1/12 Britain’s Sabre Rattling against Iran. The Threat to Global Security is Israel


Britain’s Sabre Rattling against Iran. The Threat to Global Security is Israel

by Julie Webb-Pullman

As Britain tastes the fruits of its foreign policy in Iran, the international community would do well consider the implications – not only for an ill-advised offensive against Iran based on hypocritical allegations of preparations for nuclear weapon capability – after all, neighbouring Israel has been permitted to develop and use such weapons against its neighbours for decades, without a peep out of them – but also for just and equitable relations between sovereign nations.

While it is clearly desirable for every government to guarantee the safety of diplomatic missions within its territory, it is equally clear that the people are no longer prepared to sit by when they perceive gross injustices against them, either committed by their own governments, or others. Think Tunisia, think Egypt.

While it is clearly desirable that less dangerous alternatives to nuclear energy are pursued, while any sovereign state is permitted the right to develop and use nuclear power, so must Iran and any other sovereign state be accorded those same rights. Think Britain, think the USA, think France.

Britain’s sabre-rattling over the past month, threatening the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians citizens, has had consequences – consequences that any government with any real intelligence should have foreseen. Foreign policy does not occur in a vacuum, but in a context, and the British government appears incapable of appreciating the Middle Eastern context, let alone respecting its peoples or governments with policies and interests independent of the UK/USA/European cartel.

It is worth noting that Iran has not launched an attack or invasion of another country for over 200 years, has stated no intention to do so, and does not have any nuclear warheads. The same cannot be said of the cheer-leader behind the latest frenzy against Iran – its already-nuclear-capable neighbour Israel, who has been using nuclear weapons in attacks against Lebanon and Gaza since 2005. The same cannot be said of the furies at the forefront of this latest frenzy – Britain, with a nuclear arsenal of at least 225 warheads, France with an arsenal of 300, and the USA with an arsenal of more than 8,000 – all of whom have participated in attacks and invasions in middle eastern countries in the past five years, and have declared their intention to continue to do so – specifically against Iran.

The hypocrisy is so blatant, and so extensive, that it is little wonder that Iranian citizens, like those elsewhere in the Middle East and throughout the world, are taking matters into their own hands.

The silence and inaction of the international community in general, and the United Nations in particular, in the face of numerous reports documenting Israel’s use of nuclear weapons against its neighbours, and recommendations in those such as the Goldstone Report, that Israel be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, does nothing to reassure either citizens or governments of Middle Eastern countries that they can expect any protection, or justice, from international law.

The reality is that the United Nations and the international community has failed to hold Israel accountable for things it has ALREADY DONE, but is implicitly condoning attacking Iran for things they say it MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE.

As would any first-year law student, the peoples and governments of the region are rejecting this scenario outright.

According to an October 2010 poll carried out in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other pro-western Arab states by US pollsters Zogby and Maryland University, when asked which countries threatened their security, 88% of respondents replied Israel, 77% the US and just 10% Iran.

The greatest nuclear threat to the region is Israel, not Iran. The greatest threat to peace in the region is Israel, not Iran.

Unless and until Britain and the rest of its cartel get this through their foreign policy heads, and until the United Nations in particular and the international community in general, stand up to Israel’s gross and ongoing breaches of international law and end its impunity, it will remain in the hands of the people to do so – and they are showing unequivocally that they will no longer hesitate to raise, and to use them.

Whilst the British government chokes on the bitter pill of Iranian popular sentiment, and the Israeli government gloats over their latest attack on an Iranian nuclear facility in direct contravention of international law, their publics, and those of every other country, wonder just how long it will be before their governments adopt prinicipled and equitable foreign policies, how long it will be before the UN applies the principles of international law without fear or favour – and whether they have the patience to wait.

Julie Webb-Pullman is a New Zealander now based in Gaza, who has been writing for independent news websites including SCOOP, Dissident Voice, Global Research and others, since 2003.

Julie Webb-Pullman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Julie Webb-Pullman




The Guardian reported on 9 October 2010 that:

“A report dismissed on both sides of the channel as speculation and therefore probably true, that the UK and France are negotiating an agreement which would see British nuclear warheads serviced by French scientists.” True to form the EU aligned Guardian shows its true colours as a government propaganda machine by adding that the report “does not go far enough……French defence analysts rightly say for this to happen Britain would have to break its special relationship with America in this field……It makes eminent sense for two European military powers, both of whom have nuclear deterrents which are independent in name only, to operate with each other on warheads and joint submarine patrols.

Smooth as silk, the Guardian slides out the intended future EU policy on the back of speculation. In reality the collision of Vanguard and Le Triomphant is almost certainly the result of joint nuclear deterrent operations gone wrong. Both submarines were close. Close enough to collide. The stunning silence concerning the collision, the true extent of the damage and the lack of any visible board of investigation or Court Martial, underlines political manoeuvring in the dark. Far from future policy, the traitors within the LibLabCon are already giving away Britains nuclear capability, whilst frantically dismantling independent conventional capability. We will all suffer unless we wake up fast.


George Orwell’s Guide to the News

by Adrian Salbuchi

The Western mainstream media falsifies the news resorting to euphemisms, half-truths and lies in the best (worst) style of George Orwell’s novel 1984. We all live in the unreal world of “Newspeak” used by the Global Power Elite to control our minds.

Man gets confused when things that happen around him and to him, or which are done in his name, cannot be properly grasped, understood or made sense of. Normally, such confusion leads to inaction. If you’re lost at night in the middle of a forest but you can still see the stars, then a bit of astronomical knowledge will at least quickly tell you which way is north. But if it’s cloudy or you’re ignorant of the constellations in starry heaven, then you might as well light up a fire and do nothing until dawn…. You’re Lost!

Today, mainstream media coverage uses programmed distortion, confusion, even outright lying when its Money Power masters order it to support the “official story” on any major political, economic or financial process. When looked at closely, however, the “official story” of things can be seen to be inaccurate, misleading, often hardly believable if not downright stupid.

Examples of this: Iraq’s inexistent WMD’s leading to the invasion and destruction of that country; global mega-banker bail-outs with taxpayer money; irrational US diplomatic, military, financial and ideological alignment to Israeli objectives; “we-killed-Osama-Bin-Laden-and-dumped-his-body-into-the-sea”; and the wide array of “whodunits” surrounding 9/11 in New York and Washington, 7/7 in London, the AMIA/Israeli Embassy attacks in Buenos Aires in 1992/1994, and – of course – that all time favorite: who shot JFK…?

These are but a few of the paradigmatic cases that have at least served to trigger millions of people to wake up and think with their own minds instead of the mainstream media’s! But unfortunately the vast majority of such cases are not so clear-cut. The vast majority of Newspeak lies are like knots, difficult to untie as they carry built-in complexity resembling Gordian Knots. And, as with all Gordian Knots, you need to cut right through them, and this requires swift and precise action plus a good measure of intellectual courage.

To give an example of what we say, let’s take a quick look at how a “Newspeak” operation works. It requires sequential planning, it requires time, it requires proper logistics, it requires “credible” spokespeople in public and private sectors, it requires choosing the right words and images at the right time and in the right circumstances.

So, let’s say the Global Power Elite – working through the governments of the US, UK, EU into which they are deeply embedded, and joint-venturing with a wide array of media outlets, defense companies, oil companies, security and construction companies, and powerful lobbies – decide that they wish to overrun and destroy a specific country… Libya, for example…

How do they ensure that “the international community” will just quietly look on (except for the still relatively small minority of voices that are increasingly raising hell against them)?

The Seven Step Mainstream Media Country Destruction Guide

1. First, they start by targeting a country ripe for “Regime Change”, and brand it a “rogue state”; then…

2. They arm, train, finance local terrorist groups through CIA, MI6, Mossad, Al-Qaeda (a CIA operation), drug cartels (often CIA operations) and call them “freedom fighters”; then…

3. As mock UN Security Council Resolutions are staged that rain death and destruction upon millions of civilians, they call it “UN sanctions to protect civilians”; then…

4. They spread flagrant lies through their “newsrooms” and paid journalists, and call it “the international community’s concerns expressed by prestigious spokespeople and analysts…” then…

5. They bomb, invade and begin to control the target country and call it “liberation”; then…

6. As the target country falls fully under their control, they impose “the kind of democracy that we want to see” (as Hillary Clinton before visiting Egypt and Tunisia on March 10, 2011), until finally…

7. They steal appetizing oil, mineral and agricultural reserves handing them over to Global Power Elite corporations, and impose unnecessary private banking debt and call it “foreign investment and reconstruction.”

Their keynotes are: Force and Hypocrisy, which they have used time and again to destroy entire countries, always in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”. Utmost force and violence is used to achieve their ends and goals.

Their Elders recommended this many decades ago in a blueprint for World Domination written on a hoary manuscript of old…

“What did you say…? That you don’t want to be ‘liberated’ and ‘democratized’?!?”

“Then, take this Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Berlin, Dresden, Baghdad, and Basra!! Take that Tokyo, Gaza, Lebanon, Kabul, Pakistan, Tripoli, Belgrade, Egypt, El Salvador and Grenada!! And take that, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Somalia, Africa!!”

Always bombing people to smithereens… Always, of course, in the name of “freedom”, “democracy”, “peace” and “human rights”

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. http://www.asalbuchi.com.ar

Adrian Salbuchi is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Adrian Salbuchi



freemindx2009 on 2 Dec 2009

Israel has been threatening Europe and Middle East with its nuclear missiles and atomic bombs for decades. BBC shows the fascist so called democratic & modern face of Israel.

People & Blogs


Germany Must Perish! By Theodore Kaufman (1941)

1919: Jew Announces Plans to Annihilate 10,000,000 Russians

The Zionists’ Final Solution to the Jewish Question

News & Politics


In 1897 the National Jewish Association – Cologne
published its programme (called ‘Theses’):

(ii) Experience has shown that civic emancipation has fallen short
of securing the social and cultural future of the Jewish people.
The Final Solution of the Jewish Question
lies therefore in the establishment of the Jewish State.
Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918 (1997)
By Isaiah Friedman

Theodor Herzl the ‘Father of Zionism’ used the term
‘the final solution of the Jewish Question’
in an 1899 letter to the Russian Czar

“I supplemented this endeavor in my covering letter to the Czar:
* Sire: It is to the graciousness of His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of
Baden, who has Grand Duke of Baden, who has consented to become the
exalted sponsor of my humble request for an audience with
Your Imperial Majesty, that I owe my permission to submit
the Zionist plan for the final solution of the Jewish Question”
The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl: Volume 3

More uses of the term “final solution of the Jewish question”
by Zionists from the late 19th century to after World War II

Zionist Nahum Sokolow wrote in his 1919 book
History of Zionism

“The progress of modern civilization has come to be regarded as a sort of modern Messiah for
the final solution of the Jewish problem.”
History of Zionism (1919)

See Also:
Trotsky & the Final Solution of the Jewish Question
Zionism financed Nazism
1933: Jew admits Jews are financing Hitler




5 responses to “1/12 Britain’s Sabre Rattling against Iran. The Threat to Global Security is Israel



    Germany Must Perish! By Theodore Kaufman (1941)

    1919: Jew Announces Plans to Annihilate 10,000,000 Russians

    The Zionists’ Final Solution to the Jewish Question

    News & Politics



    Sharon’s Infamous Comment –
    “We Control America”
    From George Paxinos

    During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis’ policies of continued violence might “turn the US against us”.

    To this Sharon retorted:



    — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
    October 3, 2001
    (IAP News)

    It therefore follows that America is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under Zionist control. Mahathir is right. Jews rule America (and most of the world) by proxy. They trick us into fighting and dying for THEM.

    Politicians of the ‘free world’ are too cowardly oppose Zionism.



    The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia.

    I have a description, from a person who was present, of the manner in which the Nuremberg judgment came to be delivered on September 30 and October l, 1946 (between the Jewish New Year, September 26, and the Jewish Day of Atonement, October 5), and was executed immediately after midnight in the morning of October 16, Hoshana Rabba, the day when the Jewish god, after an interval during which he considers his verdict on every single human being, and may still pardon sinners, delivers his final judgment. This description says, “. . . all thought the judgment would be delivered sooner than it was, and a number of trifling circumstances delayed it, till the date was fixed somewhere round September 15 . . . Then X, one of the member judges, objected to the literary form of part of the judgment. . . it was roughly ca1culated how long it would take to recast it and to recopy the recasting; and the date was fixed by this”.

    I have deleted the name of the member judge. As a result of this delay for literary improvement the judgment fell midway through the holiest ten days of the Jewish Year and was executed on the day of Jehovah’s vengeance. I had foretold some such denouement, in a book published during the war, after Mr. Anthony Eden, on 17 December 1942 in the House of Commons, had made a “Declaration” about the Jews, in which he implicitly limited to the Jews the threat that “Those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution”. Mr. Roosevelt, in America, had made a declaration of similar implication.

    The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser “war crimes” trials; these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 1949 an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of “mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes round their necks, and “tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that the mock-trial was the genuine one).

    The biggest of these trials was the “Malmedy trial” of 1945-1946, at which


    forty-three prisoners were sentenced to death. This trial related to the killing of American prisoners by SS. troops near Malmedy in 1944, and bitter feeling against any proved guilty was to be expected from American prosecutors. However, the tormentors of these prisoners were not Americans, as those who remember the admirable bearing of American troops in Germany after the First World War might expect. They were Jews from Austria who had entered the United States just before the Second War and, under Mr. Roosevelt’s regime, had quickly been taken into the American army and American uniform. A genuine American who was present at these mock-trials (a veteran court reporter) stated that he left the service of the War Crimes Branch in disgust after witnessing the “brutal sadism” practised by one of the inquisitors. Then the chief American prosecutor in this trial, a colonel, admitted to a Senate subcommittee that he had known about the mock-trials; he thought they were proper if the trial court itself was informed of the method used to obtain the defendants’ confessions, and said the prisoners should have known that the black-mass trial was a false one because they were not assigned defence counsel.

    A Judicial Commission was sent to investigate and reported in 1949 that the confessions “admittedly” had been obtained by “the use of mock trials in which one or more persons attired as American officers pretended to preside as judges and others attired in American uniforms pretended to be the prosecutor and defender of the accused”. In consequence some of the death sentences were commuted. The chairman of this commission, Justice Gordon Simpson of Texas, told the Senate Subcommittee that the trial procedures followed were “not American” (they certainly were not British) and had been agreed “at the London Four-Power Conference that fixed the terms of the war crimes trials”, so that responsibility, once more, goes back to the politicians of London and Washington and the groups which exercised pressure on them. Justice Simpson also testified that the American Army “could not find enough qualified Americans” for these war crimes trials, in which the good name of the West was involved, “and therefore had to draw on some of the German refugees”.

    This aspect of the trials was further illuminated by an event of January 1953, when two men were arrested by the American military authorities in occupied Vienna on charges of conspiring with a secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Washington to transmit secret American military documents to the Soviet state. They were both Viennese-born Jews who had reached America in 1938 and 1940, at the ages of 16 and 26. In any previous war they would have been kept under observation as “enemy aliens”; under Mr. Roosevelt they had received American army commissions as “friendly aliens”. In 1945 they were made “members of the American prosecution team at the war crimes trials”. When they were arrested as Communist agents and spies a high official of the American Military Government in Vienna said, “This ties in with information showing that too many of the Americans employed at Nuremberg were either Communists or were


    being used by Communists”. He added that “the American prosecution staff at Nuremberg went off in hundreds of directions when the trials were over, many into the American State Department or the United Nations”.

    At this time the further disclosure was made that in 1949 Mr. John J. McCloy (an American High Commissioner particularly feared by the Germans during the war-crimes trials period) had been given legal briefs “showing that serious errors in translation from German and other languages into English were introduced into evidence; these errors, in some cases, were made by persons whose Communist ties have since been proved by loyalty checks”. This material has never been made public, but if it should ever be used in an impartial investigation of the trials grave embarrassment for the Western leaders would be caused. At the war’s end Communists were everywhere in control of the Nazi concentration camps (as will be shown later in this chapter); in the manner above described they became prosecutors and judges of the very crimes which they had committed!


    The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia.




    SUGAR KEYNES by Zygmund Dobbs
    Reprinted from The Review of the News, June 23, 1971

    John Maynard Keynes Lytton Strachey
    [1883-1946] [1880-1932]
    “By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some….The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” – John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920


    Singing the Red Flag, the highborn sons of the British upper-class lay on the carpeted floor spinning out socialist schemes in homosexual intermission. Sometimes, one of the participants would shout out an obscenity – then, as if on signal, the entire group would join in a frenzied babble of profanity. Here and there individuals would smoke or chew hashish. Most had unkempt long hair, and some sported beards.

    The attitude in such gatherings was anti-establishmentarian. To them the older generation was horribly out of date; even superfluous. The capitalist system was declared obsolete, and revolution was proclaimed as the only solution. Christianity was pronounced an enemy force, and the worst sort of depravities were eulogized as “that love which passes all Christian understanding.”

    The year was 1904, and the participants were destined to become the intellectual and political leaders of the British Empire.

    Chief of this ring of homosexual revolutionaries was John Maynard Keynes, who eventually became the economic architect of English socialism and gravedigger for the British Empire. The chief American Fabians, acting as carriers of the Keynesian sickness, were Felix Frankfurter and Walter Lippmann. Covertly, they mobilized their Leftist comrades to spread this pollution in America also. So successful were they that on January 4, 1971, President Nixon announced: “I am now a Keynesian in economics.” What does that mean?

    Keynes was characterized by his male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, as “A liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.” His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys. In communications to his homosexual friends, Keynes advised that they go to Tunis, “where bed and boy were also not expensive.” As a sodomistic pedophiliac, he ranged throughout the Mediterranean area in search of boys for himself and his fellow socialists. Taking full advantage of the bitter poverty and abysmal ignorance in North Africa, the Middle East, and Italy, he purchased the bodies of children prostituted for English shillings[See Lytton Strachey, A Critical Biography, Michael Holyroyd, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, two volumes].

    Such Leftist hypocrites then, as now, issued loud denunciations against poverty, imperialism, and capitalist immorality. However, for their own degenerate purposes, they eagerly sought out the worst pockets of destitution and backwardness to satisfy their perverted purposes through sexual enslavement of youngsters. While traveling in France and the United States they complained among themselves of the harassment by the police of practicing homosexuals. In degenerate areas of the Mediterranean, on the other hand, they found a pervert’s Utopia where the bodies of children could be purchased as part of a cultured socialist’s holiday.

    These Leftist degenerates began to scheme over sixty years ago to secure public acceptance of their depravity. Havelock Ellis, a founder of the Fabian Society, compiled a massive erotic work entitled, Studies In The Psychology Of Sex. Ellis was a sexual pervert and drug user. He and a group of fellow Leftists even pioneered in the experimental use of hallucinogens in private orgies. Ellis was definitely a pathological case. He drove his wife into Lesbianism and drug addiction, securing additional erotic excitement by urging her to recite her Lesbian experiences. Mrs. Ellis eventually went insane and died in utmost misery after denouncing her husband as a sexual monster.

    The Fabian socialists used the writings of Ellis as a wedge for sex education in the schools. They started in the colleges and gradually eased into the high school level. Ellis complained to his fellow socialists fifty-five years ago that he found wider acceptance for his books in the United States than he did in England. In fact, he was arrested and tried for obscenity in England, whereas his books were sold here without serious interference by the authorities. Today, his perversions are standard reference material for the sex educators, and Havelock Ellis is popularly called “the father of social psychology.”

    Keynes and his cohorts seized upon the works of Ellis as justification for their depravities. They were also greatly bolstered in their campaign by the theories of an Austrian Leftist named Sigmund Freud. Dr. Freud acknowledged in private correspondence that he copied the thesis of sex as the central determinant in human action from Havelock Ellis. Echoing Ellis, he laid down the premise that homosexuality and carnal depravities are not a matter of abnormality, but merely a case of personal preference. This, plus his declaration of atheism, overjoyed the socialist Keynesian crowd. John Maynard Keynes audaciously proclaimed, “Sex Questions are about to enter the political arena.” He inveighed against “the treatment of sexual offense and abnormalities,” adding the charge that “the existing state of the Law and of orthodoxy is still Mediaeval – altogether out of touch with civilized opinion and civilized practice and with what individuals, educated and uneducated alike, say to one another in private.”

    During the same period (1925) Keynes struck out against drug control. He laid down the line which has been pursued by Leftists to the present day in demanding that distribution of narcotics be unrestricted. Homosexuals find drugs a useful adjunct in loosening moral inhibitions to perversion. And this ravisher of little boys feigned sympathy for the masses by urging universal rights for users of narcotics. He declared: “how far is bored and suffering humanity to be allowed, from time to time, an escape, an excitement, a stimulus, a possibility of change?”

    Keynes and his conspirators projected homosexuality and drug addiction as an intrinsic part of their collectivist society of the future. His male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, wrote privately that they would corrupt the whole population, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all naturally, if need be without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He boasted that he intended “to seduce his readers to tolerance through laughter and sheer entertainment.” He pointed out that the object was “to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores – a change that couldn’t be done in a minute, but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” J. M. Keynes put it in the terms of Marxist economics:

    “When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many pseudo-moral principles which have hagridden us for two hundred years….”

    Keynes and Strachey used their malignant writings to help contaminate the entire English-speaking world. In the United States they both found expression in the New Republic, the New York Times, and the Saturday Review Of Literature.

    In 1939, a comrade of Keynes and Strachey named Bertrand Russell came to America to push their obscenitarian socialism and was (he says in his Autobiography) legally charged as “lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber.” His aborted object had been to permeate the College of the City of New York with the corruption of the British Fabians. Immediately, John Dewey and other American Fabians organized to cry that “Academic Freedom” was under attack. The National Education Association (NEA) and the whole Leftist educational complex began to percolate pervasive degeneracies as being “Liberal” and “progressive.”

    The works of Keynes, Lytton Strachey, and Bertrand Russell have been, and are today, required reading in almost every college and university in the United States and Canada.

    In the spring of 1905 Keynes and his lavender cohorts had been thrilled by a conference of Russian revolutionaries in London. British Fabians and Joseph Fels, an American soap manufacturer who was also a Fabian, had financed the Russian gathering and furnished them a hall in a Christian church. Key revolutionaries at this London conference included Nikolai Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. The future slaughter of fifty million civilians, and the conquest of one-third of the earth’s surface. rested within the shelter of this gathering. Shivers of excitement rippled down the spines of the socialist homosexuals when they heard that Lenin had openly defended the slaughter of bank guards and stealing of bank funds for the bolshevik coffers. During this time Strachey wrote to one of his intimates: “At this moment Keynes is lying on a rug beside me.”

    Keynes and his fellow debauchees became active pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War I. The socialist position against military service dovetailed perfectly with the homosexual aversion to any kind of physical danger and the manly requirements of military training. Yet, in spite of Keynes’ sheltering of “queer conchies,” and his own refusal to serve his country, he was made the head of an important division of the British Treasury. During March of 1917 he confided privately that he supported the bolshevik group among the Russian socialists after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas.

    The seizure of power by the bolsheviks in November of 1917 elated Keynes and the rest of the Fabian coterie. At Leftist parties in London, Keynes and his fellow perverts celebrated by dressing in women’s clothes and performing lewd dances. He had as his consort an eighteen-year-old-boy who was ensconced as his assistant in the Treasury Department.

    Just before the Bolshevik Revolution, Keynes had made a hurried trip to the United States for the British Government. Here he had a chance to make contact with the American Fabians who were similarly entrenched, via the Frankfurter-Lippmann group, in key positions of the Wilson Administration.

    Even the House of Morgan in New York City’s financial district trotted out its sissies to welcome Keynes to this country, and gave him an office just for himself. The international grapevine had established the nature of his proclivities. The urbane air of Keynes sent thrills of excitement through the ranks of the financial “giggle gang.”

    Keynes’ deviate socialist circle was almost completely pro-bolshevik. One month after the Revolution, J.M. Keynes wrote his mother”

    “Well, the only course open to me is to be buoyantly bolshevik; and as I lie in bed in the morning I reflect with a good deal of satisfaction that, because our rulers are as incompetent as they are mad and wicked, one particular era of a particular kind of civilization is very nearly over.”

    On February 22, 1918, Keynes proudly boasted of “being a bolshevik.” Yet the British Government blindly sent Keynes to the Versailles peace talks. There he joined forces with his Fabian American comrade, Walter Lippmann, who was among those representing the equally blind U.S. Government. The ensuing pro-bolshevik and anti-American machinations were largely responsible not only for laying the basis for continuing Red victories, but also for setting off the chain of events that eventually brought Hitler to power.

    In 1919 Keynes authored The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, which was promptly acclaimed from Moscow by Nikolai Lenin, himself. The Red dictator declared: “Nowhere has the Versailles treaty been described so well as in the book by Keynes.” A special edition of The Economic Consequences was printed under the label of the Fabian Society; and, Frankfurter and Lippmann brought the manuscript to the United States and arranged with Harcourt and Brace to publish it here. The volume became required reading among American socialists and Communists.

    However, Keynes’ value as a hidden Red was in danger. The Fabians had developed the posture of “respectability” to a fine art and the value of Keynes’ book as an “impartial work” was in jeopardy. With Keynes’ future usefulness in upper-class circles at stake, Lenin had personally come to the rescue. He pulled the classic Leftist double-twist, praising Keynes’ book as a model for Communist revolutionaries and at the same time covering for Keynes by labeling him as “anti-bolshevik.” Nikolai Lenin rose before the Second Congress of the Communist International and declared:

    “I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois….”

    Thus was launched the career of Fabian leader Keynes as a “non-Leftist” and “non-Communist.”

    In 1925, John Maynard Keynes was married. It was a bizarre performance. His best “man” was Duncan Grant, his male lover for many years, and initiates swear that Keynes held Duncan’s hand as the marriage vows were spoken. But, the background of the bride was equally odd. She was Lydia Lopokova, the premiere ballerina of the Diaghilev Ballet. She was an habitué of Leftist circles, and had at one time been engaged to Heywood Broun, the well known socialist and confidant of Leon Trotsky, but had broken the engagement to marry a dwarf named Barocchi. In 1917 Lydia had disappeared in Paris with the top Cossack general of the White Army, returning to the ballet when the general returned to lead his troops against the bolsheviks. The bolsheviki had by now, however, acquired advance information and used it to defeat the Cossacks.

    Following the wedding to Comrade Lydia, Mr. and Mrs. Keynes were the special guests of the Soviet Government. He and his Russian wife were allowed free access to the Soviet hinterland, even to the extent of visiting her relatives. This was a privilege unheard of at the time, since even members of the Communist International were not then allowed such unlimited travel. It was a time of mass killing of civilians, and ordinarily a Russian national traveling with an Englishman would have been arrested and shot. But, Soviet officials were effusive in their thanks to Keynes for designing the first Soviet currency for them while he was still a member of the British Treasury.

    The marriage was definitely an “arrangement,” as Keynes continued to enjoy his amours with men. This was often the case with upper-class homosexuals who needed a legal wife as a facade. They both had separate living quarters, and did not interfere with the personal lives of one another. Lydia was very useful as a go-between since Keynes was in frequent contact with Soviet officials both in Britain and the United States.

    Meanwhile, the perversion continued apace. It was quite a pace. As I have noted in the new edition of Keynes At Harvard:

    Keynes had relations with Strachey; Strachey had affairs with Duncan Grant; Keynes stole Grant from Strachey; Lytton’s brother James Strachey adored Rupert Brooks but so did Keynes; Strachey reports to G.E. Moore on seduction of new boys; Keynes steals Edgar Duckworth from Lytton; Keynes and Lytton agree that homosexuality is, “that love which passes all Christian understanding”; Strachey emulates Oscar Wilde with absinthe and drugs; He also declares that, “the whole truth is the Devil”; He predicts that in one hundred years, “everyone will be converted,” to homosexuality; Strachey and Keynes promote obscenitarian talk in colleges; Lytton lives with Dora Carrington, a Lesbian; Carrington solicits homosexual partners for Lytton; Keynes, Lytton and Carrington have orgies involving Lesbian and sodomistic interchanges; Keynes and Strachey dress in women’s clothes and dance; Keynes and Strachey give a sanctuary to homosexual objectors to military service thus frustrating the authorities; Keynes defends the use of drugs and Strachey smokes hashish; Carrington married several men so they could be Strachey’s boy-friends; Lytton stole Sebastian Sprott from Keynes (the tables were turned); Lytton excuses his drug taking as a liberation from, “this wrong world.” Finally, there are engrossments by Keynes and Strachey with sadistic beating of young boys, “compulsive pre-occupation with male reproductive and excretory organs” and voyages to the most depraved dens of perversion throughout Europe, North Africa and Asia.

    The Fabian homosexual circle was incredibly successful in gaining influence and control in a wide area of activity. They staked out the entire British Empire and the United States as well. Lytton Strachey wrote to Keynes:

    “Oh dear me!, when will my heaven be realized? – My Castle in Spain? Rooms, you know, for you, Duncan and Swithin, as fixtures – Woolf of course, too, if we can lure him from Ceylon; and several suites for guests. Can you conceive anything more supreme! I should write tragedies; you would revolutionize political economy, Swithin would compose French poetry, Duncan would paint our portraits in every conceivable combination and permutation, and Woolf would criticize us and our works without remorse.”

    This projection was incredibly prophetic. J. M. Keynes became the mastermind behind the economic structure of British and American socialism. Strachey was responsible for writing books that undermined the Christian ethic of the Nineteenth Century and set the tone for the pornographic and depraved literature of today. Leonard Woolf worked out the details of the socialist drive for World Government. He was not only the architect of the League of Nations but outlined the structure of the United Nations.

    Others of this perverted group of Keynesians have set the tone in art, music, education, and religion. Today [1971], alas, even the President of the United States says: “I am now a Keynesian in economics.” It is disgusting!

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