as “American-Soviet Friendship Day” by official proclamation of the State of New York. Sharing the world spotlight with his anti-Communist words and acts, was Hitler’s domestic policy, which in its early stages nay be epitomized as “Germany for the Germans,” of whom in 1933 there were some 62,000,000. Hitler’s opponents, more especially those of non-German stock (510,000 in 1933 according to the World Almanac, 1939), were unwilling to lose by compromise any of their position of financial and other power acquired in large degree during the economic collapse of 1923, and appealed for help to persons of prominence in the city of New York and elsewhere. Their appeal was not in vain. In late July, 1933, an International Jewish Boycott Conference (New York Times, August 7, 1933) was held in Amsterdam to devise means of bringing Germany to terms. Samuel Untermeyer of New York presided over the Boycott Conference and was elected President of the World Jewish Economic Federation. Returning to America, Mr. Untermeyer described the planned Jewish move against Germany as a “holy war . . . a war that must be waged unremittingly” (speech over WABC, as printed in New York Times of August 7, 1933). The immediately feasible tactic of the “economic boycott” was described by Mr. Untermeyer as of the “economic boycott” was described by Mr. Untermeyer as “nothing new,” for “President Roosevelt, whose wise statesmanship and vision are the wonder of the civilized world, is invoking it in furtherance of his noble conception of the relations between capital and labor.” Mr. Untermeyer gave his hearers and readers specific instructions: It is not sufficient that you buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German made goods or who patronizes German ships and shipping. Before the Boycott Conference adjourned at Amsterdam, arrangement was made to extend the boycott to “include France, Holland, Belgium, Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia and other lands as far flung as Finland and Egypt” (New York Times, August 1, 1933). In connection with the boycott, the steady anti-German campaign, which had never died down in America after World War I, became suddenly violent. Germany was denounced in several influential New York papers and by radio. The public became dazed by the propaganda, and the U.S. Government soon placed on German imports the so-called “general” tariff rates as against the “most favored” status for all other nations. This slowed down but did not stop the German manufacture of export goods, and the U.S. took a further step, described as follows in the New York Times (June 5, 1936): “Already Germany is paying general tariff rates because she has been removed by Secretary of State Cordell Hull from the most favored nation list . . . Now she will be required to pay additional duties . . . it was decided that they would range from about 22 to 56 per cent.” There were protests. According to the New York Times (July 12, 1936): “importers and others interested in trade with Germany insisted yesterday that commerce between the two countries will dwindle to the vanishing point within the next six months.” The prediction was correct. An effort of certain anti-German international financial interests was also made to “call” sufficient German treasury notes to “break” Germany. The German government replied successfully to this maneuver by giving a substantial bonus above the current exchange rate for foreigners who would come to Germany, exchange their currency for marks, and spend the marks in Germany. Great preparations were made for welcoming strangers to such gatherings as the “World Conference on Recreation and Leisure Time” (Hamburg, August, 1936), one of whose programs, a historic pageant on the Auszen-Alster, was attended by the author (who was visiting northern European museums and coastal areas in the interest of his historical novel, Swords in the Dawn). Special trains brought in school children from as far as northern Norway. Whether from sincerity or from a desire to create a good impression, visitors were shown every courtesy. As a result of the German effort and the money bonus afforded by the favorable exchange, retired people, pensioners, and tourists spent enough funds in the Reich to keep the mark stable. But this German financial victory in 1936, though it prevented an immediate currency collapse, did not solve the problem of 62,000,000 people (69,000,000 by 1939) in an area approximately the size of Texas being effectively denied export trade. Through Secretary of State Cordell Hull and other officials President Roosevelt sponsored Mr. Untermeyer’s economic war against Germany, but he still adhered, in his public utterances, to a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of foreign nations. In two speeches in the summer of 1937 he voiced “our entanglements” (American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, by Charles A. Beard, Yale University Press, 1946, p. 183). Some sinister underground deal must have been consummated within two months, however, for in a speech in Chicago on October 5th the President made an about-face, which was probably the most complete in the whole history of American foreign policy. Here are two excerpts from the famous “Quarantine” speech: Let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy, that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked! . . . When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease. This pronouncement, so inflammatory, so provocative of war, caused unprecedented consternation in the United States (see Beard, op. cit., pp. 186 ff.). Most outspoken in opposition to the “quarantine” policy was the Chicago Tribune. Violently enthusiastic was the New Masses, and Mr. Earl Browder promised the administration the “100 percent unconditional support of the Communist party” provided Roosevelt adopted a hands-off policy toward Communism. Incidentally, this Democratic-Communist collaboration was openly or covertly to be a factor in subsequent United States foreign and domestic policy to and beyond the middle of the twentieth century. “I welcome the support of Earl Browder or any one else who will help keep President Roosevelt in office,” said Harry S. Truman, candidate for Vice President, on October 17, 1944 (National Republic, May, 1951, p. 8). Far more numerous than denouncers or endorsers of the “quarantine” speech of 1937 were those who called for clarification. This, however, was not vouchsafed — nor was it, apart from possible details of method and time, really necessary. It was perfectly obvious that the President referred to Japan and Germany. With the latter country we had already declared that “no quarter” economic war recommended by the President of the World Jewish Economic Federation, and now in unquestionably hostile terms our President declared a political war. In his diary, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal recorded that he was told by Joseph P. Kennedy, our Ambassador to Britain, that Prime Minister Chamberlain “stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war” (The Forrestal Diaries, ed. by Walter Millis, The Viking Press, New York, 1951, pp. 121-122). Censorship, governmental and other (Chapter V), was tight in America by 1937. It had blocked out the reasons for Mr. Roosevelt’s public change of policy between summer and autumn, and it blacked out the fact that the President’s threatening attitude caused Germany to make, and make a second time, an appeal for peace. These appeals did not become known to the American public for more than ten years. Here is the story, summarized from an article by Bertram D. Hulen in the New York Times of December 17, 1948: In 1937 and again in 1938 the German government made “a sincere effort to improve relations with the United States, only to be rebuffed.” The U.S. Government’s alleged reason was “a fear of domestic political reactions in this country unfavorable to the Administration.” Germany was told that the American public would not tolerate a conference. Some officials favored exploring the German offer “after the congressional elections in the fall” (1938). The sequel, of course, is that the Roosevelt administration blocked Germany’s further efforts for peace by withdrawing our ambassador from Berlin and thus peremptorily preventing future negotiations. Germany then had to recall her Ambassador “who was personally friendly toward Americans” and, according to the New York Times, “was known in diplomatic circles here at the time to be working for international understanding in a spirit of good will.” Here, to repeat for emphasis, is the crux of the matter: The whole story of Germany’s appeal for negotiations and our curt refusal and severance of diplomatic relations was not published in 1937 or 1938, when Germany made her appeals, but was withheld from the public until ferreted out by the House Committee on Un-American Activities after World War II and by that committee released to the press more than ten years after the facts were so criminally suppressed. Parenthetically, it is because of services such as this on behalf of truth that the Committee on Un-American Activities has been so frequently maligned . In fact, in our country since the 1930’s there seems little question that the best criterion for separating true Americans from others is a recorded attitude toward the famous Martin Dies Committee. Economically strangled by an international boycott headed up in New York, and outlawed politically even to the extent of being denied a conference, the Germans in the late 1930’s faced the alternatives of mass unemployment from loss of world trade or working in government-sponsored projects. They accepted the latter. The workers who lost their jobs in export businesses were at once employed in Hitler’s armament industries (see the special edition of the Illustrierte Zeitung for November 25, 1936), which were already more than ample for the size and resources of the country, and soon became colossal. Thus by desperate measures, advertised to the world in the phrase “guns instead of butter,” Hitler prepared to cope with what he considered to be the British-French-American-Soviet “encirclement.” Stung by what he considered President Roosevelt’s insulting language and maddened by the contemptuous rejection of his diplomatic approaches to the United States, he made a deal (August, 1939) against Poland with the Soviet Union, a power he had taught the German people to fear and hate! With the inevitability of a Sophoclean tragedy, this betrayal of his own conscience brought him to ruin — and Germany with him. Such is the danger which lurks for a people when they confide their destiny to the whims of a dictator! The war which resulted from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policy is well remembered, especially by those American families whose sons lie beneath white crosses – at home or afar. Its pre-shooting phase, with all the weavings back and forth, is analyzed in Professor Beard’s volume, already referred to. Its causes are the subject of Frederick R. Sanborn’s Design for War (Devin-Adair, New York, 1951). Its progress is surveyed in William Henry Chamberlin’s America’s Second Crusade (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1950). Details cannot be here presented. This much, however, is evident. With some secret facts now revealed and with the foul picture now nearing completion, we can no longer wonder at a clean trustful young soldier or an honorable general being unable to give a satisfactory reason for our part in promoting and participating in World War II. As the “unnecessary war” progressed, we adopted an increasingly horrible policy. Our government’s fawning embrace of the Communist dictator of Russia, and his brutal philosophy which we called “democratic,” was the most “unnecessary” act of our whole national history, and could have been motivated only by the most reprehensible political considerations – such, for instance, as holding the 100 percent Communist support at a price proposed by Mr. Browder. Among those who learned the truth and remained silent, with terrible consequences to himself and his country, was James V. Forrestal. In an article, “The Forrestal Diaries,” Life reveals (October 15, 1951) that in 1944 Forrestal wrote thus to a friend about the “liberals” I find that whenever any American suggests that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a [profane adjective deleted] fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants. Among those who saw our madness, and spoke out, were Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio and Winston Churchill. Senator Taft’s radio address of June 29, 1941, a few days after Hitler invaded Russia, included the following passage: How can anyone swallow the idea that Russia is battling for democratic principles? Yet the President on Monday announced that the character and quantity of the aid to await only a disclosure of Russian needs. . . To spread the four freedoms throughout the world we will ship airplanes and tanks and guns to Communist Russia. But no country was more responsible for the present war and Germany’s aggression than Russia itself. Except for the Russian pact with Germany there would have been no invasion of Poland. Then Russia proved to be as much of an aggressor as Germany. In the name of democracy we are to make a Communist alliance with the most ruthless dictator in the world. . . But the victory of Communism in the world would be far more dangerous to the United States than the victory of Fascism. There has never been the slightest danger that the people of this country would ever embrace Bundism or Nazism . . . But Communism masquerades, often successfully, under the guise of democracy (Human Events, March 28, 1951). VERY SUCCESSFULLY IN BRITAIN…..WE STILL CALL IT CAPITALISM WHEN TOPPING UP WAGES TOO LOW TO LIVE ON- HUGE CORPORATIONS PREFER TO BANK PROFIT..TOPPED UP BY OUR TAXES! WHEN BANKERS TAKE THE PROFIT AND THE PUBLIC IS HANDED THE DEBT- WE STILL CALL IT CAPITALISM.. WHAT NAIVE VOTERS BRITAIN HAS…..THEY DON’T KNOW COMMUNISM FROM CAPITALISM FASCISM FROM DEMOCRACY. At Potsdam, Truman also sanctioned Russian acquisition of Eastern Germany, the food bin of that nation before the war. It then became impossible for the remaining German economy in British, French, and American hands to feed its people. Germany, like Japan, also went on our bounty rolls. Like Roosevelt, Truman did not neglect to build up Russian military strength when his opportunity came at Potsdam. He provided her with more factories, machines, and military equipment though at the time he attended Potsdam Truman knew that through lend-lease we had already dangerously expanded Russia’s military might and that, in addition, we had given the Soviets some 15,000 planes – many of them our latest type – and 7,000 tanks. But at Potsdam Truman gave to Russia the entire zone embracing the Elbe and Oder Rivers. excepting Hamburg, which lies within the British zone. Naval experts had known from the early days of World War II that it was along these rivers and their tributaries that the Germans had set up their submarine production line. The menace which the Nazi underwater fleet constituted during World War II is still remembered by residents along the Atlantic coast who saw oil tankers, merchant ships, and even a troop transport sunk within sight of our shores. Convoy losses during the early years of the war were tremendous. And special defensive methods had to be devised by our Navy to get our supplies across the Atlantic. But in spite of this, the President agreed at Potsdam to deliver to Russia the parts [of Germany containing] plants sufficient for her to fabricate hundreds of submarines. In addition to this, he agreed to give to Russia 10 of the latest snorkel-tube long-range German submarines for experimental purposes. Why did Churchill consent to the initiation of such a program? Why did he allow Roosevelt to give an ideologically hostile power a foothold as far West as the Elbe River, which flows into the North Sea? Since Churchill was characteristically no weak-kneed yes-man (witness his “blood and tears” spe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s