15/12 End of Nations: Canada, the US and the “Security Perimeter”


End of Nations: Canada, the US and the “Security Perimeter”

End of Nations: Canada, the US and the “Security Perimeter”
by grtv
American President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Harper have unveiled a new border security agreement that has received scant attention in the American media. However, far from being a new arrangement, what this accord represents is only the latest in a chain of usurpations of national sovereignty.

Find out more about the path toward the North American Union on this week’s GRTV Backgrounder.

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3502

When Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and US President Barack Obama announced the much-anticipated border agreement between the two countries at a press conference in Washington last week, those mainstream media outlets that bothered to cover the story at all compensated for the lack of details about what specifically is going to be accomplished by this accord by focusing on issues of no practical significance.

The Globe and Mail, for example, ran an entire article about how Harper and Obama’s personal “friendship” allegedly effected the deal, which was in reality and admittedly struck by bureaucrats in months of closed-door negotiations.

A variety of trade magazines and corporate websites released vague laudatory statements about the “streamlining” of the border.

But the story itself, which generated few headlines at all in the American media, was not about what specifically will change at the border so much as the border is increasingly being redefined as just one part of a broader security perimeter that in fact encompasses both the US and Canada.

The agreement in fact comprises two so-called “action plans,” one entitled Beyond The Border and the other the Regulatory Cooperation Council. The former plan focuses on border security with the explicit aim of creating a security perimeter that encompasses both countries. The latter is meant to harmonize regulations for business, facilitating cross-border trade.

The security agreement uses the threat of terrorism, crime and health securities to announce an increasing merger of the two countries’ border security, including an integrated entry-exit system that will involve full sharing of individuals’ biometric details between the two governments by 2014 and even the creation of integrated cross-border law enforcement teams with authority to collect intelligence and conduct criminal investigations on either side of the border.

The regulatory plan, meanwhile, aims to standardize agricultural regulations on such items as maximum pesticide residue limits as well as develop standards and regulations for potential future products and industries like nanotechnology.

Although the plans detail certain steps that can be or are being taken, the majority of the information is about agreed-upon shared values and the possibility of cooperation.

In light of the relative paucity of detail about these “action plans,” media outlets chose to illustrate the general points of the agreement with seemingly random examples, such as this one about breakfast cereals.

Keen-eyed observers of this trivial example of the effects might have noted a striking similarity to the way that Prime Minister Harper tried to deflect criticism of the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement that sought to merge the governments, security forces and regulatory framework of the US, Mexico and Canada, back in 2007 by talking about jellybean regulations.

On one level, reducing these agreements to regulations on cereals and jelly beans marginalizes the legitimate criticism and fears about the erosion of national sovereignty implicit in these talks. It also serves to keep the public disinterested in the issues by painting them as dry and unimportant talks about bureaucratic affairs.

What this similarity in rhetoric unwittingly reveals, however, is how this latest agreement is in fact nothing new, and can only be properly understood as the latest point in a continuing process of merging the bureaucratic, regulatory and military functions of Canada and the US that has in fact been taking place for a decade.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the two countries began work on reshaping the nature of the world’s longest undefended border. This resulted in the Canada-US Smart Border Declaration, an agreement signed in December 2001 that contained much of the same rhetoric as the recent agreement, including vows to coordinate security and law enforcement efforts in the name of facilitating the flow of people and goods between Canada and the States.

This led into the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a trilateral framework between the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico that began a process of regulatory integration. Formally launched in 2005, the SPP quickly caught the attention of the public on both sides of the border, and as freedom of information requests shed more light on the process, including the almost total domination of the partnership in closed-door meetings by big business, the SPP’s annual summit quickly became a flashpoint for political activism.

In the light of public scrutiny, the SPP was shelved in 2009, but many of its initiatives and recommendations continue on behind the scenes. SPP documents, for example, show how Canada’s controversial no-fly list was in fact part of a trilateral agreement, with the 2006 report to leaders in fact mandating the program’s June 2007 launch date.

Meanwhile, the military merger of Canada and the US has proceeded in its own series of mutual agreements, beginning with the creation of NORTHCOM, the United States Northern Command, in 2002, which charged the US military with the protection of the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Mexico and Canada.

In February of 2008, the Canadian and American militaries signed an agreement allowing troops of either country to cross the border and carry out operations in the other country in the event of an emergency, such as civil unrest.

In 2010, the two countries signed the shiprider agreement, allowing the operation of specially designated vessels to patrol the shared waterways of the two countries by joint crew, consisting of both Canadian and American law enforcement. This agreement is cited in the new border proposal as an example of how cross-border policing can be implemented.

Now, with increasing “cooperation” between cross-border law enforcement, Canadians will be expected to allow American officials to pursue their investigations of suspected criminals on Canadian soil. And the process of harmonization means that Canada may even be expected to allow the use of drone surveillance, an idea presently being used by the US to patrol the Canadian border and even to pursue criminal investigations of American citizens far away from the border.

Although there are many individual aspects of this latest accord that are worrying, from the militarization of the border to the harmonization of regulatory frameworks to allow for the lowest common denominator in food standards and other areas, to the increasing sharing of information about citizens between the two countries, perhaps the most worrying aspect is the project itself. As many have warned, these seemingly bland border proposals, a story so dull that it has barely been covered at all by the American press, may in fact be used to slip in a North American Union through the gradual merging of the two countries’ bureaucratic systems.

The most insidious part of this process is that it is not subject to legislative oversight of any kind, and is taking place in behind-the-scenes discussions between high-level bureaucrats outside of the glare of public scrutiny, a point that is readily conceded by the proposals’ proponents.

Last week I had the chance to talk to Paul Hellyer, the former deputy Prime Minister of Canada, about this agreement, and whether the border security threat that the US is using to justify the process is in fact a ploy to obscure an underlying agenda, the drive to merge Canada and US in a de facto union.

Regardless of whether this particular agreement bears fruit for those seeking to bring the two countries into a closer union, or whether it is just another waypoint on the road of a much longer and more detailed process, the very real concerns about the erosion of national sovereignty implicit in this deal is one that those in power are eager to see avoided. So far, they are being aided in that quest by a media that chooses to avoid the hard questions about this series of agreements to the extent that they cover them at all.

As always, the power belongs in the hands of the people. Without significant pushback from the public, however, the momentum of these border agreements might be enough to make the North American Union an inevitability. Alternatively, the public can fight back by making this into a key political issue and informing others of the potential threat to the survival of both the US and Canada as sovereign nations.




In 1956, too, the revolution (which I hold to have been demonstrably Talmudic in our time) was also about fifty years old (from the revolutionary outbreaks following Japan’s defeat of Russia in 1905) as a permanent factor in our daily lives (its roots, of course, go back through 1848 to the revolution in France and to Weishaupt, and to the one in England and Cromwell).

Finally, 1956 was the year of one more presidential election in America, and this, more openly than any previous one, was held under the paralyzing pressure of Zionism.


Mr. Hopkins had studied at the feet of a Fabian Socialist from London (who held that nation-states should disappear in a “United States of the World”) and from a Jewish teacher of Bohemian and Russian origins who had been a pupil of Tolstoy, the Bolshevists’ hero. The transmission of “ideas”, again. Presumably these were the qualifications which cause Mr. Sherwood to call him “the inevitable Roosevelt favourite”. Earlier he had been known as a “fixer” and fund-raiser and “little brother of the rich”. The University of Oxford conferred on him one of the most ill-fitting doctorates in its history and Mr. Churchill’s fulsome references to him, in the war memoirs, are strange to read.


“the invasion of America”, The strength and wealth of America were decisive in the Second War and they were used to bring about a denouement which made a third war a permanent peril.

Thus the story of America’s embroilment in the Second War demonstrated the power of the “foreign group” which had come to dictate in Washington, and gave living reality to the farewell address of George Washington himself: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to be1ieve me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government”. W Washington spoke in 1796, when the Reign of Terror had shown the true nature of the revolution in France and when the presence of the conspiracy’s agents in America was first realized.

The published records of the Second War show that the conspiracy had obtained power to dictate major acts of American state policy,



In fact though not in form. The secret police in countries where the institution is native (Hitler’s Gestapo was copied from the Asiatic model, which had a century-old tradition in Russia and Turkey) have the entire power and resources of the state behind them; indeed, they are the state. In America Zionism built the nucleus of a secret police nearly as effective in many ways as those prototypes. It could only become equally effective if it gained full control of the state’s resources, including the power of arrest and imprisonment, and in my judgment that was the ultimate goal.


The web of which the A.D.L. formed the centre stretched to other English-speaking countries, so that no independent writer anywhere could escape it. I give instances from my own experiences in that larger setting:

In March 1952 Truth (which was then unsubjugated), reported that the Canadian Jewish Congress had requested a Canadian bookseller to remove from his shelves a book of mine. When I visited Canada that year I made enquiry and found that this pressure was general on Canadian booksellers, many of whom had yielded to it. At that time also a Zionist journal in South Africa stated, “Until such time as racial groups receive protection in law, no bookshop is entitled to say that it will sell books . . . like some of Reed’s books”; I


By the end of the Second War this secret invasion, in all its forms, had impaired the inner structure of the American Republic to such an extent that some change in its outer form, as known to the world for 150 years, was likely during the confusion-period of any third war. The instinctive struggle of the original population to maintain itself and its traditions against a usurpation, the nature of which it was not allowed to comprehend, was failing. This resistance would gain strength, and mend some of the breaches, as the Second War receded, but grave weaknesses remained which were bound to show themselves under the strain of the new war, with the thought of which the American mass-mind was daily made familiar by the politicians and the controlled press.

From 1943 onward the weakness of the American Republic lay more in its own impaired foundations than in any foreign air forces or fleets.


Thus the story of America’s embroilment in the Second War demonstrated the power of the “foreign group” which had come to dictate in Washington, and gave living reality to the farewell address of George Washington himself: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to be1ieve me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government”. W Washington spoke in 1796, when the Reign of Terror had shown the true nature of the revolution in France and when the presence of the conspiracy’s agents in America was first realized.

The published records of the Second War show that the conspiracy had obtained power to dictate major acts of American state policy,

Republican leader, Senator Robert E. Taft, protested when he saw what was going on: “How can anyone swallow the idea that Russia is battling for democratic principles. . . To spread the four freedoms throughout the world we will ship aeroplanes and tanks to Communist Russia. But no country was more responsible for the present war and Germany’s aggression”. A violent campaign was immediately begun in the press which continued until Senator Taft’s death. Today’s map and state of affairs vindicate his warning, and those who today read Mr. Hopkins’s fiat, quoted above, may see that the outcome of the war was determined by these secret actions of 1942 and earlier.

Of “aeroplanes and tanks” 15,000 and 7,000, respectively, were donated. A navy of 581 vessels was also given (over many years 127 of these were returned and in 1956 the Soviet offered to pay for 31; the remaining ships, over 300, were


dec1ared to have been lost, sunk or dec1ared unseaworthy). A merchant fleet was also presented.

This was only the smaller part of the total transfer of wealth in many forms. The American Government has never published the details of its de1iveries. The fact that these are known, and that the greater part of them consisted of supplies obviously designed to strengthen the industrial and war-making capacity of the revolutionary state after the war’s end, is due to one of the accidents which assist the historian, although, in the condition of the press today, they never reach the general public mind and therefore produce no remedial result.

In May 1942 a Captain George Racey Jordan reported for duty at the great Newark Airport in New Jersey. He was a First War soldier rejoined and had never forgotten the advice of a sergeant given to him in Texas in 1917: “Keep your eyes and ears open, keep your big mouth shut, and keep a copy of everything”. To the last five words posterity owes the most astonishing book (in my opinion) of the Second World War.

Captain Jordan was instructed to report to “United Nations Depot No. 8”, as he found Newark Airport to be described on his orders. The body known as the “United Nations” was set up three years later, and this was an anticipation, revealing the intention of the men around the president. Captain Jordan, when he reported for duty as Liaison Officer, had no suspicion of the power of the Soviet in America and was soon enlightened in three ways. In May 1942, after an American Airlines passenger aircraft on the apron brushed the engine housing of a Lend-Lease medium bomber waiting to be flown to the Soviet Government, a Soviet officer angrily demanded the banishment of American Airlines from this great American airport. When this was refused the Soviet officer said he would “call Mr. Hopkins”, and in a few days an order from the United States Civil Aeronautic Board banished all American civil airlines from the field.

Captain Jordan then began to keep a very full diary, and by means of it was later able to show (when he and the rest of the world learned about “atomic bombs”) that during 1942 about fifteen million dollars’ worth of graphite, aluminium tubes, cadmium metal and thorium (all materials necessary for the creation of an atomic pile) were sent to the Soviet Government from Newark. At this time the “Manhattan Project” (the production of the first atom bomb) was supposed to be of such intense secrecy that its chief, Major General Leslie R. Groves, later testified that his office would have refused, without his personal approval, to supply any document even to President Roosevelt. In 1942, when he made these entries in his diary, Captain Jordan had no idea of the use to which these materials might be put, for he had never heard of the “Manhattan Project” or of “the atom bomb”.

What he knew, and told President Roosevelt, was all unknown to the embroiled masses. That complete control of the press, of which the Protocols arrogantly boast, prevented the truth from reaching them, and they were being swept along from day to day on a high tide of inflamed enthusiasm for the great “victory” which they were about to gain. Mr. Churchill’s ”power” was quite impotent to alter that. A few months earlier (August 23, 1944) he had asked his Minister of Information, “Is there any stop on the publicity for the facts about the agony of Warsaw, which seem, from the papers, to have been practically suppressed?” (Triumph and Tragedy). The enquiry sounds genuine, and in that case Mr. Churchill was ignorant of what any independent journalist could have told him, that such facts were “practically suppressed”. He does not record what answer he received, if any.

The “agony” to which Mr. Churchill refers is the heroic rising of General


Bors’s underground army of Poles against the Germans as the Red armies approached Warsaw. The Soviet advance was immediately halted by order from Moscow, and Stalin refused to allow British and American aircraft to use Soviet airfields for the purpose of succouring the Poles. Mr. Churchill says “I could hardly believe my eyes when I read his cruel reply” and records that he urged President Roosevelt to order American aircraft to use the fields, as “Stalin would never have dared fire on them”. Mr. Roosevelt refused and the Poles were abandoned to Hitler’s SS. troops, who razed Warsaw, killed 200,000 of its inhabitants, and deported the surviving 350,000. On October 1, after resisting for eight weeks, Radio Warsaw made this last broadcast, “This is the bitter truth; we have been worse treated than Hitler’s satellites; worse than Italy, worse than Rumania, worse than Finland. . . God is righteous and in his omnipotence he will punish all those responsible for this terrible injury to the Polish nation” (words which recall the Czech broadcast “bequeathing our sorrows to the West” after the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1939).

The power which the revolution had gained in the infested West was enough to prevent the publication of facts like these during the Second War, and Mr. Churchill’s enquiry of his Minister of Information vanished into air. The “agony of Warsaw” came just three years after Mr. Roosevelt signed the “declaration of principles” stating that he wished “to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them”.

Such was the background to the Yalta Conference where, at his first meeting with Stalin, President Roosevelt, a man on the grave’s edge, told the Soviet dictator that he “was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army”. The word “again” alludes to the Teheran Conference of December 1943, where Stalin had proposed such a toast and Mr. Churchill had angrily protested and left the room. Thereon President Roosevelt had suggested that only 49,500 be shot, and his son, Elliott, in convivial mood, had expressed the hope that “hundreds of thousands” would be mown down in battle; “Uncle Joe”, beaming with pleasure, then had risen from his seat to embrace Mr. Elliott Roosevelt.

Mr. Roosevelt wished by this prompting of Stalin to annoy Mr. Churchill (whom by 1945 he apparently regarded as an adversary); he had told his son Elliott at Teheran, “Trouble is, the P.M. is thinking too much of the postwar, and where England will be; he’s scared of letting the Russians get too strong”), and made this plain to Stalin by saying he would “now tell him something indiscreet, since he would not wish to say it in front of Prime Minister Churchill”. Among the things which were not told in front of Mr. Churchill was this: “The President said he felt that the armies were getting close enough to have contact between, and he hoped General Eisenhower could communicate directly with the Soviet staff rather than through the Chiefs of Staff in London and Washington as in the past”



Thus the deed was done, and instead of freedom of speech and worship, freedom from want and fear, the peoples of Eastern Europe were abandoned to the secret police and concentration regime which Hitler had first introduced there on the night of the Reichstag fire. It would seem that nothing worse than this could be done, and yet one even worse thing was done. Under the “Protocol on German Reparations” the basic device of Soviet terrorism, slave labour, was approved and extended to the conquered peoples, for this document authorized “the three governments” to obtain reparation from Germany in the form of “the use of German labour”.

Under some subsidiary agreement the Western Allies agreed to regard all Russian prisoners as “deserters”, to be driven back to the Soviet state. All these matters read soberly on paper; the picture of their results for human beings appears in such words as those of the Rev. James B. Chuter, a British Army chaplain and one of 4,000 prisoners from a disintegrated German prisoner-of-war camp who made their way towards the advancing Allies in 1945: “Along the eastern bank of the river Mulde was encamped a great multitude. . . This was the end of the journey for the tens of thousands of refugees who had passed us. The Mulde was the agreed line at which the Americans halted and to which the Russians would advance. The Americans would let none save German military


personnel and Allied prisoners of war cross the river. From time to time some desperate soul would fling himself into the flood in a vain attempt to escape from the unknown fury of the Russian arrival. It was to avoid such incidents and to discourage them that the occasional splutter of American machine guns on the Western banks was heard . . . sounding, in that most frightening manner, a plain warning to all who thought to cross the river line”.

Such was the outcome of the Second World War, and the agreement which sanctified it all, (in which Stalin’s signature was added to those of the two signatories of the Atlantic Charter of 1941) said, “By this dec1aration we reaffirm our faith in the principles of the Atlantic Charter”.

Then President Roosevelt, in the manner of a man who is a member of an exc1usive c1ub and is sure his host must also belong, “said he was a Zionist and asked if Marshal Stalin was one”.

This exchange produces on the reader the effect of two men getting down to the real business at last. Stalin replied that “he was one in principle but he recognized the difficulty”. In this passage, again, the Georgian bank-robber sounds more like a statesman and speaks more prudently than any Western leader of the last forty years, none of whom have admitted any “difficulty” (Mr. Churchill was wont to denounce any talk of “difficulty” as anti-Jewish and anti-semitic). This was not the whole conversation on the subject, although it is all that the official record disc1oses. On the same, last day of the full conference Stalin asked Mr. Roosevelt if he meant to make any concessions to King Ibn Saoud, and the President replied “that there was only one concession he thought he might offer “and that was to give him” (Ibn Saoud) “the six million Jews in the United States”. (This last quotation is authentic but was expunged from the official record).

All the statements cited above, with the one exception, are taken from the official publication, “The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945”, issued by the American State Department on March 16, 1955. The newspapers next morning broke out in headlines, of which one in the Montreal Star is typical: “World Capitals Dismayed, Shocked over Disc1osures of Yalta Secrets”. This was nonsense; by 1955 the masses were apathetic about such things, having been brought by control of the press to the condition of impotent confusion foretold in the Protocols of 1905.

Historically regarded, the reve1ations of these Yalta documents are incriminating enough, but they are not complete. Much was expunged (I have given one example) and presumably it was the worst. In May 1953, under pressure from the United States Senate, the American State Department



This history of the Yalta papers shows that, ten years after the Second World War, power was still in the hands of the essentially “foreign group” which during the war had been able to divert supplies, military operations and State policy to the purpose of “extending” the revolution. They were still able to override the public undertakings of presidents and to frustrate the will of Congress; they still held the reins. This meant that the infestation of the American government and its departments by agents of the revolution, which began with Mr. Roosevelt’s first presidency in 1933, had not been remedied in 1955, despite many exposures; and that, as this was the case, American energies in any third war could in the same way be diverted to promote the overriding plan for a communized world-society (Lenin’s third stage in the process). Once more the embroiled masses would fight to bring about results, the direct opposites of the causes held out to them at any new “Pearl Harbour”.

This undermining of the West was not confined to the United States; it was general throughout the Western world and this chapter dwells on the American case only because, in the conditions of today, the strength and wealth of America are so great that their use or misuse probably will decide the issue. A similar condition was shown to exist in the country, Britain, from which the great overseas nations originally sprang, and in the two greatest of these, Canada and Australia.

The first exposure came in Canada, immediately after the war’s end, and this is the only one of the four Cases in which full governmental investigation and full public disclosure of the results followed; also, it lit the fuse which in time led to all the other exposures, in America, Australia and Britain. A Russian, at the risk of his life, disclosed to the Canadian Government the network of governmentalinfestation and espionage of which the Soviet Embassy at Ottawa was the centre (despite the leading part taken by Russians in this process of warning Western


politicians and the press continued to incite their peoples against “Russians”, not against the revolutionary conspiracy of which Russia was the captive). The full public investigation, which would otherwise be surprising, seems to be accounted for by the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King, although a wily politician, was in all else a simple man, more interested in communing with the spirit world than anything else. When he was convinced by documents of the truth of Igor Gouzenko’s statements he saw that they revealed “as serious a situation as ever existed in Canada at any time” and flew at once to inform the American president (Mr. Roosevelt’s successor) and the British Prime Minister (then Mr. Clement Attlee) that this situation was shown by them to be “even more serious in the United States and England”.

At that time Mr. Whittaker Chambers’s documentary proof that Mr. Alger Hiss was the centre of a Soviet network in the American State Department had been available to, but ignored by, two American presidents for six years, and three years later Mr. Truman was public1y to deride all such stories as “a Red herring”. The exposure of Mr. Hiss and his associates followed in a trial which was entirely the result of efforts by individual patriots (including Mr. Richard Nixon, a later Vice-President) to wring the truth from a reluctant government and to compel exposure. In the sequence to the Hiss affair a mass of disc1osures followed, which showed American government departments to have been riddled with Soviet agents at all levels. The literature of this period and subject is now too great even to summarize here, but it is conc1usive, and much of it is official, though reluctant.

In England, for six years after the Canadian Prime Minister’s warning, nothing was done to remedy a condition revealed by the highest authority. Then in 1951 two Foreign Office officials, one of them a senior and rising young man, and both of them notorious characters who had evidently been protected and advanced in their official careers by some powerful hand, suddenly disappeared. It was known that they had fled to Moscow, fearing exposure on the Hiss model. For four more years British governments (Socialist and Conservative) refused all public investigation or any information beyond the bland statement that “all possible inquiries are being made”. Then in 1955 the British Foreign Office suddenly announced that the two men had been under suspicion of conveying secret information to the Soviet Government from 1949 (they disappeared in 1951). This belated announcement was not spontaneous; it was extorted from the British government only by the fact that one more Russian, Vladimir Petrov of the Soviet Embassy at Canberra, had fled his captivity and had revealed that these two men, Burgess and Mac1ean, had been recruited as spies for the Soviet during their student days at Cambridge University twenty years earlier (1930-1935; this is the method, of capturing men in their unwary youth, on which the Weishaupt documents and the Protocols alike lay emphasis; the career of Alger Hiss affords an exact parallel in America). Immediately after this tardy Foreign


Office admission Burgess and Maclean were proudly paraded before international newspapermen in Moscow as officials of the Soviet Foreign Ministry (and immediately after that the Soviet leaders of the moment, Kruschev and Bulganin, were invited to pay a ceremonial visit to London).

The Petrov disclosures brought about an investigation in Australia, the fourth great country infested, by a Royal Commission of three judges. Of the entire series, only this investigation can be compared with the Canadian one of nine years earlier. It was fairly thorough and the “public report (September 14, 1955) stated that the Soviet Embassy in Canberra from 1943 on “controlled and operated an espionage organization in Australia” and gave warning that Soviet intelligence agents were still operating in Australia through undercover agents entering the country as immigrants. The Australian Foreign Minister, Mr. R. Casey, at that time stated that there was “a nest of traitors” among Australian civil servants. His words confirmed what Mr. Mackenzie King had said ten years before, and in that decade nothing truly effective had been done in any of the four great countries affected, or infected, to remedy the mortally dangerous condition exposed.

A chief reason for this was that all the governmental, parliamentary and judicial investigations of the decade (with one exception) misinformed public opinion more than they informed it, by concentrating on the issue of “espionage”, which in fact is a minor one. The fact that great countries try to obtain knowledge, through spies and agents, of military and other matters which other great countries try to keep secret is generally known so that the masses probably were not much moved even by the extent of espionage which was revealed; this, they told each other, was something for counter-intelligence to handle.

Thus the investigations diverted public attention from the truly grave condition which was exposed. This was not the mere theft of documents, but the control of state policy at the highest level which was gained by the infestation of the Western countries. It was this that enabled arms, supplies, wealth, military operations and the conduct of Western politicians at top-level conferences all to be guided into a channel where they would produce the maximum gain, in territory and armed strength, for the revolutionary state.

Exposure of this condition came only in the Hiss trial and its numerous attendant investigations and disclosures. These showed that the revolution had its agents at the top-levels of political power, where they could direct State policy and the entire energies of nations; the two men both purveyed secret papers, but this was a small function auxiliary to their major accomplishment, which was to produce the map of and the situation in Europe with which the world is confronted today.

The genesis of the “Morgenthau Plan” for the dismemberment of Germany into petty provinces, the destruction of its industry and flooding of its mines and its reduction to the status of “a goat pasture” was described by another Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Fred Smith, in 1947. He said it was first discussed at a meeting (at which he was present) between General Eisenhower, Mr. Morgenthau and Mr. White in the general’s mess tent in the south of England on August 7, 1944. Mr. White (says Mr. Smith) raised the subject of Germany; General Eisenhower said he would like to “see things made good and hard for them for a while. . . the whole German population is a synthetic paranoid”; and Mr. White remarked, “We may want to quote you on the problem of handling the German people”, whereon General Eisenhower said he could do this. Mr. Morgenthau, on this basis, devised the “plan” and went to London to canvass it with Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, then returning by air to America to put it before President Roosevelt.

Up to that point, says Mr. Smith, the State Department had not been informed of Mr. Morgenthau’s activities in the matter. Mr. Roosevelt apparently had misgivings and formed a committee to develop the plan, in which committee the Secretaries of State and War at last joined Mr. Morgenthau of the Treasury. The disclosure of the Morgenthau Plan before this committee “resulted in as violent an explosion as has ever occurred in the hallowed chambers of the White House”; Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson both violently attacked it. Nevertheless, when President Roosevelt then went to Quebec to meet Mr. Churchill Mr. Morgenthau “happened” to be with him, and Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson were left behind. Mr. Churchill records his surprise at that, but both he and Mr. Roosevelt then signed “the Morgenthau Plan”, which possibly might more accurately be called the White-Morgenthau plan.

Thus President Roosevelt (against the strong protest s of his responsible Cabinet officers, the Secretaries of State and of War) and Mr. Churchill (in contradiction of many dec1arations) approved a peace of vengeance. Both men later spoke as if they had not understood what they did. Mr. Churchill said he


“regretted” his signature, but never explained how he came to give it (Mr. James F. Byrnes mildly comments that this is “difficult to understand”). Mr. Roosevelt spoke as if he had inadvertently initialled an inter-office memorandum without looking at it. He said he had yielded to the importunities of “an old and valued friend” (Mr. Sherwood), and this indicates Mr. Morgenthau; he also said that he was “frankly staggered” and “had no idea how he could have initialled this; he had evidently done it without much thought” (Mr. Stimson).

The public masses were left to infer that error had been realized in time and that “the Morgenthau Plan” was abandoned; the factories were not blown up and the mines were not flooded. This was soothing-syrup, not truth. The spirit of the peace of vengeance, proposed in the White-Morgenthau plan, did prevail. Mr. Morgenthau did not succeed with his proposal (the one jocularly made by Mr. Roosevelt to Stalin at Yalta) that “archcriminals” should be put to death by the military without provision for any trial, but the trials which were held remain a blot on Western justice. The bisection of Germany (which in fact was the bisection of Europe, friend or foe) was more perilous to the future than any dismemberment of Germany into provinces. Above all, the West, by approving slave labour, put the civilizing process of nineteen centuries into reverse. (Significantly, eleven years after the war’s end the United States Government withheld its adherence to an international convention, proposed by the International Labour Organization, outlawing forced labour; it was obvious1y debarred from adhering by its signature to the Yalta agreements).

1. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and their confederates in the Communist underground in Government, had power to exercise profound influence on American policy and the policies of international organizations during World War II and the years immediately thereafter; (this is the vital, and supremely dangerous “confusion-period” to which I earlier alluded; the later years of a war and the early years of its aftermath);

“2. They had power to exercise profound influence on the creation and operation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies;

“3. This power was not limited to their officially designated authority. It was inherent in their access to and influence over higher officials, and the opportunities they had to present or withhold information on which the policies of their superiors might be based;

“4. Hiss, White and a considerable number of their colleagues who helped make American foreign policy and the policies of international organizations during crucial years, have been exposed as secret Communist agents”.

This might appear to record the good ending to a bad story, for at earlier times the discovery and publication of such a state of affairs by a parliamentary authority would have meant, first, impeachment proceedings and the like, and second, remedial action. In fact, as I can testify (for I was in America during many of these years) the remedial effect was very small, if any. The chief reason for this was, that the entire process of investigation and disc1osure was accompanied by a most violent press campaign against the investigators and disclosers, not against the culprits and the conspiracy.


Here the history of the period after the French revolution. . . and of the ordeal-by-smearing suffered by Messrs. Morse, Barruel and Robison, repeated itself. If any future historian should examine the yellowing newspaper pages of these years he will find ten thousand abusive words directed against those who called for investigation and remedy for every one aimed at an exposed or convicted member of the conspiracy; he will find columns of praise for Mr. Hiss, for example, alongside columns of vituperation directed against the penitent agent, Mr. Whittaker Chambers, whose self-defence brought about Mr. Hiss’s conviction. In time this storm centred around the head of one Senator Joseph McCarthy (as in the earlier decade it raged over that of Mr. Martin Dies, until he was driven out of political life), and a new epithet was coined for the delusion of the masses: “McCarthyism” (the demand for investigation and remedy) was by endless iteration made to sound to them more repugnant than “sedition”.

Because of this the most significant moment in American history after the Second War was one in 1954, when the Senate censured Senator McCarthy. In 1952, for the first time in twenty years, the candidate nominated by the Republican party, was elected, General Eisenhower. The return to office, after two decades, elated the Republicans and General Eisenhower’s victory was very largely due to his undertaking to stamp out the Communist infiltration of government, which had been revealed to have occurred during the long Roosevelt administration and had been inherited by his successor. In 1954 the new President allowed it to be known that he looked with disfavour on Senator McCarthy’s “methods” and thus implicitly gave his nod to the censure motion (the American Jewish Committee also imperiously demanded that the Senate approve it), which then carried. Senator McCarthy, like many before him, then began to fade from the political scene and the principle that “investigation” was pernicious was re-established.

Thus the American voter found that the apparent choice between candidates, at a presidential election, gave him no true choice at all in the matter of combating sedition. With this censure motion, approved by the President of the day, all the investigations and exposures ended in sand. From that moment the agents of the conspiracy were implicitly left free to resume the burrowing process which resulted in the state of affairs represented, during the Second War, chiefly by Messrs. Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. It is this which makes the policy of America an incalculable and dangerous explosive force in any future war.

In the matter of sedition the “premier-dictators” of our time perform a function allotted to them by the Protocols of 1905, that major document of a conspiracy of which such men as Harry Dexter White were demonstrably part. Protocol No. 19 says that when the super-government has been established sedition will be placed in the category of “thieving, murder and every kind of abominable and filthy crime” and adds that “we have done our best to obtain that the nation-states should not arrive at this means of contending with sedition. It


was for this reason that through the Press and in speeches and indirectly . . . we have advertised the martyrdom alleged to have been accepted by sedition-mongers for the idea of the commonweal”.

Mr. Hiss was presented as a martyr, over a long period, in the press of the world, of no matter what party; Senator McCarthy, who “arrived at this means of contending with sedition”, was presented as a brute. This control of the press, established in the last two decades, enables the conspiracy to stand between the nation-states and their wish to root out sedition. The Protocols of 1905 foretold: “We shall have a sure triumph over our opponent since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views”.


In America, which today is the key to the future of the West, the matter is further complicated by the existence of a body which is able to make drastic interventions in this field. The Supreme Court of the United States, by sitting in judgment on constitutional issues between the Federal Government and the forty-eight separate State Governments, frequently decides matters which in other parliamentary countries would be ones for the legislature, not the judiciary. Moreover, the members of this court are political (which is to say, party) appointees, not necessarily professional jurists or men of any judicial training. The danger of political control of such a body is obvious, and it was made plain by a majority judgment handed down on April 2, 1956, when the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a Communist under the Pennsylvania State law against sedition. In this judgment the Supreme Court stated the “the field of sedition” was that of Congress alone and that “no room has been left” for State legislation or action against sedition. Forty-two of the forty-eight States at that time had sedition laws and this judgment, if it is not overridden by special act of Congress, will at a blow reduce the obstacles to sedition in America by the separate powers of those forty-two States, leaving, as the sole defence, the national administration, which had been repeatedly shown by the events of the preceding ten years to have been infested with seditionists. This judgment, too, may be compared with the passage previously quoted from the Protocols.

Lastly, the Second War led to the revival of the League of Nations, which had sprung from the “League to Enforce Peace”. This body was obviously never an alliance of nations, but an instrument for the control of nations, to be wielded by whomever gained command of it. The conclusions of the Senate Committee quoted above testify to the part which Messrs. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and their associates played in organizing and fashioning it. Clearly, in their minds it was intended to “extend the revolution” universally, following Lenin’s dictum, and to become the “Super-Government” foreseen by the Protocols. The shadow of the universal concentration-camp regime looms already in its “Genocide Convention”, where the causing of “mental harm” is defined as a crime against unspecified “groups”.


What it will become depends on the future success or failure of the nation-states in “contending with sedition”. In the Second War, as in the first, all the “top-line leaders” and “premier-dictators” appear from the start to have been secretly agreed in the resolve to set up a “world-organization” and to subordinate their nation-states to it. This was their own project, not that of their peoples, who were never consulted. No nation has ever evinced a desire to sink its identity in some world-state, ruled by who knows whom. On the contrary, the continuing love of nationhood, despite all ordeals and defeats, is the clearest human feeling evinced by the 20th Century, and this c1early will increase until “the deception of nations” ends and the idea of obliterating nations collapses.

Nevertheless, the wartime leaders, free from all public supervision in their meetings, their cabled exchanges and their telephone talks, all through the war pressed on with the project for a new world order, which at the war’s end was to be found in the secretarial hands of Messrs. Hiss and White. Mr. Baruch’s biographer records that Mr. Roosevelt was busy with the idea long before he became president, and selected the name, “United Nations”. Mr. Baruch. himself, the permanent adviser of presidents, was of cosmic ambition; the same biographer quotes him as saying on many occasions, “Of course we can fix the world”.

The absence of humility is the most striking thing about all these mortals. Mr. Churchill is as disappointing to the student, in this matter, as he is reassuring in that of the sorry end of the war in Europe, which he unquestionably tried to avert. In the matter of re-moulding the world he was as incorrigible as all the others, and the brave phrases he sometimes used (“I have not become His Majesty’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire”) are not easy to reconcile with his enthusiasm for a concept based on the eventual “liquidation” of all nation-states.

Thus, at a time when a disastrous end to the war then in progress was being prepared, these wartime leaders were busy with world-government notions. They could not or would not conduct the war to true victory, but they were ready to reorganize the world! “The questions of World Organization” (says Mr. Churchill in October 1944) “were now thrusting themselves upon all our minds”. From faraway South Africa, once more, General Smuts raised his voice, saying that Soviet Russia must be inc1uded, and from Washington President Roosevelt agreed that the revolutionary state which had helped Hitler start the war must be “a fully accepted and equal member of any association of the Great Powers formed for the purpose of preventing international war”. Mr. Roosevelt foresaw a period of “differences” and “compromises” during which “the child” would learn how to toddle. Mr. Churchill comments that the child was “the World Instrument” and thenceforth this term seems to have been the favourite one among the wartime leaders.

In this way, through one more world war, the “league to enforce peace” again


came into existence, and the agents of the conspiracy were numerously entrenched in the commanding posts of the central body and of its auxiliary agencies, as was to be expected in the circumstances now known; Messrs. Hiss and White were the chiefs of a great clan. The first major act of the new “World Instrument” was in effect to give sanction to the revolution’s annexation of half Europe by electing the puppet-governments of the communized captive countries there to membership.

Thus in all fields Lenin’s dictum about the “extension” of the revolution through a second world war was fulfilled. This was not the result of the persuasion of peoples (in the two cases so far, those of Hungary in 1919 and of Spain, where nation-states have been allowed to fight Communism it was thrown out). It was the result of the infestation of the West by members of the conspiracy, of the virtual suspension of sedition laws which they were able to effect, and of the command of policy, supplies and military operations which they gained.



The absence of humility is the most striking thing about all these mortals. Mr. Churchill is as disappointing to the student, in this matter, as he is reassuring in that of the sorry end of the war in Europe, which he unquestionably tried to avert. In the matter of re-moulding the world he was as incorrigible as all the others, and the brave phrases he sometimes used (“I have not become His Majesty’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire”) are not easy to reconcile with his enthusiasm for a concept based on the eventual “liquidation” of all nation-states.




2 responses to “15/12 End of Nations: Canada, the US and the “Security Perimeter”

  1. The absence of humility is the most striking thing about all these mortals. Mr. Churchill is as disappointing to the student, in this matter, as he is reassuring in that of the sorry end of the war in Europe, which he unquestionably tried to avert. In the matter of re-moulding the world he was as incorrigible as all the others, and the brave phrases he sometimes used (“I have not become His Majesty’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire”) are not easy to reconcile with his enthusiasm for a concept based on the eventual “liquidation” of all nation-states.





    While military invasions and counter-invasions multiplied during the six years of the Second War, absorbing all thought and energy of the masses locked in combat, a silent invasion went on which produced more momentous effects than the armed ones. This was the political invasion of the American Republic and its success was shown by the shape of American state policy at the war’s end, which was so directed as to ensure that the only military invasions that yielded enduring “territorial gains” were those of the revolution into Europe and of the Zionists into Arabia. Historically surveyed, Mr. Roosevelt’s achievement may now be seen to have been threefold and in each respect perilous to his country’ s future: he helped to arm Zionism, he armed the revolution in its Moscow citadel, and he opened the doors of his American citadel to its agents.

    He began the process at the start of his presidency by his recognition of the Soviet, when the ambassador of the revolution, Maxim Litvinoff, undertook that the revolutionary state would keep its nose out of American domestic affairs; Mr. Roosevelt’s mentors were not the men to remind him that when once the fox gets in his nose he’ll soon find ways to make his body follow. The story of his support of the revolutionary state by money and arms belongs to a later chapter; this one aims to tell the tale of its penetration of the American Republic on its own soil during his long presidency.

    Mr. Roosevelt began by breaking down the barriers against uncontrolled immigration which the Congresses immediately before him strove to set up, because they saw in it the danger of the capture of the American administration by “a foreign group”. Under various of his edicts the supervision of immigration was greatly weakened. Immigration officials were forbidden to put questions about Communist associations, and the separate classification of Jewish immigrants was discontinued. This was supported by a continuous press campaign against all demands for enquiry into loyalty or political record as “discrimination against the foreign-born”.

    None can say how many people entered the United States during that period. By 1952 Senator Pat McCarran, chairman of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, estimated that, apart from legal immigration, five million aliens had illegally entered the country, including large numbers of “militant Communists, Sicilian bandits and other criminals”. The chief investigating officer of the Immigration Service declined even to estimate the number of illegal entrants but said that at that time (when some measure of control had been re-established) “over half a million a year” were being intercepted and sent back at the Mexican border alone. The Social Security authorities, who supplied the cards necessary to obtain employment, were forbidden to give any information about applicants to the immigration or police authorities.

    This mass of immigrants went to swell the size of the “fluctuating vote” on


    which Mr. Roosevelt’s party (still following Mr. House’s strategy) concentrated its electoral effort and its cry of “no discrimination”. Under the president’s restrictions on loyalty-interrogations the way into the civil service and armed forces was opened to American-born or legally-domiciled alien Communists. The results to which this led were shown in part by the many exposures of the post-war period, the literature of which would fill an encyclopaedia of many volumes. The entire West was also involved (as the Canadian, British and Australian exposures in time showed) and the significant thing is that, with the Canadian exception, no governmental investigation ever led to these partial revelations, which were always the work of persistent private remonstrants; nor was genuine remedial action ever taken, so that the state of affairs brought about during the 1930’s and 1940’s today continues not much changed, a source of grave weakness to the West in any new war.

    The renewal of large-scale immigration formed the background to the political invasion of the Republic. This was a three-pronged movement which aimed at the capture of the three vital points of a state’s defences: state policy at the top level, the civil services at the middle level and “public opinion” or the mass-mind at the base. The way in which control over acts of state policy was achieved (through the “adviserships” which became part of American political life after 1913) has already been shown, this part of the process having preceded the others. The methods used to attempt the capture of government services will be discussed later in this chapter. In what immediately follows the capture of the mass-mind in America, through control of published information, will be described; it was indispensable to the other two thrusts.

    This form of political invasion is called by Dr. Weizmann, who exhaustively studied it in his youth, when he was preparing in Russia for his life’s work in the west, “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses”. The operation so described may now be studied in actual operation:

    Far back in this book the reader was invited to note that “B’nai B’rith” put out a shoot. B’nai B’rith, until then, might be compared with such groups of other religious affiliation as the Young Men’s Christian Association or the Knights of Columbus; its declared objects were the help of the poor, sick and fatherless and good works in general. The little offshoot of 1913, the “Anti-Defamation League”, had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America.*

    In Doublespeak “anti-defamation” means “defamation” and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot and more

    * In fact though not in form. The secret police in countries where the institution is native (Hitler’s Gestapo was copied from the Asiatic model, which had a century-old tradition in Russia and Turkey) have the entire power and resources of the state behind them; indeed, they are the state. In America Zionism built the nucleus of a secret police nearly as effective in many ways as those prototypes. It could only become equally effective if it gained full control of the state’s resources, including the power of arrest and imprisonment, and in my judgment that was the ultimate goal.


    of the like. The vocabulary is fixed and may be traced back to the attacks on Barruel, Robison and Morse after the French revolution; the true nature of any writer’s or newspaper’s allegiance may be detected by keeping count of the number of times these trade-mark words are used. The achievement of this organization (usually known as the AD.L.) has been by iteration to make fetishes of them, so that party politicians hasten to deny that they are any of these things. Under this regime reasoned debate became outlawed; there is something of sorcery in this subjugation of two generations of Western men to the mumbo-jumbo of Asiatic conspirators.

    When the A.D.L. was born in 1913 it had merely desk-room in the parent B’nai B’rith office and a tiny budget. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “Through the intervention of the A.D.L. we have succeeded in muzzling the non-Jewish press to the extent that newspapers in America abstain from pointing out that any person unfavourably referred to is a Jew”. In 1948 the Jewish Menorah Journal of New York wrote, “Should but one phrase in a reprinted literary classic reflect unjustly upon Jews, the A.D.L. will promptly belabour the innocent publisher until he bowdlerizes the offending passage. Let one innocent movie-producer incorporate a Jewish prototype, however inoffensive, in his picture and the hue and cry raised by the A.D.L. will make him wish he’s never heard of Jews. But when Jews are subtly propagandized into accepting Communist doctrine . . . the A.D.L. remains silent. No word, no warning, no hint of caution, much less exposure and condemnation: although there are men high in the councils of the organization who should know by their own experience how the Communists ‘infiltrate’.” (The Menorah Journal spoke for the many Jews who were alarmed because the A.D.L. was attacking anti-Communism as anti-semitism).

    These quotations show the growth of the A.D.L.’s power in thirty-five years. It has imposed the law of heresy on the public debate in America. No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; criticism of Communism is only tolerated in the tacit understanding that any war with Communism would lead to the communized world-state; and as to that, “Jerusalem is the capital of the world no less than the capital of Israel” (the Zionist mayor of Jerusalem, 1952).

    America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch. I have discussed this with four of the leading ones, who all gave the same answer: it could not be done. The employed ones would lose their posts, if they made the attempt. The independent ones would find no publisher for their books because no reviewer would mention these, save with the epithets enumerated above.

    The AD.L., of such small beginnings in 1913, in 1948 had a budget of three million dollars (it is only one of several Jewish organizations pursuing Zionist aims in America at a similar rate of expenditure). The Menorah Journal,


    discussing “Anti-Defamation Hysteria”, said, “Fighting anti-semitism has been built up into a big business, with annual budgets running into millions of dollars”. It said the object was “to continue beating the anti-semitic drum” and “to scare the pants off prospective contributors” in order to raise funds. It mentioned some of the methods used (“outright business blackmail; if you can’t afford to give $10,000 to this cause, you can take your business elsewhere”), and said American Jews were being “stampeded into a state of mass-hysteria by their self-styled defenders”. *

    The Menorah Journal also drew attention to the falsification of news by Jewish newsagencies subsidized by the big organizations. It showed that some minor brawl among juveniles in Manhattan had been depicted in “front-page scare headlines which would have led a stranger to believe that a Czarist pogrom was going on” (by these same means the “Czarist pogroms” earlier, and Rabbi Stephen Wise’s “reported pogrom in Berlin” in 1933 reached the world). Out of this particular “scare headline” grew a mass-meeting in Madison Garden, where another politician aspiring to presidential office (a Mr. Wendell Willkie at that moment) declared, “The mounting wave of anti-semitism at home shocks me. . . etc., etc.”

    “Mass-hysteria” is not only produced among Jews and band-wagon politicians by this method; it produces another kind of mass-hysteria among earnest but uninformed people of the “Liberal” kind: the mass-hysteria of self-righteousness, which is a tempting form of self-indulgence. The late Mr. George Orwell was of those who helped spread “mass-hysteria” in this way. He was a good man, because he did not merely incite others to succour the weak and avenge injustice, but went himself to fight when the Civil War broke out in Spain, then discovering that Communism, when he saw it, was worse than the thing which (as he thought) he set out to destroy. He died before he could go to Palestine and experience any similar enlightenment, so that what he wrote about “anti-semitism” was but the echo of “anti-defamationist hysteria”. It is so good an example of this that I quote it; here a man of goodwill offered, as his own wisdom, phrases which others poured into his ear.

    He explored “anti-semitism in Britain” (1945) and found ” a perceptibly anti-semitic strain in Chaucer”. Mr. Hilaire Belloc and Mr. G.K.Chesterton were “literary Jew-baiters”. He found passages in Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Shaw, T.S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and others “which if written now would be stigmatized as anti-semitism” (he was right without knowing it; if written now they would have been stigmatized). Then he suffered what Americans call a pratfall. He said that “offhand, the only English writers I can think of who,

    * The reader need not find any contradiction between this quotation and my statement in the preceding paragraph. Debate and comment are largely free in the Jewish press, which is intended chiefly for perusal “among ourselves”, and the newspaper-reader, anywhere in the world, who takes the pains regularly to obtain Jewish newspapers of all opinions will find himself much better informed about what goes on in the world. The black-out is in the non-Jewish press.


    before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade”. Thus he extolled one of the A.D.L.’s “Jew-baiters” as a champion of Jews; in America the film of Oliver Twist was banned because of Fagin! This was the work of the A.D.L.; its representative, a Mr. Arnold Forster, announced:

    “American movie-distributors refused to become involved in the distribution and exhibition of the motion picture after the A.D.L. and others expressed the fear that the film was harmful; the Rank Organization withdrew the picture in the United States”. Later the picture was released after censorship by the A.D.L.; “seventy two eliminations” were made at its command and a prologue was added assuring beholders that they might accept it as “a filmization of Dickens without anti-semitic intentions”. (In occupied Berlin the A.D.L. ban was final; the British authorities ordered Dickens withdrawn from German eyes).

    I was in America at this time and thus saw the fulfilment of a prediction made in a book of 1943, when I wrote that, as the secret censorship was going, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens would one day be defamed as “anti-semites”. I thought to strain probability, to make a point, but it happened in all three cases: a Shakespearean actor-manager visiting New York was ordered not to play The Merchant of Venice, Dickens was banned, and the defamationists put Chaucer on their black-list.

    A private organization which can produce such results is obviously powerful; there is nothing comparable in the world. Mr. Vincent Sheehan wrote in 1949, “There is scarcely a voice in the United States that dares raise itself for the rights, any rights, of the Arabs; any slight criticism of the Zionist high command is immediately labelled as anti-semitic”. Miss Dorothy Thompson, whose picture and articles at that time were published everyday in hundreds of newspapers, similarly protested. Mr. Sheehan’s popularity with book-reviewers immediately slumped; Miss Thompson’s portrait and writings are seldom seen in the American press today.

    How is the oracle worked? By what means has America (and the entire West) been brought to the state that no public man aspires to office, or editor feels secure at his desk, until he has brought out his prayer-mat and prostrated himself to Zion? How have presidents and prime ministers been led to compete for the approval of this faction like bridesmaids for the bride’s bouquet? Why do leading men suffer themselves to be paraded at hundred-dollar-a-plate banquets for Zion, or to be herded on to Zionist platforms to receive “plaques” for services rendered?

    The power of money and the prospect of votes have demonstrably been potent lures, but in my judgment by far the strongest weapon is this power to control published information; to lay stress on what a faction wants and to exclude from it all that the faction dislikes, and so to be ab1e to give any selected person a “good” or a “bad” press. This is in fact control of “the mob”. In today’s


    language it is “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses”, as Dr. Weizmann said, but it is an ancient, Asiatic art and was described, on a famous occasion, by Saint Matthew and Saint Mark: “The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude. . The chief priests moved the people . .”

    In forty years the A.D.L. perfected a machine for persuading the multitude. It is a method of thought-control of which the subject-mass is unconscious and its ability to destroy any who cry out is great. One of the first to be politically destroyed was the head of the Congressional Committee charged to watch over sedition (the Un-American Activities Committee). The Protocols of 1905 foretold that the nation-states would not be allowed to “contend with sedition” by treating it as crime and this “forecast” also was fulfilled. Mr. Martin Dies relates that he was required by the secret inquisition to restrict the definition of “subversion” to “fascism”, and to equate “fascism” with “anti-semitism”. “Subversion”, had these importuners had their way with him, would have been any kind of resistance to “the destructive principle”, not the subverting of the nation-state. He would not yield, but was driven out of political life by defamation.

    The A.D.L. (and the American Jewish Committee) “set out to make the American people aware of anti-semitism”. It informed Jews that “25 out of every 100 Americans are infected with anti-semitism”, and that another 50 might develop the disease. By 1945 it was carrying out “a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child” in America through the press, radio, advertising, children’s comic books and school books, lectures, films, “churches” and trade unions. This programme included “219 broadcasts a day”, full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertizing in 130 cities, and “persuasions” subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (“1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation”) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, “and used”, its material in the form of “news, background material, cartoons and comic strips”. In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed “more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions”, furnished authors with “material and complete ideas”, and circulated nine million pamphlets “all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed”. It found “comic books” to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated “millions of copies” of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and “2,000 key men in 1,000 cities”.

    The name of the body which supplied this mass of suggestive material never reached the public. During the 1940’s the system of “syndicated writers” in New York or Washington enveloped the entire American press. One such writer’s


    column may appear in a thousand newspapers each day; editors like this system, which saves them the cost of employing their own writers, for its cheapness. Through a few dozen such writers the entire stream of information can be tinctured at its source (the method foretold in the Protocols). By all these means a generation has been reared in America (and this applies equally to England) which has been deprived of authentic information about, and independent comment on, the nature of Zionism, its original connection with Communism, the infestation of administrations and capture of “administrators”, and the relationship of all this to the ultimate world-government project.

    The opposition to this creeping control was strong at first and was gradually crushed during two decades (I have given examples in England) by various methods, including the purchase of newspapers, but chiefly by unremitting and organized pressure, persuasive or menacing. In America a newspaper which prints reports or comment unacceptable to the A.D.L. may expect to receive a visit from its representatives. Threats to withdraw advertizing are frequently made. The corps of “syndicated” writers joins in the attack on any individual writer or broadcaster who becomes troublesome; many American commentators have been driven from the publishers’ lists or “off the air” in this way. An illustrative example:




    No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; criticism of Communism is only tolerated in the tacit understanding that any war with Communism would lead to the communized world-state; and as to that, “Jerusalem is the capital of the world no less than the capital of Israel” (the Zionist mayor of Jerusalem, 1952).

    America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch. I have discussed this with four of the leading ones, who all gave the same answer: it could not be done. The employed ones would lose their posts, if they made the attempt. The independent ones would find no publisher for their books because no reviewer would mention these, save with the epithets enumerated above.






    Well said; you’ve got the right sow by the ear! Good commentary on the masonic ADL and its chief bigot and head hypocrite, Abe Foxman, who’s the ultimate self-hating Jew, if ever there was one. As you also well-stated, Foxman is also a “holocaust-denier”; denying that he does the very well-documented holocaust of the Armenians by the Turks in WWI. Let’s face it, Foxman is just a self-serving slick lawyer who couldn’t care less about anyone, unless there’s something in it for him and his ilk.
    GasconyKid 1 year ago

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