show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

The Committee of 300 "Diplomacy By Deception"

  • 8 Replies
  • 2077 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
The Committee of 300 "Diplomacy By Deception"
« on: August 15, 2012, 10:57:15 PM »
Forward
I decided to write this book because so many people who had read my book "The Conspirators Hierarchy - The Committee of 300" asked me to give specific examples and case histories of how the Committee exercises control on such a vast scale. This book is by way of answering those requests.

When you have read "Diplomacy By Deception" you will have little doubt that the British and United States Governments are the most corrupt in the world and that without their full cooperation in carrying out the designs of the Committee of 300, this supranational body would not be able to go forward with its plans for a One World Government, to which former President Bush, one of its more able servants, referred to as "the New World Order."

It is my earnest wish that "Diplomacy By Deception" will bring about a greater understanding of how secret societies operate, and how their orders are carried out by the very people who are supposed to serve the national interests and guard the national security of their respective countries and their people.

Dr. John Coleman

Purchase the book from Amazon:
Diplomacy by Deception: An Account of the Treasonous Conduct by the Governments of Britain and the United States (Hoaxes Deceptions)




NOTE: The text in this topic was freely available on the net. I am not aware if this is against the writers wishes and so I post in good faith. I recommend you purchase the book in any case. If you are the author or authors representative and wish it removed, please submit a DMCA request here. This is posted for reference, discussion and educational purposes only.

origin: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/diplomacy_deception/diplomacy_deception.htm
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 09:18:48 PM by Truth-Wars.co.uk »


*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
The Threat of the United Nations
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2012, 11:00:26 PM »
The Threat of the United Nations

The history of how the United Nations was created is a classic case of diplomacy by deception. The United Nations is the successor to the defunct League of Nations, the first attempt to set up a One World Government in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference which gave birth to the Treaty of Versailles.

The peace conference opened at Versailles, France on January 18, 1919, attended by 70 delegates representing the international bankers from the 27 "victorious" allied powers. It is a fact that delegates were under the direction of the international bankers from the time they were selected as delegates until they returned to their own countries, and even long after that.

Let us be perfectly clear, the peace conference was about bleeding Germany to death; it was about securing huge sums of money for the international brigand-bankers who had already reaped obscene re wards alongside the terrible casualties of the five-year war (1914 1919). Britain alone suffered 1,000,000 deaths and more than 2,000,000 wounded. It is estimated by war historian Alan Brugar, that the international bankers made a profit of $10,000 from every soldier who fell in battle. Life is cheap when it comes to the Committee of 300-Iluminati-Rothschilds-Warburg-Federal Reserve bankers, who financed both sides of the war.

It is also worthwhile to remember that H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell foresaw this terrible war in which millions ? the flowers of the mostly Christian nations ? died needless deaths. The Committee of 300 planned the war so that international bankers would profit greatly. H.G. Wells was known as the "prophet" to the Committee of 300. It is true to say that Wells merely brought up-to-date the ideas of the British East India Company (BEIC) which were carried out by Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, to name two of the wreckers used by King George III to undermine and scuttle the economic future of the North American colonists seeking to escape the economic toils of the Venetian Party of the North in the late 1700s.

In an article written by Wells published in the "Banker" (a copy of which I found in the British Museum in London), Wells spelled out the future role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the banker's bank, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Once we, the sovereign people, understand the role of international banks in fomenting wars, and then financing both sides, wars may well become a thing of the past. Until then, wars will remain the favorite tool of the international banks for raising revenues and getting rid of unwanted populations, as Bertrand Russell so eloquently put it

In his book, "After Democracy," Wells stated that once the economic order (social energy), of a dictatorship One World Government is established, a political and social order will be imposed. This was precisely what the Paris Peace Talks that began in 1919 set out to do, based primarily upon a Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) memorandum.

The RIIA drafted a 23-point proposal which it sent to Woodrow Wilson, who handed it to Mandel Huis, (a.k.a. Colonel House), Wilson's Dutch-born controller. Col. House immediately left for Magnolia, his private residence in Massachusetts, where he reduced the number of proposals to 14, creating the basis of the "14 Points" presented to the Paris Peace Conference by President Wilson in December of 1918.

Wilson's arrival in Paris was greeted with wild enthusiasm by the poor and deluded populace who had grown tired of war and who saw in Wilson, the harbinger of eternal peace. Wilson cloaked his speeches in true diplomacy by deception language; a new spirit of idealism ? even while intent on securing control of the world by the international bankers through the League of Nations.

The similarity between the way the League of Nations Treaty and its successor, the United Nations Treaty were floated, should not be lost on the reader. German delegates were kept out of the proceedings until the terms were ready to be submitted to the conference. Russia was not represented, because public opinion violently opposed Bolshevism. British Prime Minister Lloyd George and President Wilson well knew that the Bolshevik Revolution was about to succeed with terrible consequences for the Russian people.

From the start, the Big Ten Supreme Council (forerunners of the U.N. Security Council) took over. The council consisted of,
Wilson
Lansing
Lloyd George
Balfour
Pichon
Orlando
Sonnino (both representing the Black Nobility bankers of Venice)
Clemenceau
Saionji
Makino
On January 25,1919, the agenda of the RIIA won out, the conference delegates unanimously adopted a resolution for the creation of a League of Nations. A committee was chosen (whose members were actually nominated by the RIIA) to deal with reparations by Germany. On February 15,1919, Wilson returned to the United States and Lloyd George went back to London. By March however, both men were back in Paris to work on how best Germany could be financially ripped apart?and the Council of Ten, having proved too cumbersome, was reduced to the Council of Four.

The British invited Gen. Jan Christian Smuts, a Boer War veteran, to join in the discussions, to add an aura of good faith to the deplorable plot. Smuts was a traitor to his own people. As Prime Minister he had led South Africa into the First World War over the objections of 78 percent of its people who felt they had no quarrel with Germany. Smuts became part of the committee consisting of Wilson, House, Lord Cecil controller of the British Royal Family (see my monograph "King Makers/King Breakers"), Bourgeois and Venizelos.

The League of Nations was born in January of 1920. Housed in Geneva, it consisted of a secretary-general, a Council (chosen from the five major powers) and a General Assembly. The German nation was sold down the river, the terms of peace far exceeding those agreed upon when Germany was persuaded to lay down its arms. The The international bankers became the big winners, eventually stripping Germany of all major assets and receiving huge "reparation" payments. The RIIA now felt it had "everything in the bag" to quote Wilson. But the RIIA had not reckoned with a large number of U.S. Senators who knew the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, the number of senators and congressman who really know the U.S. Constitution today, number only about twenty.

For example Senator Robert Byrd, an admitted Rockefeller prot?g? said recently that a treaty is the supreme law of the land. Apparently, Sen. Byrd does not know that for a treaty to be valid, it has to be made with a country that has sovereignty, and the United Nations, as we will find, has no sovereignty whatsoever. In any case, a treaty is only a law and cannot override the U.S. Constitution, nor can it stand when it threatens the sovereignty and security of the United States.

If Sen. Byrd holds this view, we wonder why he voted to give the Panama Canal away? When the United States acquired the land for the Panama Canal from Colombia, the land became sovereign U.S. territory. Therefore, the Panama Canal give-away was unconstitutional and illegal, as we shall see in the chapter dealing with the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty.

When the League of Nations Treaty was brought before the U.S. Senate in March of 1920, 49 senators understood the immense implications involved, and refused to ratify it There was much discussion compared to what passed for a debate when the U.N. Charter came before the Senate in 1945. Several amendments to the League treaty were submitted by the RIIA. These were acceptable to President Wilson, but were refused by the Senate. On November 19, 1920, the Senate rejected the treaty with and without reservations by a vote of 49-35.

The international bankers then directed Wilson to veto a joint resolution of Congress, declaring the war with Germany at an end, so that they could go on savaging the German nation for another whole year. It was not until April 18, 1945 that the League of Nations dissolved itself, transferring all of its assets (mainly money taken from the German people after WWI, and war loans not repaid by the allies to the United States) to the United Nations In other words, the Committee of 300 never gave up on its plans for a One World Government and waited until the United Nations was in existence before dissolving the discredited League of Nations.

The money that the League of Nations transferred to the United Nations rightfully belonged to the sovereign people of the United States. The United States had advanced billions of dollars to so-called allies to pull their chestnuts out of the fire after they'd picked a quarrel with Germany in 1914 and were in dire danger of losing the fight.

In 1923, a U.S. observer was sent to the Lausanne Conference of the Allied Powers for discussions on repayment of the $10.4 billion owed to the United States, and splitting up the Middle East oil-producing countries between themselves. The international bankers objected to U.S. intervention at Lausanne on the basis of instructions received from Chatham House, home of the RIIA. The first repayment agreement was reached with Britain, which was to repay war loans over a 62-year period, at interest of 3.3 percent

In November of 1925 and April of 1926, the United States reached agreements with Italy and France to repay their share of war loans over the same period. By May of 1930,17 nations who had been loaned money by the United States had signed agreements to repay all of their war loans, amounting to nearly $11 billion.

In November of 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected the first openly socialist President of the United States. Socialist Roosevelt's arrival at the White House had its beginning in the murder of President William McKinley, followed by the election of the fraudulent "patriot" Teddy Roosevelt, whose job it was to open the doors to socialism which was to be ushered in by Franklin D. Roosevelt. This contrived sequence of events is too long be recounted here. On instructions from Chatham House, Roosevelt lost no time in winking

at the horrendous default on the loan agreements signed by the allies. By December 15 1932, all of the nations who owed the United States billions of dollars for war debts were in default Britain was the largest debtor and the largest defaulter.

A substantial amount of this money, plus much of what was wrenched from Germany after WWI, went into the coffers of the League of Nations, and eventually wound up in the coffers of the United Nations. Thus, not only did America needlessly sacrifice its soldier sons on the battlefields of Europe, but had its pockets picked as well by the nations that began the First World War. Worse yet worthless war reparation bonds were dumped into the American financial market, costing taxpayers additional billions of dollars.

If there is one thing that we have learned about the Committee of 300, it is that it never gives up. There is a saying that history repeats itself; certainly this is true of the Committee of 300's intention to force a One World Government body on the United States. H.G.Wells, in his work "The Shape of Things to Come" described this body as "a sort of an open conspiracy ? a cult of the World State" (i.e. a One World Government.)

The world state (OWG), Wells said, "must be the sole landowner on earth. All roads must lead to socialism." In his book, "After Democracy," Wells clearly said that once world economic order is established (through the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements), political and social order will be imposed. In the chapter on the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, it will be explained how Tavistock's "Operation Research" was to be the engine to bring about drastic reforms in economics and politics.

In the case of the United States, the plan is not to overthrow the U.S. government or its Constitution, but to "make it negligible." This has largely been accomplished by slowly and carefully implementing the socialist manifesto written in 1920 by the Fabian Society, which was based on the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

Isn't this making of the Constitution "negligible" exactly what is happening? In fact when the U.S. government violates the Constitution on an almost daily basis with total impunity, it makes the Constitution "negligible." Executive orders, such as going to war without a declaration of war, as in the Gulf War, have worked to make the Constitution "negligible." There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for executive orders. Executive orders are only proclamations which the president has no power or authority to make. Only a king can make proclamations.

The warmed over League of Nations was thrust upon the U.S. Senate in 1945, dressed under a new label: the United Nations Treaty. The senators were given only three days to discuss the implications of the treaty, which could not have been fully examined in under least a full 18 months of discussion. Had the senators properly understood what they were discussing, which, apart from a few exceptions, they did not, there would have been a demand for a proper period for discussion. The fact is that the Senate did not understand the document and therefore should not have voted on it.

Had the senators who debated the United Nations treaty properly understood the document it surely would have been rejected. Apart from any other considerations, the document was so poorly written and, in many instances, so vague, deceptive and contradictory, that it could have been rejected on these grounds alone.

A law, which is what a treaty is, must be clearly written and unambiguous. The U.N. Treaty was far from that. In any case, the United States, bound by its Constitution, could not ratify the U.N. treaty, for the following reasons:
Our Constitution rests upon the bedrock of sovereignty, without which there can be no constitution. U.S. foreign policy is based upon Vattel's "Law of Nations" which makes sovereignty the issue. Although the Constitution is silent on world government and foreign bodies, when the Constitution is silent of a power, and it is not incidental to another power in the Constitution, then it is an inhibition of that power, or a PROHIBITION of that power.
The United Nations is not a sovereign body, having no measurable territory of its own. It is housed on U.S. territory in New York in a building loaned by the Rockefellers. Under the U.S. Constitution, we cannot make a treaty with any nation or body that lacks sovereignty. The United States could not (and cannot) make a treaty with a body or country having no sovereignty. The U.S. can make an agreement with a country or body having no sovereignty, but can never enter into a treaty with a body lacking in sovereignty.
For the Senate to have attempted to ratify a treaty with a body, state, or country lacking sovereignty, defined boundaries, demographics, a currency system, a set of laws or a constitution, to whit, the United Nations, was to betray the oath to uphold the Constitution which senators are sworn to do. This is commonly called treason.
In order for the United States to become a member of the United Nations, two amendments to the Constitution would have to be passed. The first amendment would have to recognize that a world body exists. In its present form, the Constitution cannot recognize the United Nations as a world body. A second amendment would have to say that the United States can have a treaty relationship with an unsovereign world body. Neither amendment was ever offered, much less accepted by the Senate and ratified by all of the States.
Thus, the thoroughly suspect U.N. "treaty" never was a legal law in the United States. As matters stood in 1945, and as they stand in 1993, although the President has the power to have a say in foreign affairs, he does not have the power, nor has he ever had the power, to make an agreement ? much less a treaty ? with a world body. This absolutely means that no other world body, specifically, the United Nations, has jurisdiction to deploy American servicemen and women, or to order the United States to act outside of the Constitutional restrictions imposed by our Founding Fathers.

Sen. David I. Walsh, one of the few senators who understood the constitutional dangers posed by the badly flawed U.N. Charter, told his colleagues the following:
"The only acts of aggression or breaches of peace the charter is sure to be geared up to suppress are those committed by small nations, that is to say, by the nations which are least able and unlikely to kindle another world conflict. Even in these cases, Mr. President, investigation and preventative action can be arbitrarily paralyzed by any of the big five powers, which are permanent members of the Security Council..."

"Thus, any small nation which enjoys the patronage, or serves as a tool or puppet of one of the big powers is as immune to interference as the Big Five themselves. Let us face the fact In the Charter we have an instrument for arresting acts of war by countries which lack the power of making war. The menace of large-scale conflict does not reside in quarrels among themselves. Such quarrels can be limited and isolated."

"The menace lies rather when the small powers act in interest of a great neighbor and are provoked into their act by that neighbor. But in that case the veto privilege which makes the big power immune to United Nations action can operate to make the small satellite nation immune. The preventative machinery works smoothly until the point of real danger is reached, the point where a nation is strong enough to precipitate a world war is involved, and can then go dead."

"We may assume, in fact, that every small country could be under temptation and pressure to seek a big power patron. Only in that way can it obtain an indirect share in the monopoly of control vested in the Big Five. One of the faults of the Charter, Mr. President, is that its punitive and coercive leverage could be applied only against a truly small independent nation." (Iraq is a perfect example of the rottenness of the U.N. Charter).

"At the price of its independence, one of these nations could free itself from coercive authority of the charter, by the simple expedient of making a deal with a veto nation..."
Sen. Hiram W. Johnson, one of the few, apart from Sen. Walsh, who saw through the U.N. Charter, stated as follows:
"In some respects, it is a pretty weak reed. It does nothing to stop a war instigated by any of the big five powers; gives each nation complete freedom to make war. Our only hope, therefore, to maintain world peace is that none of the big five nations will choose to make war..."
That the American people have no protection, and no recourse against the war-making potential of the United Nations, was confirmed by the Gulf War when President Bush ran amok, trampling the provisions of the Constitution underfoot. Had President Bush followed the proper procedures and attempted to obtain a declaration of war, the Gulf War would never have happened, because he would have been turned down. Millions of Iraqis and more than 300 U.S. servicemen and women (at 1993) would not have needlessly lost their lives.

The president is not the Commander-In-Chief of our armed services until a legal declaration of war has been issued by Congress and the nation is officially at war. If the president were the Commander-In-Chief at all times, the office would have the same powers as a King ? expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Prior to the Gulf War, CNN accepted the false premise that Bush, as Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces, had the right on his own to commit the military to war. This dangerous interpretation was quickly taken up by the media, and today is accepted as a fact when it is not

A gross deception practiced upon the American people is that the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed services at all times. Senate and House members are so poorly informed on the Constitution that they allowed President George Bush to get away with sending almost 500,000 troops to the Gulf to fight a war for British Petroleum and to satisfy a personal hatred toward Saddam Hussein. Bush lost the fiduciary relationship he was supposed to enjoy with the American people right there.
 
President Bill Clinton lately used this "Commander-In-Chief" misconception to try and oblige the military to accept homosexuals in the services, which he does not have the power to do. It is less a question of morals than it is of the President overstepping his authority.
 
The tragic truth about American servicemen being deployed to fight ? as they were by the United Nations in the Korean and Gulf Wars ? is that those who died in these wars did not die for their country, as dying for our country under our flag, constitutes an act of sovereignty, which was totally absent in the Korean and Gulf Wars. Since neither the Security Council nor any council of the United Nations has any sovereignty, the U.N. flag is meaningless in every sense.

Not a single U.N. Security Council resolution, affecting either directly or indirectly the United States, has any validity, as such resolutions are made by a body which itself has no sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution is above any so-called world body, and that, particularly, includes the United Nations, the U.S. Constitution is above and superior to any agreement or treaty made with any nation or group of nations, whether connected with the United Nations or not. But the United Nations de facto and de jure gives the president of the United States unlimited dictatorial powers not granted by the Constitution.

What President Bush did in the Gulf War bypassed the Constitution by issuing a proclamation (an executive order) directly on behalf of the U.N. Security Council. The House and Senate, meanwhile, failed in their constitutional duty to stop the illegal issuance of such an order. They could have done this by refusing to fund the war. Neither the House nor Senate had the right, nor do they have it now, to fund an agreement (or a treaty) with a world body that sets itself up above the U.S. Constitution, especially where that world body has no sovereignty, and more especially, where that body threatens the security of the United States.

Public Law 85766, Section 1602 states:
"...No part of the funds appropriated in this or in any other Act shall be used to pay...any person, firm or corporation, or any combination of persons, firms or corporations to conduct a study or plan when or how or in what circumstances the Government of the United States should surrender this country and its people to any foreign power"
Public Law 471, Section 109 further states:
"It is illegal to use funds for any project that promotes One World Government or One World citizenship."
So how has the United Nations addressed this foundation of law? The Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars also violated the U.S. Constitution because they violated Article 1, Section 8, clause 11: "Congress shall have the power to declare war." It does not say that the State Department the President or the U.N. has this right.

The United Nations would have us commit our country to waging war in foreign territories, but Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 says that no provision shall be made whereby the United States, as a nation, can commit itself to waging wars in foreign countries.
 
Moreover, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, permits tax revenues to be spent only for the following purposes:
(1)"...to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States."
It says nothing about paying dues (tribute) to the United Nations or any other world body, and no powers are granted to allow this. In addition, there is the prohibition contained in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, which says:
(2)"No state shall, without the consent of Congress...keep troops or ships of war in time of peace...or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger."
Since there has been no valid Constitutional declaration of war by Congress since the Second World War, the United States is at peace, and therefore, our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the Persian Gulf region, Botswana and Somalia are there in breach of the Constitution, and should not be funded, but brought back home forthwith.

The burning question for the United States should be:
"How could the U.N. authorize the use of force against Iraq (i.e.: declare war), when it has no sovereignty, and why did our representatives go with such a travesty and violation of our Constitution? Why have our Representatives gone along with such gross violations of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold?"
Moreover, the U.N. does not have sovereignty.

What constitutes sovereignty? It is based upon adequate territory, a constitutional form of money, a substantial population, in clearly demarcated borders which are definitely measurable. The United Nations is totally lacking in these requirements, and no matter what our politicians might say, the U.N. can never qualify as a sovereign body in terms of the U.S. Constitution's definition of sovereignty.
 
Therefore, it follows that we can never have a treaty with the U.N. Not now, not ever. The answer could be that, either out of sheer ignorance of the Constitution, or else, as servants of the Committee of 300, the senators, in 1945, went along with the U.N. Charter in breach of their oath of office to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The United Nations is a shiftless, rootless leech, a parasite feeding off its U.S. host. If there are any U.N. troops in this country, they should be ordered out forthwith, as their presence in our land is a defilement of our Constitution, and should not, indeed, cannot be tolerated by those who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. The United Nations is an ongoing extension of the Fabian-Socialist platform established in 1920, of which, every plank has now been carried out exactly in accordance with the Fabian-Socialist blueprint for America. The United Nations presence in Cambodia, its inaction in Bosnia-Herzegovina needs no amplification.

Some legislators saw through the U.N. agreement One such wide-awake legislator was Rep. Jessie Sumner, of Illinois:
"Mr. Chairman, of course you know that our government peace program is no peace. The movement is led by the same old warmongers, still masquerading as the princes of peace, who involved us in war while pretending their purpose was to keep us out of war (a very apt description of diplomacy by deception). Like Lend-Lease and other bills which involved us in war, while promising to keep us out of war, this measure (the U.N. Treaty) will involve us in every war hereafter."
Rep. Sumner was joined by another informed legislator, Rep. Lawrence H. Smith:
"To vote for this proposal is to give approval to world communism. Why else would it have the full support of all shades of communism elsewhere? This (U.N.) measure strikes at the very heart of the Constitution. It provides that the power to declare war shall be taken from Congress and given to the President Here is the essence of dictatorship and dictatorial control all else must inevitably tend to follow."
Smith further stated:
"The President is given absolute powers (which the U.S. Constitution does not give), to, at any time he elects, and upon any pretext whatsoever, snatch our sons and daughters away from their homes to fight and die in battle, not only for as long as he pleases, but as may suit the majority members of the international organization. Bear in mind, the United States will be in the minority so that the policies relating to the length of time our soldiers will be kept in foreign lands in any future wars, will rest more with foreign nations than our own..."
Smith's fears proved to be well-grounded, because this is precisely what President Bush did when he snatched our sons and daughters away from their homes and sent them to fight in the Gulf War under color of the United Nations, a world body that has no sovereignty. The difference between a treaty (which the documents passed by the Senate in 1945 purported to be) and an agreement, is that a treaty requires sovereignty, whereas an agreement does not require sovereignty.

In 1945, the U.S. Senate debated for only three days ? if one can call that debating the issue of treaties. As we all know, treaties have a history of thousands of years, and the Senate could not, and indeed did not, examine the U.N. Charter to the full extent of the resources which were available to it The U.S. State Department sent its most devious characters to lie and confuse the senators. A good example of this was the testimony of the late John Foster Dulles, one of the top 13 American Illuminati, a Committee of 300 member and a One World Government proponent down to his fingertips.

Dulles and his crew, hand-picked by the Committee of 300, were instructed to subvert the Senate, and utterly confuse them, the bulk of whom knew little about the Constitution, as Congressional Record testimony proves rather clearly. Dulles talked a crooked streak, lying blatantly and dissembling when he thought he might be caught in a lie. An altogether treasonous, treacherous performance.

Dulles had the support of Sen. W. Lucas, the banker's agent planted in the Senate. Here is what Sen. Lucas had to say on behalf of his masters, the Wall Street bankers:
"...I feel very strongly about it (the U.N. Charter), because now is the time for senators to determine what the charter means. We should not wait for a year, or a year and a half, when conditions will be different (from immediate post-wartime). I do not want to see any senator withdraw judgment until a year and a half from now..."
Obviously, this tacit admission by Sen. Lucas implied that for the Senate to examine the U.N. Charter properly, it would have taken at least eighteen months to accomplish. It was also an admission that if the documents were studied, the treaty would be rejected.

Why the unseemly haste? Had common sense prevailed, had the senators done their homework, they would have seen that it would have taken at least a year and probably two years, to properly study and vote on the charter before them. Had the senators in 1945 done so, thousands of servicemen would still be alive today instead of having sacrificed their lives for the unsovereign body of the United Nations.

As shocking as the truth sounds, the stark fact is that the Korean War was an unconstitutional war on behalf of an unsovereign body. Our brave soldiers did not, therefore, die for their country. Likewise in the Gulf War. There will be many more "Korean Wars"; the Gulf War and Somalia being the repercussions of the failure of the U.S. Senate to
 
In his landmark work on constitutional law, Judge Thomas M. Cooley wrote:
"The Constitution in itself never yields to treaty or enactment. It neither changes with time or does it, in theory, bend to the force of circumstance... The Congress derives its powers to legislate from the Constitution, which is the measure of its authority. And any enactment of the Congress which is opposed to its provisions, or is not within the grant of powers made by it, is unconstitutional, therefore no law, and obligatory upon no one. The Constitution imposes no restriction on power, but it is subject to implied restrictions that nothing can be done under it which changes the Constitution of the country, nor rob a department of government or any of the States of its constitutional authority?Congress and the Senate in a treaty, cannot give substance to a treaty greater than itself, or delegated power of the Senate and House."
Professor Hermann von Hoist, in his monumental work, "Constitutional Law of the United States" wrote:
"As to the extent of a treaty power, the Constitution says nothing (i.e. it is reserved-prohibited), but it evidently cannot be unlimited. The power exists only under the Constitution, and every treaty inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, is therefore inadmissible and, according to the Constitution law, ipso facto null and void."
The United Nations treaty violates at least a dozen provisions of the Constitution, and since a "treaty" cannot override the Constitution, each and every one of its Security Council resolutions, are null and void in so far as they affect the United States. This includes our alleged membership in this parasitical organization. The United States has never been a member of the United Nations, is not now, and can never be, save and except where we, the people agree to have the Constitution amended by the Senate and ratified by all of the States, to permit membership in the United Nations.

There are a great number of cases where case law backs up this contention. Since they cannot all be included here, I'll mention the three cases where this principle was established; Cherokee Tobacco vs. the United States, Whitney vs. Robertson and Godfrey vs. Riggs (133 U.S., 256.)

To sum up our position regarding U.N. membership; We, the sovereign people of the United States, are not obligated to obey any U.N. resolutions, because enactment of the United Nations Charter by the Senate, which purported to make the Constitution yield to United Nations law, conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution, and is, therefore, ipso facto, null and void.

In 1945, the senators were suborned into believing that a treaty has powers that surpass the Constitution. Clearly, the senators had not read what Thomas Jefferson had to say:
"To hold the treaty-making power as boundless is to make the Constitution blank paper by construction."
If the senators in 1945 had bothered to read the wealth of information contained in the Congressional Record as it pertains to treaty-making and agreements, they would not have acted in ignorance by endorsing the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations is in fact a One World Government body put together with the objective of overriding the U.S. Constitution clearly the intent of its original framers, Fabianists Sydney and Beatrice Webb, Dr. Leo Posvolsky and Leonard Woolf. A good source of confirmation of the foregoing can be found in "Fabian Freeway, High Road to Socialism in the U.S." by Rose Martin.
 
The foundation of the socialist plot to subvert the United States can be found in such papers as the "New Statesman" and the "New Republic." Both were published circa 1915, and copies were in the British Museum in London, when I was studying there. In 1916, Brentanos of New York, published the same documents under the title: "International Government," accompanied by fulsome praise from socialists of every stripe in the U.S.

Was the United Nations Charter actually written by traitor Alger Hiss, Molotov and Posvolsky? Evidence to the contrary abounds, but basically what happened is that the RIIA took the Beatrice Webb Fabian Socialist document and sent it to President Wilson to get its provisions drafted into U.S. law. The document was not read by President Wilson, but handed to Col. House for immediate action,

Wilson, and indeed all Presidents after him, always acted with alacrity when addressed by our British masters in Chatham House. Col. House retired to his summer home, "Magnolia" in Massachusetts on July 13-14,1918, aided and abetted by professor David H. Miller of the Harvard Enquiry Group, to work up the British proposals for a One World Government body.

House returned to Washington with a 23 article proposal, which the British Foreign Office accepted as forming the basis of the League of Nations. This was nothing but an attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution. The "House" draft was forwarded to the British government for its approval and thereafter reduced to 14 articles.

Thus was born Wilson's "14 Points," actually not Wilson's, but rather those of the British government, helped by socialist Walter Lippman which then became the basis of a document presented to the Paris Peace Conference. (When dealing with subversive secret societies it should be noted that the word "peace" is used strictly in a communist socialist sense.)

Had the senators done their homework in 1945 they would have discovered in short order that the United Nations Treaty was nothing but a warmed-over version of the socialist document dreamed up by British Fabianists and supported by their American cousins. This would have sounded the alarm bells. Had the senators discovered who the League of Nations treasonous drafters really were, they would surely have rejected the document without hesitation.

It is clear that the senators did not know what they were looking at, judging from the remarks made by Sen. Harold A. Burton:
"We again have the chance to retrieve and establish, not a League of Nations, but the present United Nations Charter, although 80 percent of its provisions (in the U.N. Charter) are, in substance, the same as those of the League of Nations in 1919..."
If the senators had read the Congressional Record about the League of Nations, particularly pages 8175-8191, they would have found confirmation of Sen. Burton's claim that the U.N. Charter was nothing but a refurbished League of Nations Charter. Their suspicions ought to have been aroused about the League transferring its assets to the proposed United Nations.
 
They would also have noticed that the task of reshaping the modern version of the League was carried out by a group of dissolute people with no interest in the well-being of the United States: Alger Hiss, whose mentor was the wrecker of the Constitution, Felix Frankfurter, Leo Posvolsky, and behind them, the international bankers personified by the Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers.

Former Congressman John Rarick put it very well, calling the United Nations "A creature of Invisible Government". Had the senators even glimpsed into the history of the refurbished League of Nations, they would have found that it was resuscitated in Chatham House, and in 1941, was sent with RIIA instructions to Cordell Hull, Secretary of State (chosen by the Council on Foreign Relations, as every Secretary of State has been since 1919), and ordered that it be activated.

The timing was perfect, 14 days after Pearl Harbor, when our British masters deemed it would not receive much public attention, and in any case, what with the horror of Pearl Harbor, public opinion would be favorable. So, on December 22,1941, at the behest of the Committee of 300's international bankers, Cordell Hull was instructed to brief President Roosevelt on his role in bringing up the "new and improved" version of the League of Nations.

The sister-child of the RIIA, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) recommended that Roosevelt give orders for a Presidential Advisory Committee on Post War Foreign Policy to be set up forthwith.
 
Here is how the CFR recommended the action to be taken:
"That the Charter of the United Nations become the Supreme Law of the land, and that Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of any state to the contrary not-withstanding."
What the senators would have found in 1945, had they bothered to look, was that the CFR directive was tantamount to TREASON, which they could not have condoned and still not violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. They would have discovered that in 1905, a group of international bankers believed they could subvert the Constitution by using a world body as their vehicle, and that the CFR directive was merely a part of that ongoing process.

A treaty cannot be legally higher than the Constitution, yet the United Nations treaty did take precedence over the Constitution. The Constitution, or any part of it, cannot simply be repealed by Congress, but a treaty can be overturned or scrapped altogether.
 
The Constitution says that a treaty is only a law that can be repealed by Congress in two ways:
(1) Pass a law that will repeal the treaty.
(2) Cut off funding for the treaty.
In order to avoid such abuses of power, we, the sovereign people, must demand that our government cut off funding for the United Nations, which is most commonly expressed as "membership dues."
 
Congress must pass enabling legislation to fund all United States obligations, but it is clearly illegal for the Congress to pass enabling funding for an illegal purpose, such as our alleged membership of the United Nations, which has set itself above the Constitution. If the senators in 1945 had done the proper research, and if they had not allowed Dulles to bamboozle, lie, dissemble, deceive and mislead them, they would have found the following exchange between Sen. Henry M. Teller and Sen. James B. Allen and benefited from it.
 
Here is a telling exchange made by two Senators:
Sen. Teller: "There can be no treaty that will bind the government of."

Sen. Allen: "Very well. That in its very nature, is altogether domestic, and cannot be the subject of a treaty."

Sen. Teller: "It is not because it is domestic; it is because the Constitution has put that business in the hands of Congress exclusively."

Sen. Allen: "No, Mr. President, not necessarily so, because the raising of revenue is purely a domestic matter. It lies at the foundation of the life of the nation, and it must be exercised by government alone, without the consent or participation of a foreign power (or world body)..."
A treaty is not the supreme law of the land. It is only a law, and not even a secure law at that. Any treaty that places the Constitution in jeopardy is ipso facto immediately null and void. Also, a treaty can be broken.
 
This is well established by Vattel's "Law of Nations," on page 194:
"In the year 1506, the states-general of the kingdom of France assembled at Tores engaged Louis XII to break a treaty he had concluded with the Emperor Maximilian and Archduke Philip, his son, because the treaty was pernicious to the kingdom. They also decided that neither the treaty nor the oath that accompanied it, could be binding on the kingdom who had no right to alienate the property of the crown...."
Certainly the United Nations treaty is destructive to the national security and the well-being of the United States. Inasmuch as a constitutional amendment, which is required for the United States to be a member of the United Nations, was not passed nor accepted by the 50 states, we are not a member of the United Nations. Such an amendment would have subjugated the right of Congress to declare war, and would have put the declaration of war in the hands of the United Nations on a superior level to that of the Constitution, placing American servicemen under the control and command of the United Nations.

Additionally, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to include a declaration of war by the United Nations and the United States on the same document, or to even be associated with it either directly, or by implication. On this one count alone, the United Nations threatens the security of the Constitution and therefore on that count alone, our membership of the United Nations is very definitely null and void and must not be allowed to stand. Sen. Langer, one of two senators who voted against the U.N. Charter, warned his colleagues in July of 1945 that the treaty was fraught with peril for America.

The late U.S. Representative, Larry McDonald, fully exposed the massive sedition and treason of the U.N. treaty as found in the Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks, January 27,1982, under the title, "Get Us Out":
"The United Nations, for three and a half decades, has been indulging in a gigantic unfettered conspiracy, mostly at the U.S. taxpayers expense, to enslave our republic in a world government dominated by the Soviet Union and its Third World. Having had enough of this freewheeling conspiracy, more and more responsible officials and thinking citizens are ready to pull out..."
McDonald was right on target, but over the last two years, we have seen a marked change in the way the United Nations is run by principally Britain and the United States, and we shall come to that in due course. Under President Bush, there was an obvious desire to remain in the United Nations, as it suited his style of politics as well as his kingly aspirations.

In 1945, sick of war, the senators thought that the United Nations would be a means of ending wars. Little did they know that the United Nation's purpose was just the opposite. It is now known that only five senators actually read the charter scripted by Alger Hiss, before voting on the treaty.

The goal of the United Nations, or rather, the goal of the men behind the United Nations, is not peace, even in the Communist sense of the word, but is actually world revolution, the overthrow of good government and good order and the destruction of established religion. Socialism and communism are not in themselves necessarily the goal; they are only the means to an end. The economic chaos now being perpetrated against the United States is a much more powerful means to that end.

World revolution, of which the United Nations is an integral component, is another matter entirely; a complete overturning of moral and spiritual values enjoyed by the Western nations for centuries is its goal. As part of that goal, Christian leadership must perforce, be destroyed, and that has already largely been accomplished by placing false leaders in places where they exert tremendous influence. Billy Graham and Robert S. Schuler are two good examples of so-called Christian leaders who are not. Much of this program of revolution was confirmed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his book, "Our Way."

If one reads between the lines of the treasonous, seditious U.N. Charter, one will find that much of the objectives outlined in the preceding paragraphs are implied, and, even in some instances, are even spelled out in the pernicious "treaty," which, if we, the people do not reverse, will trample our Constitution underfoot and make of us slaves in a dictatorship of the most savage and repressive kind under a One World Government.

Summed up, the goals of the spiritual and moral world revolution now raging ? and nowhere more so than in the United States ? are:
The destruction of Western civilization.
Dissolution of legal government
Destruction of nationalism, and with it, the ideal of patriotism.
Bringing the people of the United States into penury via graduated income taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes and so on, ad nauseam.
The abolition of the God-given right to private property by taxing property out of existence and targeting inheritance with bigger and bigger taxes. (President Clinton has already taken a giant step down this road.)
Destruction of the family unit via "free love", abortion, lesbianism and homosexuality. (Here again, President Clinton has placed himself firmly behind these revolutionary goals, thereby destroying any lingering doubts about where he stands in relation to the forces of world revolution.)
The Committee of 300 employs a vast number of specialists in diplomacy by deception who make us believe that severely dangerous and often disruptive changes come about through "changing times," as though their direction could change without some force compelling such changes. The Committee has a vast number of "teachers" and "leaders," whose sole task in life is to dupe as many people as possible into believing that major changes "just happen" and so, of course, should just be accepted.

Toward this end, these "leaders" who are in the vanguard of carrying out the Communist Manifesto's "social programs," have cleverly employed the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations methods like "inner directional conditioning" and "Operation Research" to make us accept the changes as if they were our own ideas to begin with.

A critical examination of the U.N. Charter shows that it differs only very slightly from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, an unabridged, unaltered copy of which is kept in the British Museum in London. There is an extract of the manifesto, allegedly the work of Karl Marx (Mordechai Levy) and Friedrich Engels, but was actually written by members of the Illuminati, which is still very active today through their top 13 council members in the United States.

In 1945 absolutely none of this vital information was ever viewed by the senators, who fell all over themselves in their rush to sign the dangerous document. If our lawmakers knew the Constitution, if our Supreme Court would uphold it then we would be able to echo the words of the late Sen. Sam Ervin, a great constitutional scholar, so much admired by liberals because of his work on Watergate:
"There is no way under the noon-day sun we ever joined the United Nations" and force our legislators to recognize the fact that the U.S. Constitution stands supreme over any treaty.
The United Nations is a war-making body. It strives to place power in the hands of the executive branch instead of where it belongs: in the legislative branch. Take the examples of the Korean War and the Gulf War. In the latter, the United Nations, not the Senate and the House, gave President Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq, thereby enabling him to use diplomacy by deception as a means to bypass the mandated Constitutional declaration of war. President Harry Truman evoked the same unauthorized power for the Korean War.

If we, the sovereign people, continue to go on believing that the United States is legally a member of the United Nations, then we must be prepared for more illegal actions by our Presidents, such as we saw in the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War. By acting under color of Security Council resolutions, the president of the United States can take on the powers of a king or a dictator. Those powers are expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

Under the powers vested in the president by U.N. Security Council resolutions, the president will be able to drag us into any future wars he decides we must fight. The groundwork for this method of sabotaging the declaration of war procedures mandated by the Constitution was tested and carried out in the days before the Gulf War, which will no doubt, forever be used as a precedent for future undeclared wars, in furtherance of the strategy of diplomacy by deception. Wars make far reaching changes which are unable to be achieved by diplomacy.

So that we are perfectly clear about the procedures laid down by the Constitution, which must be complied with BEFORE the United States can be engaged in war, let us examine them:
Both the Senate and the House must pass separate resolutions declaring that a state of belligerency exists between the United States and the other nation. In this connection we need to study the word "belligerent," for without "belligerency" there can be no intent to go to war
The House and Senate then must separately and individually pass resolutions declaring that a state of war exists between the belligerent nation or nations and the United States. This officially places America on notice that it is about to go to war.
The House and Senate then must pass individual and separate resolutions advising the military that the United States is now at war with the belligerent nation or nations.
The House and Senate must then decide if the war is to be an "imperfect" or a "perfect" war. An imperfect war means that only a single branch of the military can become involved, while a perfect war means that every man, women and child in the United States is in a public war with every man, women and child of the other nation or nations. In the latter case, all branches of the armed services are engaged.
If the president does not get a constitutional declaration of war from Congress, any and all U.S. military personnel dispatched to fight the undeclared war must return to the United States within 60 days from the date they were dispatched (this vital provision has mostly become null and void).
 
It is easy to see how the Constitution was steamrollered by President Bush; our military are still at war with Iraq and are still being used to enforce an illegal U.N. blockade. If we had a government that actually upholds the Constitution, the Gulf War would never have been started, and our troops would not now be in the Middle East, or for that matter, in Somalia.

Such declaration of war measures were designed specifically to avoid the United States being casually thrust into a war, which is why President Bush did an end-run around the Constitution so that we could be railroaded into the Gulf War. Nor does the United Nations have the authority to impose a rule on the United States that tells us to obey an economic blockade of Iraq or any other nation ? because the United Nations has no sovereignty. We shall deal with the Gulf War in the next chapters.

These powers, not given to the president but to the legislative branch of government de facto, make the United Nations the most powerful body in the world via Security Council resolutions. Since abandoning the Jefferson form of neutrality, we have been ruled by a series of vagabonds, one after another, who have plundered America at will and continue to do so. It was Thomas Jefferson who issued a stern warning, which our agents in Congress blithely disregarded, that America would be destroyed by secret deals with foreign governments having the desire to divide and rule the American people, so that the interests of foreign governments would be served before the needs of our own people.

Foreign aid, is nothing more that a program for robbing and plundering countries of their natural resources, and handing U.S. taxpayer's money to dictators in those countries, so that the Committee of 300 can reap obscene benefits from the illegal plunder, while the American people, no better than the slaves of the Egyptian Pharaohs, groan under the huge burden of "foreign aid." In the chapter on Assassinations we give the Belgian Congo as good example of what we mean. The Belgian Congo was run for the benefit of the Committee of 300, not the Congolese people.

The United Nations uses foreign aid as a means to plunder the resources of sovereign nations. No pirate or robber ever had it so good. Not even Kubla Kahn had it as good as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs and their kin have it. If a nation should demure in handing over its natural resources, as was the case with the Congo, which tried to protect its natural resources.
 
United Nations troops go in an "compel compliance", even if it means murdering civilians which U.N. troops did in the Congo ousting and murdering its leader, as was the case with Patrice Lumumba. The ongoing attempt to murder President Hussein of Iraq is yet another example of how the United Nations is subverting U.S. law and the laws of independent nations.

The question is, how long will we, the sovereign people, go on tolerating our illegal membership in this One World Government body? Only we, the sovereign people, can order our agents, our servants, in the House and Senate, to repeal forthwith our membership in a world body, which is injurious to the well-being of our United States of America.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 11:13:56 PM by Admin »


*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
The Brutal, Illegal Gulf War
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2012, 11:18:02 PM »
The Brutal, Illegal Gulf War

The most recent of wars carried out under the cloak of diplomacy by deception, the Gulf War, differs from others in that the Committee of 300, the Council on Foreign Relations, Illuminati and Bilderbergers did not adequately cover their tracks along the way to war. The Gulf War therefore is one of the easiest of wars to trace back to Chatham House and Harold Pratt House, and, fortunately for us, it is one of the easiest to prove the diplomacy by deception thesis.

The Gulf War must be viewed as a single component of the Committee of 300's overall strategy for the Middle East oil-producing Islamic states. Only a brief historical overview can be given here. It is essential to know the truth and to be set free from the propaganda of Madison Avenue opinion-makers, also known as "advertising agencies."

British imperialists, aided by their American cousins, began to implement their plans to seize control of all Middle East oil in or around the mid-1800s. The illegal Gulf War was an integral provision of that plan. I say illegal, because, as explained in the chapters dealing with the United Nations, only the Congress can declare war, as laid down in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 of the U.S. Constitution. Henry Clay, a recognized authority on the Constitution, said this on a number of occasions.

No elected official can override the provisions of the Constitution, and both former Secretary of State James Baker III and President George Bush, ought to have been impeached for violating the Constitution. A British intelligence source told me that when Baker met Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace, he actually bragged about how he got around the Constitution, and then, in the presence of the queen, chastised Edward Heath who had opposed the war. Edward Heath, a former British prime minister was sacked by the Committee of 300 for failing to support the European unity policy and for his strong opposition to the Gulf War.

Baker remarked to the gathering of heads-of-state and diplomats that he dismissed attempts to draw him into discussing constitutional issues. Baker also boasted about how his threats against the Iraqi nation were carried out, and Queen Elizabeth II nodded her approval. Obviously Baker and President Bush, who was also present at the gathering, placed their fealty to the One World Government above that of the oath of off


*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
Grand Larceny - United States Oil Policies Abroad
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2012, 11:24:46 PM »
Grand Larceny - United States Oil Policies Abroad

U.S. oil policies in foreign countries provides a consistent history of diplomacy by deception. In researching State Department documents for this book, I discovered numerous documents which openly pro claimed support for Standard Oil in Mexico and U.S. petroleum companies in the Middle East. It then became clear to me that the State Department was involved in a gigantic plot of diplomacy by deception in the foreign oil business.

A State Department directive dated Aug.16,1919 to all consuls and embassies in foreign countries urged massive spying and redoubling of foreign service personnel to assist the major American oil companies, an extract of which follows:

    "Gentlemen: The vital importance of securing adequate supplies of mineral oil both for present and future needs of the United States has been forcibly brought to the attention of the Department The development of proven fields and exploration of new areas is being aggressively conducted in many parts of the world by nationals of various countries and concessions for mineral rights are being actively sought It is desired to have the most complete and recent information regarding such activities by either United States citizens or by others.

    "You are accordingly instructed to obtain and forward promptly from time to time information regarding mineral oil concession, change of ownership of oil property, or important changes in ownership, or control of corporate companies concerned with oil production or distribution.

    "Information regarding development of new fields or increased output of producing areas should also be forwarded. Comprehensive data are desired and reports should not be limited to points specifically mentioned above, but should include information regarding all matters of interest affecting the mineral oil industry which may arise from time to time..."

This directive was issued following a long and bitter fight with the Mexican government As we shall see in the account that follows, A.C. Bedford, chairman of Standard Oil, had demanded that the U.S. government come into the picture:

    "All proper diplomatic support in obtaining and operating oil producing property abroad should be backed by the government."

The Federal Trade Commission promptly recommended "diplomatic support" of such oil ventures abroad.

Charles Evans Hughes also testified before the Coolidge Federal Oil Conservation Board, insisting that State Department and oil company policies be synonymous:

    "The foreign policy of the government, expressed in the phrase 'Open Door', consistently prosecuted by the Department of State, has made it possible for our American interests abroad to be intelligently fostered and the needs of our people, to no slight extent, to be appropriately safeguarded."

This really meant that a merging of government and private oil interests was necessary. It was not by accident that Evans just happened to be counsel of the American Petroleum Institute and Standard Oil.
 


A Case History: Exploitation of Mexican Oil

The history of exploitation of Mexican oil also serves as an example of how diplomacy by deception attains its desired ends. The conquest of Mexico's main natural resource?its oil ?remains an ugly, open blot in the pages of American history.

Oil was discovered in Mexico by British construction magnate, Weetman Pearson, whose company was part of the global network of Committee of 300 companies. Pearson was not in the oil business but was backed by the British oil companies, particularly the Royal Dutch Shell Company. He soon became the leading producer in Mexico.

Mexican President Porfirio Diaz officially gave Pearson sole rights to prospect for oil, after he had already given the "sole right" to Edward Dahoney of Standard oil, who was known as "the czar of Mexican oil." As we shall see, Diaz fought for the interests of his elitist backers. He was also firmly under the influence of Dahoney and President Warren Harding.

One must go back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in terms of which Mexico ceded Upper California, New Mexico and northern Sonora, Coahuila and Tampaulis to the United States for $15 million. Texas had been annexed by the United States in 1845. One of the main reasons for annexing Texas was that geologists knew of the vast oil fields that lay beneath its lands.

In 1876, Diaz overthrew Leordo de Tejada, and on May 2,1877, was declared president of Mexico. He remained in office until 1911, except for four years (1880-1884.) Diaz stabilized finances, undertook industrial projects, built railways and increased commerce during his dictatorial rule while remaining true to those who put him in power. Mexico's "royalty" was closely linked to the royalty of Britain and Europe.

It was the promulgation of a new mining code on Nov. 22,1884, that opened the door for Pearson to get into the oil business. Contrary to the old Spanish law, the new law provided that a title to land carried ownership of subsoil products. It also permitted the communal lands belonging to the Indians and mestizos to pass into the hands of the 1.5 million "upper class" of Mexico. It was against this background that Diaz started giving concessions to foreign investors.

The first to receive a concession was Dahoney, the close associate Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall and President Harding, to whom Dahony had donated large amounts of campaign money. In Harding's cabinet were no less than four oilmen, notably Fall. In 1900, Dahoney bought280,000 acres of Hacienda del Tulillo for $325,000. By "rewarding" President Diaz, Dahoney was literally able to steal land, or buy it at ridiculously low prices.

After four years of operations, Dahoney was producing most of the 220,000 barrels of oil coining out of Mexico. Thinking he was well established, Dahoney, on instructions from the United States government declined to increase "reward" payments to President Diaz, although the Potrero and Cero Azul fields were producing in excess of $1 million a week. This was rather typical of the selfish greed of John D., a streak that ran through the entire Rockefeller brood. At this point, Diaz, upset with Dahoney, gave Pearson a "sole concession." By 1910, Pearson's Mexican Eagle Company had acquired 58 percent of the total Mexican production.

In response, Rockefeller ordered Pearson's wells dynamited and his workers fired upon by peasants his money had armed for the purpose. Large bands of brigands were armed and trained to smash Mexican Eagle pipelines and oil installations. All of the dirty tricks taught by William "Doc" Avery Rockefeller, surfaced in John D. Rockefeller's war on Pearson.

But Pearson proved to be more than a match for Rockefeller, fighting back with similar tactics. Calculating that there was not enough oil in Mexico to continue fighting over (a grave error as it turned out), Rockefeller backed off and left the field to Pearson. Later, John D. regretted his decision to pull out of the struggle and pledged Standard's resources to create bloody chaos in Mexico. In this country we called the unrest "Mexican revolutions" which no one understood.

In recognition of his services to British oil interests, Pearson was granted the title of "Lord Cowdray," and was henceforth known by that title. He was also made a permanent member of the Committee of 300. Lord Cowdray was on good terms with President Wilson, but behind the scenes, John D. was working to undermine the relationship and get back into the business of exploiting Mexico's oil. Lord Cowdray, however, was determined to keep the bulk of Mexican oil profits in the coffers of the British government

Oil diplomacy in London and Washington differ little in aggression. Motives and methods have remained remarkably unchanged. After all, international power remains, above all, economic. On Jan. 21, 1928, Rear Admiral Charles Plunkett, commander of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, let the cat out of the bag, defending President Calvin Coolidge's $800 million navy program when he said:

    "The penalty for commercial and industrial efficiency inevitably is war."

This was in reference to the great demand for oil for oil-fired navy ship. Plunkett had his eye on Mexico's oil.

Logically, the nation that is in control of raw material assets of the world, rules it When Britain had a large navy which it needed to guard its world trade, diplomacy by deception was the key to British operations in oil-producing countries. America learned fast especially after the advent of the Dulles Illuminati family, as we shall see.

Let us return to Mexico, where, in 1911, Diaz was ousted by Francisco Madero, and uncover the role played by Standard Oil in that endeavor. Gen. Victoriano Huerto alarmed British oil interests by declaring his intention to regain control of Mexico's oil, and the British asked Lord Cowdray (who by that time had sold his Mexican operation to Shell) to get President Wilson to help them unseat Huerta.

This was a fine piece of diplomacy by deception, because the British knew that Standard Oil was behind the 1911 Madero revolution that downed President Diaz. It was a revolution Standard oil thought was necessary to stop British rape of "their" Mexican oil. Francisco Madero, who became president of Mexico on Nov. 6,1911, had little understanding of the forces who were pulling his strings, and played the political game, not realizing that politics is based solely on economics. But Huerta, who replaced him, knew how the game was played.

Standard Oil was very much involved in the downfall of Porfirio Diaz. Testimony given by a number of witnesses at the 1913 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, implicated Dahoney and Standard Oil for financing the 1911 Madero revolution.

 

One witness, Lawrence E. Converse, told the committee members a lot more than Standard wished them to hear:

    "Mr. Madero told me that as soon as the rebels (Madero's forces) made a good showing of strength, several leading bankers in El Paso (Texas) stood ready to advance him. I believe the sum was $100,000, and that Standard Oil interests had bought over the provisional government of Mexico... They (Gov. Gonzalez and Secretary of State Hernandez) said Standard Oil interests were backing Madero in his revolution..."

The Wilson government, anxious to curb Cowdray's concessions, established diplomatic relations with the Madero government, order ing an arms embargo against any counter-revolutionists. Cowdray was cast in the role of villain by Col. House, (Woodrow Wilson's controller) when Francisco Huerta overthrew Madero.

    "We do not love him (Cowdray), for we think that between him and Carden (Sir Lionel Carden, British Minister to Mexico), are large part of our troubles are made," said House.

Col. House correctly charged that Huerta was brought to power by the British so that Standard's concessions could be crimped by expanding Lord Cowdray's oil exploitation. President Wilson refused to recog nize the Huerta government, although Britain and the other major powers did so. Wilson said:

    "we can have no sympathy with those who seek to seize the power of government to advance their own personal interests or ambitions."

A Committee of 300 spokesman told President Wilson "you talk just like a Standard Oilman." The question was posed,

    "...what does the oil or commerce of Mexico amount to, in comparison with the close friendship between the United States and Great Britain? The two countries should agree on this primary principle ? to leave their oil interest to fight their own battles, legal and financial."

Those close to President Wilson said he was visibly shaken by British intelligence MI6 having uncovered his direct links with Standard's Mexican enterprises, which was starting to tarnish his Democratic president image. House warned him that the example set by Huerto in defying American power might be felt all across Latin America if the United States (read Standard Oil), did not assert itself. Here was a fine conundrum for a "Liberal Democrat" to confront.

Secretary of the Interior Fall urged the U.S. Senate to send American military forces into Mexico to "protect American lives and property." This rationale was also used by President Bush to send American troops to Saudi Arabia to "protect the lives and property" of British Petroleum and its employees, not to mention his own family's business, Zapata Oil Company. Zapata was one of the first American oil companies to become friendly with the Al Sabahs of Kuwait.

In 1913, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened hearings on what it called "Revolutions in Mexico." The American public, then as now, had no idea what was going on, and were led by the newspapers to believe that a whole lot of "crazy Mexicans were running around shooting at each other."

Mr. Dahoney, appearing as an expert witness was quite lyrical in his veiled request that the Washington government use force to restrain Huerta. He said:

    "...it seems to me that the United States must avail itself of the enterprise and ability and the pioneer spirit of its citizens to acquire and to have and to hold a reasonable portion of the world's petroleum supplies. If it does not, it will find that supplies of petroleum not within the boundaries of the United States territory will be rapidly acquired by citizens and governments of other nations..."

Seems like we have heard a similar quote in more recent times, where "madman" Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a threat the world's oil supplies. Secretary Fall added to his appeals in the Senate for armed intrusion into Mexico:

    "...and lend their assistance (i.e. U.S. military forces) to the restoration of order and maintenance of peace in that unhappy country and the placing of administrative functions in the hands of capable and patriotic citizens of Mexico."

The resemblance between the deception perpetrated against the Senate and the people of the United States by Dahoney of Standard Oil and Secretary Fall bears an eerie resemblance to the rhetoric of Bush prior to and during his illegal war against Iraq. Bush said it was necessary for American soldiers to "return democracy to Kuwait".

Once America succeeded in reclaiming Kuwait for British Petroleum (an example of the special friendship between The United States and Britain talked about by the Committee of 300 messenger during his visit to President Wilson), Bush turned his attention to "the sad and unhappy country of Iraq."

Like Wilson, who believed that "tyrant Huerta" had to be removed and Mexico restored to "order and maintenance of peace in that unhappy country by placing the administrative functions in the hands of capable and patriotic citizens of Mexico," Bush, using a similar form of diplomacy by deception said that America has got to get rid of the "tyrant Saaaddam." (Misspelling intentional.)

American were soon convinced that President Hussein was the cause of all of Iraq's problems which is what Colonel House through Wilson told the American people about President Huerta of Mexico. In both cases, the common denominator is diplomacy by deception, in Mexico and Iraq is oil and greed. Today, Council on Foreign Relations Secretary of State Warren Christopher, has replaced Dahoney, Fall and Bush, and is perpetuating the pretence that Hussein must be brought down to save the people of Iraq.

Christopher is merely continuing to use falsehoods in order to cover the Committee of 300's goal for total seizure of Iraq's oilfields. It is no different than Wilson's policy toward Huerta.

While in 1912, Wilson presented the "Huerta menace" as a danger to the Panama Canal, Bush presented Hussein as a threat to U.S. oil supplies out of Saudi Arabia. In neither case was this the truth: Wilson lied about the "threat" to the Panama Canal, and Bush lied about a "pending invasion" of Saudi Arabia by the Iraqi military. In both cases, there was no such threat Wilson's verbal assault on Heurta was made public in an address to the Inter-Allied Petroleum Council.

In a speech prepared for him by Col. House, Wilson told Congress that,

    "The present situation in Mexico is incompatible with the fulfillment of international obligations on the part of Mexico, with the civilized development of Mexico herself, and with the maintenance of tolerable political and economic conditions in Central America," Wilson said.

     

    "Mexico lies at last where all the world looks on. Central America is about to be touched by great routes of the world's trade and intercourse running from Ocean to Ocean at the Isthmus..."

In effect Wilson was announcing that, henceforth, the politics of American petroleum companies would become the policies of the United States of America.

President Wilson was completely in the grip of Wall Street and Standard Oil. Notwithstanding the fact that on May 1, 1911, the Supreme Court had ordered an anti-trust action against Standard Oil, he instructed U.S. consuls in Central America and Mexico to,

    "convey to the authorities an intimation that any maltreatment of Americans is likely to raise the question of intervention."

The quote is taken from a long State Department document, and from hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1913.

Following up on this message, Wilson instructed Secretary of State William Bryan to make it plain that he desired an early removal of President Huerta:

    "It is the clear judgment that it is the immediate duty of Huerta to retire from the Mexican government, and that the United States government must now proceed to employ such means as may be necessary to secure this result"

In the best style of an imperialist designed United States, Wilson followed up with yet another broadside at President Huerta on Nov. 12,1912:

    "Huerta has to be cut off from foreign sympathy and aid and from domestic credit, whether moral or material, and to force him out If General Huerta does not retire by force of circumstances, it will become the duty of the United States to use less peaceful means to put him out" Wilson's belligerent statement is all the more shocking when we consider that it followed a peaceful election in which

President Huerta was returned to office.

One wonders why if that was the case concerning Panama, John D's heir, David Rockefeller, fought so hard to give the Canal at Panama away to Colonel Torrijos, but that is the subject of another chapter under the heading of Panama and the fraudulent Carter-Torrijos treaty.

One should not be amazed that at the time the American people accepted Wilson's belligerent attack on Mexico, thinly disguised as "patriotic" and in the best interests of the United States. After all, didn't the bulk of the population, and I believe it was 87 percent of Americans, fully support Bush in his attack on Iraq, and aren't we guilty of allowing to stand, the inhuman and totally unjustified embargo against Iraq?

We ought not to be amazed at the similarity of Wilson and Bush rhetoric, for both were controlled by our upper-level, parallel secret government, even as Clinton is controlled from Chatham House in London, through the person of Mrs. Pamela Harriman. No wonder then that Warren Christopher is continuing the big lie against Iraq. Oil and greed is the driving factor in 1993, even as it was in 1912. The charges I make here against Wilson are well documented by author Anton Mohr in his book "The Oil War."

It was America that hurt Mexico the most in 1912, plunging it into a civil war falsely labeled as "revolution", even as we are the nation that hurt Iraq the most in 1991, and continue to do so, in defiance of our Constitution, which those in Congress who swore an oath to uphold, have lamentably and miserably failed to do.

Secretary Bryan, told European powers who did not like what they saw happening in Mexico, that,

    "there is a more hopeful prospect of peace, of security of property and early payment of foreign obligations if Mexico is left to the forces now reckoning with one another there."

This was classic diplomacy by deception. What Bryan did not tell the Europeans was that, far from leaving Mexico "to the forces now reckoning with one another there," Wilson had already begun to isolate Huerta using a financial and armament embargo. At the same time, he armed and financially supported the forces controlled by Venustiano Carranza and Francisco Villa, and urged them to over throw Gen. Huerta.

On April 9,1914, a stage-managed crisis was arranged in Tampico by the U.S. Consul which resulted in the arrest of a group of American Marines. The United States government demanded an apology, and, when it was not forthcoming, broke contact with the Huerta government. By April 21, the incident had been blown out of all proportion, to the point that U.S. troops received their orders to march on Vera Cruz.

By capitalizing on the Tampico incident, Wilson was able to justify ordering American naval forces into Vera Cruz. An offer by Huerta to submit the Vera Cruz affair to the Hague Court was refused by Wilson. Like his successor, Bush, in the case of President Hussein, Wilson did not let anything stand in the way of ending the rule of Gen. Huerta. In this, Wilson was ably assisted by Dahoney of Standard Oil, who advised Wilson and Bryan that he had given the rebel Carranza $100,000 in cash and $685,000 in fuel credits.

By mid-1914, Mexico was reduced to utter chaos by President Wilson's interference in its affairs. On July 5, Huerta was elected president by popular vote but resigned on July 11, when it became apparent that Wilson would foment trouble as long as he held the reins of Mexico's government.

A month later, Gen. Obregon gained control of Mexico City and installed Carranza as president. But in the north, Francisco Villa became a dictator. Villa opposed Carranza, but the United States recognized Carranza anyway. By now, Latin American countries feared U.S. intervention, which was heightened by fighting between Villa's troops and U.S. forces at Carrizal.

As a result of the clamor raised in Latin America, and especially heeding the feedback from his consultants on Latin America, Wilson ordered U.S. forces withdrawn from Mexico on Feb. 5,1917. Carranza disappointed his American backers in that he did nothing to help their cause. Rather, he tried to justify the 1911 revolution, which he said was necessary to preserve Mexico's integrity. This was not what the American oil companies had ordered him to say.

By January of 1917, the new Mexican Constitution was ready, and it came as a shock for Standard Oil and Cowdray's companies. Carranza was elected for four years. The new constitution which, in effect declared oil an inalienable natural resource of the Mexican people, took effect on Feb. 19,1918 and a new tax was also levied on oil lands and contracts made before May 1,1917.

This additional tax, covered by Article 27 of the document said the United States was "confiscatory" and in essence urged American companies in Mexico not to pay taxes. The Carranza government told Washington that taxation was a matter for "the sovereign state of Mexico." Try as it did, the U.S. State Department was unable to budge Carranza from his position that Mexican oil belonged to Mexico and, while foreigners could still invest in it they could only do so at a price ? taxation. The oil companies woke up to find that Carranza had turned the tables on them.

At this point, Cowdray went to the American president with a request "to face the common enemy (nationalization) together." Carranza was now persona non grata and Cowdray tried to sell his shares because he saw more confusion coming as the three leading Mexican generals vied for power. Cowdray's offer to sell was taken up by the Royal Dutch Shell Company. Although the conditions were uncertain, Cowdray made a handsome profit from the sale of his shares.

After much fighting, in which Carranza was killed and Villa assassinated, Gen. Obregon was elected president on Sept 5,1923. On Dec. 26, Huerta led a revolt against Obregon but was defeated. Obregon was supported by Washington on the condition that he restrict application of the constitution found so objectionable by foreign oil companies. Instead, Obregon slapped a 60 percent tax on oil exports. The U.S. government and the oil companies were angered by what

For nearly five years, Washington kept up its attack on the Mexican Constitution, while hiding its real motivations. By 1927, Mexico was in civil uproar and its treasury almost empty. The Mexican government was forced to capitulate.

 

There is no better description of what the Mexicans felt about being plundered of the oil than an editorial in "El Universal" of Mexico City, Oct. 1927:

    "American imperialism is a fatal product of economic evolution. It is useless to try and persuade our northern neighbor not to be imperialistic; they cannot help being so, no matter how excellent their intentions. Let us study the natural laws of economic imperialism, in the hope that some method may be found, by which instead of blindly opposing them, we mitigate their action and turn it to our advantage."

What followed was a complete and utter retreat from the Mexican Constitution by President Plutarco Calles. The retreat was continued by successive Mexican governments. Mexico paid for the rapprochement, retreating from the principles for which she had fought for in 1911 and 1917. On July 1,1928, Gen. Obregon was reelected president but was assassinated 16 days later. Foreign oil companies were accused of the crime and of keeping Mexico in a state of flux.

The U.S. government was acting in an alliance with Standard Oil and Lord Cowdray to force the Mexican government to roll back the Feb. 19,1918 decree which declared oil an inalienable natural resource of the Mexican people. On July 2, 1934, Gen. Lazaro Cardenas was chosen by Calles to be his successor. Cardenas then turned on Calles, calling him "too conservative," and, under pressure from British and American oil interests, had Calles arrested when he returned from the

U.S. in 1936. State Department documents leave no doubt about the hand of the U.S. government in these events.

Cardenas showed sympathy for the American and British oil companies, but was vigorously opposed by Vincente Lombardo Toledano, leader of the Confederation of Mexican Workers. Cardenas was forced to bow to demands from this group, and on Nov. 23, 1936, a new expropriation law empowered the government to seize property, especially oil lands. This was the reverse of what the U.S. government and oil companies were expecting, and panicked the oil companies.

By 1936, there were 17 foreign companies busily engaged in pumping the oil that rightfully belonged to Mexico. The situation was some thing akin to South Africa, where, ever since the Anglo Boer War (1899-1902), the Oppenheimer family of the Committee of 300 drained South Africa of its gold and diamonds, shipping them to London and Zurich, while the South African people got little benefit. The Anglo-Boer War was the first open demonstration of the might and the power of the Committee of 300.

Both with "black gold" and "yellow gold," the national resources of Mexico and South Africa, which really belong to the people, were plundered. This was accomplished under cover of diplomacy by deception, which fell apart only when national leaders of strength emerged, such as Daniel Malan, of South Africa and Lazaro Cardenas, of Mexico.

But unlike Malan, who was unable to hold back the robbing conspirators by nationalizing the gold mines, Cardenas promulgated a decree on Nov. 1,1936, in which the subsoil rights of Standard Oil and other companies was declared nationalized. The net effect of the decree deprived the oil companies of operating in Mexico and repatriating their profits to the United States. For years, Mexican oil workers had lived on the edge of poverty while Rockefeller and Cowdray added to their bloated profit coffers. Cowdray became one of the richest men in England; Americans know all to well the magnitude of the Rockefeller empire.

The blood of thousands of Mexicans had needlessly been shed because of the greed of Standard Oil, Eagle, Shell, et al. Revolutions were deliberately caused by the manipulators in the United States, always backed by the appropriate U.S. government officials. While Cowdray lived in absolute luxury and frequented the best clubs in London, Mexican oil workers were worse off than the slaves of the Pharaohs, living in squalor and huddled together in misery in shanty towns that beggared description.

On Mar.18,1938, the Cardenas government nationalized the properties of American and British oil companies. Diplomacy by deception then took a back seat to the iron fist The United States retaliated by halting the purchase of silver from Mexico. The British government broke off diplomatic relations. Secretly, Standard Oil and the British oil companies funded General Saturnino Cedillo, urging him to revolt against Cardenas. However, a massive show of support for Cardenas by the populace, ended the attempted revolt within weeks.

The United States and Britain soon instituted a boycott of Mexican oil, which devastated the national oil company known as PEMEX. Cardenas then arranged for barter agreements with Germany and Italy. Such deceitful conduct by both governments ? which most people considered to be pillars of Western civilization -continued still when the Communists tried to gain control of Spain and the Mexican government attempted to break the oil boycott by sending oil to Gen. Franco's government.

In the Franco-Communist War, known as the "Spanish Civil War," Roosevelt backed the Communist side, and allowed them to recruit men and munitions in the United States. Washington adopted an official policy of "neutrality," but this piece of deception was ill concealed, and came out when Texaco was hauled onto the carpet.

PEMEX decided to supply Franco with oil, using Texaco tankers to ship it to Spanish ports. Sir William Stephenson, head of MI6 intelligence, reported Texaco to Roosevelt. As it is custom where right-wing anti-communist governments battle for the existence of their countries, the secret upper-level parallel government of the United States ordered Roosevelt to halt Mexican oil shipments to Franco. But that did not stop the Bolsheviks from recruiting in the United States, or from obtaining munitions and financing from Wall Street Texaco did not act out of sympathy for Franco or Mexico: its motive was profit This demonstrates what happens when a Fabian Socialist such as Roosevelt, directs a country that is opposed to socialism.

It was not until 1946 that a semblance of good order came to Mexico with the election of President Miguel Aleman, On Sept. 30,1947, the Mexican government made a final settlement of all American and British expropriation claims. This cost the Mexican people dearly and still left control of the oil de facto in the hands of American and British oil companies. Thus, the 1936 expropriation decree signed by Cardenas was only partially successful.

In 1966, when several writers exposed the greed and corruption of Lord Cowdray, he hired Desmond Young to write a book whitewashing and playing down his involvement with Diaz and Huerta. In 1970, President Richard Nixon, at the behest of the Council on Foreign Relations, signed an agreement with President Diaz Ordaz which called for peaceful settlement of future border and other (meaning oil) disputes.

This agreement still holds good today, and, while the methods of plundering Mexican oil have changed, the intent and motivation has not There is a common misconception over Nixon's agreement, namely, that it represented a change in Washington policy. It was meant to convey the impression that we now recognize Mexico's right to its natural resources. This is a repeat of the period when Morrow negotiated a settlement with Calles-Obregon in what the people of America were told was a "large concession by the United States," when in fact, it was hardly any concession at all as far as Washington was concerned.

 

Such is diplomacy by deception.


*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
Rockefeller - The Evil Genie
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2012, 11:26:03 PM »
Rockefeller - The Evil Genie

No other industry has been corrupted as much as the mighty, powerful petroleum industry, and no other industry has as justly earned the epithets hurled against it. When the American Indians led Father Joseph de la Roche D'AIlion, a French Franciscan missionary, to the mysterious pool of black waters in Western Pennsylvania, they could not have imagined what horrible results would come from it.

The oil industry has survived all attempts to breach its walls, whether by government or by private citizens. The U.S. oil industry has survived personal vendettas by the late senators Henry Jackson and Frank Church, and has emerged from numerous investigations with aplomb and its secrets intact Not even anti-trust suits could break its power.

The petroleum industry cannot be mentioned without naming John D. Rockefeller, who created Standard Oil of New Jersey. The Rockefeller name is also synonymous with greed and an unwavering lust for power. The hatred the majority of Americans feel for the Rockefellers started when the "Big Hand" surfaced in the Pennsylvania oil regions. It began among the descendants of the pioneer drillers who flocked to Titusville and Pit Head when the black "gold rush" was getting into its stride in 1865.

John D. Rockefeller's ability to rob prospectors and drillers of their oil claims is strangely reminiscent of the "pioneering" efforts of Cecil John Rhodes, Barny Barnato and other Rothschild-Warburg agents who provided the money for daylight robbery and chicanery practiced by these con artists on the Kimberly diamond and the Rand gold claims owners. Nelson Rockefeller once claimed that the family fortune was "an accident," but the facts speak otherwise.

The paranoia and need for secrecy that surrounded John D. Rockefeller was handed down to his sons and adopted as a successful defense against outside prying into oil matters. Today, the Committee of 300 accounting firm of Price Waterhouse does the accounts in such a way that even the best accountants and various Senate committees have not been able to unlock the Rockefeller finances. Such is the nature of the beast The question is often asked: "Why was Rockefeller so profoundly crooked?" One can only surmise that it was inherent in his nature.

John D. Rockefeller did not believe in letting friendship stand in the way of his progress, and warned his sons never to let "good fellowship get a hold of you." His favorite dogma concerned the wise old owl who said nothing and heard much. Early photographs of John D. show a long, grim face, small eyes, without a trace of any human qualities.

In view of his appearance, it is all the more wonder that the Clark brothers allowed John D. in as their bookkeeper, and then, as a partner in their refinery. The brothers soon found out that Rockefeller was not to be trusted. In a short space of time, they were forced out; "bought out" according to John D.

 

Ida Tarbell's book "The History of the Standard Oil Company", which is rich with examples of Rockefeller's cast-iron ruthlessness and his inhumanity to all, except himself.

The Standard Oil Company was the most secretly run company in the history of the United States, a tradition carried on by Exxon and its affiliates today. It is said that Standard oil was bolted down and barricaded like a fortress. Rockefeller's image became so tarnished that he hired Ivy Lee, a public relations man to help him remake his image into one of a philanthropist. But in spite of his best efforts, Lee was unable to remove the legacy of hatred left by John D. The tarnished image of Standard and the Rockefellers has carried over into the 1990s and will probably be there forever. Standard Oil was to be the standard bearer for the oil industry in its conduct toward nations with oil and gas reserves beneath their soil.

The Rockefellers have always been a law unto themselves, and very early on, they decided that the only way to escape taxation was to place the bulk of their funds and assets outside of the United States. Already

But Rockefeller's march across the continents did not go unchallenged. Public resentment of Standard reached new levels after to writers like Ida Tarbell and H.D. Lloyd exposed the fact that Standard was a company with an army of spies above local, state and federal government,

    "who have declared war, negotiated peace, reduced courts, legislature and sovereign states to an unequaled obedience to its will."

Angry complaints poured into the Senate when the American people were told about Standard's monopoly practices which resulted in the Sherman Anti-trust Act. But so deliberately vague was the law, which left several issues unaddressed, that compliance was easily avoided by Rockefeller and his brood of lawyers. Rockefeller once described it as "an exercise in public relations with no teeth to it". Never was John D. Rockefeller's influence in the Senate more keenly felt than during the Sherman Anti-trust debates. It was a time when individual senators were subjected to great pressure by Rockefeller lobbyists.

Rockefeller suffered a temporary setback when, on May 11,1911 Chief Justice Edward White handed down his decision in an anti-trust case brought against Standard by Frank Kellogg: Standard was to shed all of its subsidiaries within 6 months. Rockefeller responded by employing an army of writers who explained that the "special nature" of the oil trade did not lend itself to normal business methods; it had to be treated as a special entity, to be handled just as John D. Rockefeller had done.

To dilute Judge White's ruling, Rockefeller set up his own form of government. The new "government" took the form of foundations and philanthropic institutions, modeled after the patronage system of the royal courts of Europe. These institutions and foundations would shield the Rockefeller fortune from income tax, which his paid hirelings in the Senate had warned him would be coming in the years ahead.

This was the beginning of the petroleum industry's "government within government," power which is still in place today. No doubt the CFR owes its rapid rise to power to Rockefeller and Harold Pratt In 1914, a member of the Senate called Rockefeller's empire, "the secret government of the United States." Rockefeller's strategists called for a private intelligence agency, and following their advice, Rockefeller literally bought the personnel and equipment of Reinhardt Heydrich's SS intelligence service, which today is known as "Interpol."

With intelligence likened to the best of Heydrich's SS intelligence behind them, the Rockefellers were able to infiltrate countries, virtually take over their governments, change their tax laws and foreign policies and, then pressure the U.S. government to fall in. If taxation laws became tougher, the Rockefellers would simply get the law changed. It is this bacillus in the oil industry that closed out local production that would have made America totally independent of foreign oil. The net result? Higher prices for the American consumer and obscene profits for the oil companies.

The Rockefellers were soon on the scene in the Middle East, but their efforts to gain concessions were blocked by Harry F. Sinclair. It seems that Sinclair was able to beat out the Rockefellers at every turn. Then came a dramatic reversal, the Tea Pot Dome Scandal in which Sinclair's close friend, Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall, and Fall's friend Dahoney were indicted for grabbing the Tea Pot Dome and Elk Hills Naval Oil Reserves for private gain. There were many who voiced concern that the Tea Pot Dome Scandal was set up by the Rockefellers to discredit and remove Sinclair as an unwelcome competitor.

The scandal shook Washington, and cost Fall his job, (the origin of the term "fall guy"). Sinclair was barely able to stay out of prison. All of his lucrative contracts with Persia and Russia were canceled. To this day it is widely suspected, but not proved, that the Tea Pot Dome scandal was a Rockefeller "sting" operation. Eventually, most of Sinclair's concessions in the Middle East, with the exception of those held by Britain, passed into Rockefeller hands.

Events in Iran were soon to prove the power of Rockefeller and his British associates. In 1941, when Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran refused to join the so-called "allies" against Germany and expel its nationals from the country, Churchill flew into a rage and thereupon ordered an invasion of Iraq, in which he was joined by his Bolshevik Russian allies. By permitting Russian troops to enter Iran, Churchill opened the door to a Russian presence in the region, one of Stalin's longed-for goals. This was a shocking betrayal of the Iranian people and the West in general, and showed that the Rockefeller influence was international.

Such is the power of the petroleum companies, especially those controlled by the Rockefellers. The representatives of Standard Oil and Royal Dutch Shell oil companies advised Churchill to arrest and expel Reza Shah, which he promptly did, sending him first to Mauritius and then to South Africa, where he died in exile. Documents I examined in the British Museum in London show extensive intervention by the Rockefellers in Middle East politics.

In the British parliament, Churchill crowed:

    "We (the oil companies), have just chased a dictator into exile and installed a constitutional government pledged to a whole catalog of serious-minded reforms."

What he did not say, was that the "constitutional government" was a puppet government selected by the oil companies, and its "whole catalog of reforms" was for the sole purpose of further entrenching American and British oil interests to get even bigger cuts of oil revenues.

But by 1951, the nationalistic mood sweeping the Middle East, which had begun in Egypt where Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser was bent on ousting the British from control of the country, spread to Iran as well. At this time, a genuine Iranian patriot, Dr. Mohamed Mossadegh, emerged to challenge Churchill's puppet government Mossadegh's main thrust was to break the power of the foreign oil companies. He judged the mood of the Iranian people as ripe for such a move.

This deeply alarmed the Rockefellers, who appealed to Britain for help. Mossadegh told Rockefeller and British Petroleum that he would not abide by their concession agreements. David Rockefeller is said to have developed a personal hatred of Mossadegh. Because of this, British Petroleum appealed to the British government to "put an end to the nuisance Mossadegh was creating."

 

Churchill, eager to comply with the demands of the Seven Sisters oil cartel (made up of the seven major British and American oil companies in the Middle East), asked the U.S. for help.

A talented, well-educated and astute politician from a wealthy back ground, Mossadegh's desire to help the Iranian people benefit from their national resource was genuine. In May of 1951, Dr. Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil. An international advertising campaign was launched against Mossadegh, who was depicted as silly little man running around Teheran in his pajamas, immersed in emotion. This was far from the truth.

Led by the Rockefeller oil companies and backed by the U.S. State Department, an international boycott of Iranian oil was ordered. Iranian oil soon became unsoldable. The State Department declared its support for Churchill's puppet government in Teheran, which was installed when the Shah refused to join the allies in the war against Germany.

At the same time, the CIA and MI6 launched a joint operation against Mossadegh. It was code-named "Operation Ajax". What followed was a classic example of how governments are subverted and toppled through diplomacy by deception. Churchill, who had lost the election after the war ended, was returned to power by a thoroughly brainwashed British public.

 

He used his office to wage war against Dr. Mossadegh and the Iranian people through highwayman and pirate tactics as the following example shows:

    The "Rose Marie," which sailed in international waters carrying Iranian oil, was not in breach of any international laws or treaties when it was ordered by Churchill to be intercepted by the Royal Air Force, and was forced to sail for Aden, a port under British control. The hijacking of a ship at sea had the full backing of the U.S. State Department, at the Rockefeller family suggestion.

    My source in London whose job it is to monitor the oil industry, told me in 1970 that Churchill was restrained by his cabinet only with difficulty from ordering the RAF to bomb the "Rose Marie." A year passed, in which Iran suffered great financial losses. In 1953, Dr. Mossadegh wrote to President Dwight D. Eisenhower asking for help. He might as well have written to Rockefeller. Eisenhower, playing a game of nerves, did not respond.

    The tactic had the desired effect of frightening Mossadegh. Finally, Eisenhower did reply, and in the classic style of diplomacy by deception, advised the Iranian leader to "abide by Iran's international obligations." Mossadegh continued to defy both the British and American governments. The oil companies sent a deputation to see Eisenhower to ask that immediate measures be taken to remove Mossadegh.

    Kermit Roosevelt, who headed the CIA's covert operation against Mossadegh, worked tirelessly to establish forces inside Teheran that could be used to cause unrest. Large sums of money, said by my source to have amounted to $3 million, changed hands. In April of 1953, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, under intense pressure from the international bankers, tried to dismiss Dr. Mossadegh, but the attempt failed. The CIA and MI6-equipped army of agents, started to attack the military. Fearing assassination, the Shah fled, and Mossadegh was toppled in August 1953. The cost to American taxpayers was almost $10 million.

It is worth noting that even while Kermit Roosevelt was preparing the CIA's covert operation against Dr. Mossadegh in 1951, his Rockefeller partners were facing judicial proceedings in Washington that should have caused a halt to operations in Iran. The fact is that the all powerful petroleum industry knew it could beat back the challenge as it had done with all others. Justice Department proceedings were launched against Exxon, Texaco, Standard Gulf, Mobil and Socal. (No effort was made to go after Shell and BP).

Standard Oil immediately commissioned Dean Acheson to blunt the inquiry. Acheson proves a good example of how Rockefeller used important people in government and the private sector to override the government of Washington. Early in 1952, Acheson went on the attack. Citing the interests of the State Department in protecting America's foreign policy initiatives, thereby tacitly admitting that the major oil companies were running State's foreign policy, Acheson demanded that the investigation be shelved in the interest of not weakening "our good relations in the Near East"

Acheson failed to mention the uproar and instability being created at that very moment in Iran by Rockefeller, the CIA and MI6. The Attorney General responded with a sharply-worded attack on the oil monopolists, warning that petroleum should be freed,

    "from the grip of the few; free enterprise can only be preserved by safeguarding it from excess of power, both government and private."

Hethen accused the cartel of acting in a way that endangered national security.

Rockefeller immediately ordered that damage control efforts put in place through his contacts inside the State and Justice Departments. (To this day, both are infested with CFR-Rockefeller agents.) Acheson publicly denounced the investigation as an action "by police dogs from the antitrust who want no truck with mammon and the unrighteous." His tone of voice was at all times belligerent and threatening. Acheson lined up support for Rockefeller from the Defense and Interior Departments, who vouched for the Seven Sisters in a most astounding manner.

    "The companies (the major oil companies) play a vital role in supplying the free world's most essential commodity. American oil operations are for all practical purposes instruments of our foreign policy."

Dean Acheson then attempted to raise the bogeyman of Soviet interference in the Middle East, which was nothing more than a red herring to distract attention away from how the oil companies operated. Eventually, all criminal charges against the cartel were dropped

To show their utter contempt for U.S. law, the representatives of the major oil companies met in London in 1924 to avoid possible conspiracy charges at the request of Sir William Fraser. The letter that Fraser wrote to the top executives of Standard, Mobil, Texaco, BP.

The conspirators met again in London one month later, where they were joined by the CEO of the French company, Francias de Petroles. An agreement was reached to form a consortium that would control the Iranian oil. The new body was called a "consortium" as the use of the word "cartel" in America was deemed to be injudicious. Success was guaranteed, American executives told their foreign counterparts, because the State Department had given its blessing to the London meeting.

As far as the State Department was concerned, the Seven Sisters played a key role in the Middle East in fending off Communist penetration in an area of vital concern to the United States. Given the fact that in 1942, the very same oil companies backed Churchill in bringing Soviet Bolshevik troops to invade Iran, thereby giving Stalin his greatest opportunity to get a foothold in the Middle East, this was not exactly the truth.

Throughout the Justice Department proceedings, which began in October of 1951, State Department witnesses kept referring to the petroleum industry as "the so-called cartel." The State Department is densely populated with Rockefeller agents, perhaps more so than any of the other government institutions which David Rockefeller controls.

It remains my firm conviction to this day that a way has not yet been found to break the Rockefeller chains that bind the oil companies and this nation to the Council on Foreign Relations, which controls every facet of our foreign policy toward the oil nations of the world. It is a situation that we, the people, will have to confront, hopefully sooner rather than later.

In Washington, civil proceedings against the petroleum cartel fizzled out in the face of threats by the Council on Foreign Relations, which was backed by its puppet, President Eisenhower. Eisenhower said that the national security interests of the United States were being threatened by the proceedings. CFR puppet Eisenhower instructed his Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. to tell the court that the "anti-trust laws must be deemed secondary to the national security interests."

While Kermit Roosevelt was going at it hammer and tongs in Teheran, Eisenhower and Dulles offered the court a compromise that would, in Eisenhower's words,

    "protect the interests of the free world in the Near East as a major source of petroleum supplies."

No wonder that the Ayatollah Khomeini decades later, would call the United States "the great Satan." Khomeini was not referring to the people of the United States, but to their government.

Khomeini knew full well that the ordinary American was the victim of a conspiracy, that they were lied to, cheated, robbed and forced to sacrifice the blood of millions of their sons in foreign wars in which they had absolutely no reason to take part. Khomeini, an avid student of history, knew all about the Federal Reserve Act which he said "kept the people in the grip of slavery." When the U.S. embassy in Teheran was seized by revolutionary guards, several compromising documents fell into Khomeini's hands which clearly showed CIA involvement with British Petroleum, Standard and the other major oil companies.

Once the coup was declared a success, the Shah returned to his palace. Little did he know that two decades later he would suffer the same fate as Mossadegh, at the hands of the petroleum industry and its surrogate governments in Washington and London: the CIA and MI6. The Shah thought he could trust David Rockefeller, but like many others, it was not long before he realized that his trust was sadly misplaced.

Having access to the documents Mossadegh had dug up, which showed the extent of the plundering of Iran's national resource, the Shah quickly became disenchanted with London and Washington. Upon hearing the news of revolts in Mexico and Venezuela against Rockefeller and Shell, and coupled with the news about Saudi Arabia's "Golden Gimmick," the Shah began to pressure Rockefeller and the British for a larger share of the Iranian oil revenues which, at that time, amounted to only 30 percent of the total amount of oil revenues enjoyed by the oil companies.

Other countries had felt the lash of the petroleum industry as well. Mexico is a classic case of petroleum companies foreign policy making ability which transcended national boundaries and cost American consumers a huge fortune. Oil, it seemed, was the foundation of a new economic order, with undisputed power in the hands of a few people hardly known outside of the petroleum industry.

The "majors" have been referred to a number of times. This is shorthand for the major oil companies that form the most successful cartel in the history of commerce. Exxon (called Esso in Europe), Shell, BP, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil and Socol-Chevron. Together they form part of a major network of interlocking, interfacing banks, insurance companies and brokerage houses controlled by the Committee of 300, which are hardly known outside their circle.

The reality of the One World Government, or New World Order upper level government, brooks no interference from anyone, no matter who it might be -even powerful national governments ? the rulers of nations great and small, corporations or private people. These supranational giants have expertise and accounting methods that have flummoxed the best brains in government, out of whose reach they remain. Through diplomacy by deception it seems the majors were able to induce governments to parcel out oil concessions to them, no matter who opposed it John D. Rockefeller would very much have approved this closed shop, run for the last 68 years by Exxon and Shell.

It is evident from the vastness and the complexity of their operations, most often carried out like clockwork and often involving activities in several countries at the one time, that the petroleum industry is one of the most powerful components that make up the economic operations of the Committee of 300.

In secret, the Seven Sisters club has plotted wars and decided amongst themselves which governments must bow to their depredations. When trouble arises, such as in the case of Dr. Mossadegh, and later President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, it is only a matter of calling upon the right airforce, navy, army, intelligence service to solve the problem and get rid of the "nuisance." It can be no more trouble than swatting a fly. The Seven Sisters became a government within a government, and nowhere is this more the case than with Rockefeller's Standard Oil (SOCO Exxon-Chevron.)

If one would like to know American and British foreign policies for Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq, one need only study the policies of BP, Exxon, Gulf Oil and ARAMCO. What is our policy in Angola? It is to protect Gulf Oil properties in that country, even though it means supporting an avowed Marxist. Who would have imagined that Gulf, Exxon, Chevron and ARAMCO have more say about American foreign affairs than members of Congress? Indeed, who would imagine that. Standard Oil would one day control the foreign policy of the United States and have the State Department acting as if it were run for its own economic benefit?

Is any other group so exalted, so favored with showers of tax concessions that run into billions of dollars per annum? I am often asked why it is that the American domestic petroleum industry, once so bustling and full of promise, went into a steep decline. The answer, in one word, is greed. For this reason, domestic production of oil had to be curtailed, in case the public should ever discover what was going on. This knowledge is much more difficult to obtain when dealing with foreign operations. What does the American public know about what goes on in the oil politics of Saudi Arabia? Even while making record profits, the petroleum industry demands and gets additional tax breaks, both open ? and hidden ? from public view.

Have the citizens of the United States benefited from the huge profits made by Exxon, Texaco, Chevron and Mobil (before it was sold?) The answer is no, because most of the profit was made "up-stream," that is, outside of the United States, which is where the profits were kept, while the U.S. consumer paid ever-rising prices for gas at the pumps.

Rockefeller's main area of concern became Saudi Arabia. The oil companies, by various stratagems, had entrenched themselves with King Ibn Saud. The king, worried that Israel would one day threaten his country and strengthen the Israeli lobby in Washington, needed something that would give him an edge. The State Department, at the urging of the Rockefellers, said it could only follow a pro-Saudi policy without upsetting Israel by using Exxon (ARAMCO) as a front This information was given to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was so sensitive that committee staffers were not even allowed to see it.

Rockefeller had in fact paid only a small fee, $500,000, to secure a major oil concession from Ibn Saud. After considerable diplomacy, a deception was worked out, a deception which cost American taxpayers at least $50 million in its first year. What came out of the discussions between Exxon and Ibn Saud is known as "the Golden Gimmick" in the inner sanctums of Rockefeller board rooms. The American oil companies agreed to pay a subsidy to the Saudi ruler of not less that $50 million a year, based on the amount of Saudi oil pumped. The State Department would then allow the American companies to declare such subsidy payment as "foreign income tax," which Rockefeller, for example, could deduct from Exxon's U.S. taxes.

With production of cheap Saudi oil soaring, so did the subsidy payments soar. This is one of the greatest scams perpetrated upon the American public. The bottom line of the plan was that huge foreign aid payments were made annually to the Saudis under the guise of "subsidies." When the Israeli government uncovered the scheme, it too, demanded "subsidies" which today amount to $13 billion per annum ? all at the expense of American taxpayers.

Since the American consumer actually helps pay for cheaper imported crude oil than domestic crude oil, shouldn't we benefit from this arrangement through cheaper gasoline prices at the pumps? After all, Saudi oil was so cheap, and in view of the production subsidies, wouldn't this translate into lower gasoline prices at the pumps? Does the American consumer derive the slightest benefit from footing this huge bill? No way. Apart from geopolitical considerations, "the majors" are also guilty of price fixing. The cheap Arab oil for instance, was fixed at the higher domestic crude oil price when imported into the United States by a subterfuge known as "phantom freight rates."

According to hard evidence presented to the Multi-national Hearings in 1975, the major oil companies, led by Rockefeller companies, made 70 percent of their profits abroad, profits which could not be taxed at the time. With the bulk of their profits coming from "up stream," the petroleum industry was not about to make a major investment in the domestic oil industry. As a consequence, the domestic oil industry began to decline. Why spend money on the exploration and exploitation of domestic oil when it was theirs for the asking in Saudi Arabia ? at a cheaper price than the local product and at a far bigger profit?

The unsuspecting American consumer was and is being shafted, without knowing it. According to secret economic data, which a contact of mine who is still in the economic intelligence monitoring business showed me, gas at the pumps in America, given all local, state and federal taxes piled on the price, should not have cost the consumer more than 35 cents per gallon by the end of 1991. Yet, we know that prices at the pumps were three to five times greater without any justification for such excessively high prices.

The immorality of this gross deception is that had the big oil companies, and again I must emphasize the leadership of the Rockefellers in this, not been so greedy, they could have produced domestic oil which would have made our gasoline prices the cheapest in the world. In my opinion, the manner in which this diplomatic deception was set up between the State Department and Saudi Arabia, makes the State Department a partner to a criminal enterprise. For, in order not to have a falling-out with Israel and at the same time keep the Saudis happy, the American consumer was loaded with a huge tax burden, from which this country derived absolutely no benefit. Isn't that tantamount to the involuntary servitude forbidden by the U.S. Constitution?

The rulers of Saudi Arabia then demanded that fixed prices be posted by the oil companies (ARAMCO), meaning that the country would not surfer a decline in income if prices for oil dropped. When they heard of the arrangement, Iran and Iraq demanded and received the same fixed pricing agreement The bottom line here is that the oil companies led by the Rockefeller companies, paid taxes on an artificially higher price, not the real market price, which was offset by the lower taxes they paid in the United States ? a major benefit not enjoyed by any other industry in America.

This made it possible for Exxon and Mobil (and all the ARAMCO companies) to pay an average tax rate of 5 percent, notwithstanding the huge profits they were making. Not only were the oil companies gouging the American consumer, and still are, but they are also making and carrying out U.S. foreign policy to the extreme detriment of the American people. These arrangements and actions place the petroleum industry above the law, giving it a position from where the companies can, and do, dictate foreign policy to the elected government, free of any control by our representatives in Washington.

The policies of the petroleum companies cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars in additional taxation and billions of dollars in excess profits at the pumps. The petroleum industry, and, in particular, Exxon, has no fear of the U.S. government Thanks to the control exercised by the permanent upper-level parallel secret government of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Rockefeller is untouchable. That enabled ARAMCO to sell oil to the French Navy at $0.95 per barrel, while at the same time the U.S. Navy was charged $1.23 per barrel.

One of the few in the Senate who dared tackle the awesome power of the Rockefellers was Sen. Brewster. He disclosed some of the "slippery conduct" of the petroleum industry during hearings in 1948, accusing the industry of bad faith "with an avaricious desire for enormous profits while at the same time constantly seeking the cloak of United States protection and assistance to preserve their vast concessions,". The Rockefellers drafted a memo signed by the bigger

U.S. oil companies, the gist of which was that they did not owe "any special obligation to the United States." Rockefeller's blatant internationalism was finally flaunted for all to see.

As an example of the foregoing, M.J. Eaton in an article published by "The Oil Industry" stated:

    "The oil industry is at present confronted with the question of government control."

When the U.S. government invited the American Petroleum Institute to name three members to a committee it had set up to consider conservation legislation, API's president E.W. Clarke said:

    "We cannot undertake to pass upon, still less accede to, any suggestion that the Federal government may directly regulate the production of crude oil in several states."

The API argued that the Federal government did not have authority to control oil companies under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. On May 27,1927, the API said the government could not tell the industry what to do?even where the common defense and the general welfare of the nation was concerned.

One of the best and most far-reaching exposes of the petroleum industry is a 400-page report entitled "The International Petroleum Cartel." This great report has disappeared from view, and it is my understanding that Rockefeller and the CFR bought up every avail able copy shortly after it was published, and prevented any more copies of the report from being printed.

Inspired by the late Sen. John Sparkman and put together by Professor M. Blair, the history of the petroleum cartel was traced back to a conspiracy that took place at Achnacarry Castle, a remote fishing preserve in Scotland. Sparkman pulled no punches in a slashing attack on Rockefeller's oil empire.

 

Professor Blair meticulously built up a case which proved that the major oil companies had entered into a conspiracy to achieve the following goals:

        To control all oil production in foreign countries in so far as production, sale and distribution of oil was concerned.

        To strictly control all technology and patents related to oil production and refining.

        To share pipelines and tankers between the Seven Sisters.

        To act jointly to maintain artificially high prices for oil and gasoline.

Professor Blair charged that particularly ARAMCO had been guilty of keeping oil prices at a high level when it was getting Saudi oil at incredibly low prices. In response to Sparkman's charges, the Justice Department began its own investigation in 1951, which was dealt with earlier herein.

Nothing has changed. The Gulf War is a good example of "business as usual." The occupation of Somalia also has oil overtones. Thanks to our newest spy satellite, the La Crosse Imager which can relay images of what lies underground, very substantial oil and gas reserves were detected in Somalia about 3 years ago. The find was kept absolutely secret This led to the U.S. mission ostensibly to feed starving Somali children shown on television night after night for 3 months.

A "starving children" rescue mission was staged by the Bush administration as a means of providing protection for Aramco, Phillips, Conoco, Cohoco and British Petroleum drilling operations coming under threat from Somali leaders who were becoming aware that they were about to be plundered.

 

The American operation had little to do with feeding starving children. Why didn't the U.S. mount a similar "rescue" mission in Ethiopia, where starvation is a real problem? Obviously, the answer is that Ethiopia does not have any known oil reserves. However, securing the port of Berbera is the chief goal of U.S. forces. There is great discord in Russia over oil. The Kurds will have to suffer again and again over Mosul oil.

 

Rockefeller and BP are still the greedy oil grabbers they always were.


*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
Israel In Focus
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2012, 11:27:13 PM »
Israel In Focus

Perhaps more than any other country in the Middle East, with the exception of what is now called Saudi Arabia, diplomacy by deception was seen at its height during the formative years of the State of Israel. As I have done throughout this book, I have made every effort to be absolutely objective in dealing with the background to the formation of Israel, given the propensity of the majority to regard almost anything said about the country as "anti-semitic."

This account of how the State of Israel came into being does not take religious matters into consideration, but is based purely and simply on political, geographical, geopolitical and economic factors. It is difficult to arrive at a starting point when dealing with the history of any country, but after almost fifteen years of research, I have pinned down Oct. 31,1914 as the beginning of events that led to the founding of Israel.

The history of one country cannot be separated from that of its neighbors, and this applies especially when it comes to an historical account of Israel. Lord Horatio Kitchener, fresh from his success in putting an end to the sovereign independent Boer Republics in South Africa, was turned loose on the Middle East by the Committee of 300 acting through the British Foreign Office.

The British government had been scheming and plotting against the Turkish Ottoman Empire since 1899, and by 1914, was ready to make its final move to bring down the 400-year old dynasty. The Committee of 300 plan was to involve Arabs through false promises, and use Arabian forces to do Britain's dirty work, as we saw in the chapter which showed how Col. Thomas Lawrence was used for this purpose.

The first step in this direction was a meeting between Hussein, the grand Sherif of Mecca, bastion of the Hashemites, and Lord Kitchener. Hussein was offered a guarantee of independence for his assistance against the Turks. Full negotiations began in July of 1915. At these meetings, the British government repeatedly assured Sherif Hussein that Jewish immigration to Palestine would never be allowed, which, as I detailed in earlier chapters, was the only thing that would guarantee Hussein's participation.

Even before the negotiations for complete independence for Mecca got under way, emissaries of the British government met secretly with members of the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families to discuss British cooperation in helping these two families subjugate the city-states of Arabia.

The strategy was to get Hussein and his military forces to help drive the Turks out of Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Arabia by promising Hussein and the leaders of Arabia's city-states that Jewish immigration into Palestine would not be permitted. The second part of the strategy called for the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi forces (armed, trained and financed by Britain) to bring all independent city-states in Arabia under their control while the city-state's leaders alongside Hussein were busy fighting Britain's war against the Turks.

The overall plan, proposed by Lord Kitchener, was discussed by the British government on July 24,1914. But it was not until Oct. 24,1914 that the British government gave its answer. The Arab territories, with certain exceptions in Syria, "in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to her ally, France," would be respected. On Jan. 30, 1916, Britain accepted Hussein's proposals, which, in essence were that in return for his help, Hussein would be declared king of Hijaz and would rule the Arab people.

On June 27,1916, Hussein proclaimed the establishment of the Arab State, and was proclaimed king of the Hijaz on October 29. On Nov. 6,1916, Britain, France and Russia recognized Hussein as the head of Arab peoples and the king of Hijaz. Were the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families disturbed by the contradiction in the terms of their agreement with Great Britain? Apparently not, for the simple reason that they were informed in advance of these developments, and knew that they were no more than a needed deception to be played out on Hussein.

The years 1915 and 1917 saw the British government meeting with leaders of the World Zionist Congress to determine how best to implement its long-planned Jewish immigration into Palestine. An agreement was reached to send MI6 agents to Arabia to help train the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi armies.

Britain, France and Russia held a secret meeting on April 26, 1916, agreeing that Palestine would be placed under international administration. None of the Arabs were informed, although British Foreign Office documents infer that leaders of the World Zionist Congress were notified in advance of the meeting and advised on its purpose.

Previously, in March of 1915, France and Britain had also promised Constantinople to the Russians. In return, Russia agreed that it would recognize the independence of Arab states. Britain would control Haifa. France would get Syria. Russia would get Armenia and Kurdistan (oil was not yet a factor). What is amazing, is that not once were the inhabitants of these lands ever informed. How the governments could trade in lands that did not belong to them speaks to the tremendous power exercised by secret societies under the control of the Committee of 300.

This perpetual agreement, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, was concluded between Britain and France on May 9, 1916. All zones of influence in the Middle East were specifically spelled out, even where Arab states were ostensibly recognized as "independent." The means of control here was through secret societies particularly through a planned Freemason Lodge in Salonika.

Unaware of what had been arranged, M16 operative Col. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") led the Arab forces of Sherif Hussein to one spectacular victory after another, eventually capturing the key Hijaz rail line, driving the Turks into full retreat The key element in persuading the Arabs to attack the Turks (both were Islamic nations) was the British statement that the Ottoman empire had befriended the Jews expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, and had made Constantinople a haven for Jews. This, the British negotiators (MI6 agents) told Hussein, guaranteed that the rulers in Constantinople

Affectionately known as "Orrenz" by his Arab soldiers, looked up to and idolized, it was impossible for Col. Lawrence to accept the gross betrayal of Hussein and his army. When it became apparent that Jews were being allowed into Palestine in large numbers, Lawrence was subsequently murdered to stop him from disclosing the machinations of the British government British War Office records show that Lawrence received personal guarantees from Gen. Edmund Allenby, commander of British forces in the Middle East that Jewish immigration to Palestine would not be allowed under any circumstances.

Let us return now to the Balfour Declaration, a remarkable document in the sense that it was neither drafted nor signed by British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, but by Lord Rothschild, as head of the British branch of the World Zionist Federation. Britain promised land in Palestine to Jews that really belonged to the Arabs, in breach of the pledge to Sherif Hussein and solemn promises made to Col. Lawrence by Gen. Allenby.

What is more striking is that although Lord Rothschild was not a member of the British government, his proposals for Palestine were accepted by the League of Nations on April 25, 1920 as an official British government document. The League of Nations accepted the Balfour Declaration and gave a mandate to Britain to administer Palestine and Transjordan. The only alteration made was that a Jewish national home would not be established in Transjordan, which, in any case, the Zionists did not want.

Once the Turks were defeated by Arab forces under Lawrence's command, and later the Arabs under Hussein, were defeated by the British-trained and equipped Abdul Aziz armies, the way was clear for Jewish immigration to Palestine to begin in earnest. Arrangements were confirmed at a conference of allied prime ministers held at San Remo, Italy on April 18, 1920. No Arab delegates were invited. In May of 1921, serious anti-Jewish rioting broke out in Palestine over the sudden influx of Jewish immigrants and the large number of Jewish settlements springing up.

Sir Herbert Samuel, British high commissioner for Palestine, at tempted to appoint a legislative council, but the Arabs would have no part of it Unrest continued from 1921, and a dispute at the Wailing Wall in 1929 erupted and rapidly escalated into large scale attacks on Jews, 50 of whom were killed.

A British government report issued in March of 1931 cited the cause of the rioting as "Arab hatred of Jews, and the disappointment of the Arab hopes for independence." The British government then issued a decree restricting Jewish immigration, which led to a Jewish strike that caused wide disruption in Palestine.

British foreign office documents indicate that in June of 1931, "complaints were filed with the League of Nations Commission on Mandates, which blamed the problems on an inadequate security force." Although the papers did not indicate who originated the complaints, notations in the margins of these papers point to Lord Rothschild.

As a result of League of Nations pressure, the British government appointed Sir John Hope-Simpson to track and report on the unrest in Palestine. His report, known as The Passfield White Paper was presented to Parliament in 1930. The White Paper stressed the plight of the landless Arabs and their increasing desire to own land. It strongly advocated that Jews be forbidden to acquire more land if any Arabs were landless, and that Jewish immigration be stopped for as long as any Arabs were unemployed.

The confidence of the Jews badly shaken, the World Zionist Congress went on the offensive and forced a debate in Parliament on the Passfield paper. The "London Times" in Nov. of 1930 said debates in Parliament were "heated and acrimonious." After two years of intense pressure on the British government, the Zionist World Federation was able to obtain a relaxation of restrictions on the number of Jews allowed into Palestine.

In 1933, Sir Arthur Wauchope, British high commissioner, rejected Arab demands that the sale of Arab land to Jews be declared illegal, and that Jewish immigration be halted. By now, talk of war in Europe was in the air, alongside daily reports of Jews being persecuted in Germany. This worked against the Arabs. The Zionists organized large-scale protests and riots against restricted immigration, and newspapers in London reported unfavorably on their activities. This, however, did little to further the Palestinian people's cause.

It became clear in 1935, why Britain had demanded control of Haifa with the opening of the Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline. In April of 1936, the Arab High Committee united Arab opposition to the Jews in Palestine, and near civil war erupted. The British government responded with more troops and appointed a commission to investigate the causes of the unrest.

 

The Arabs boycotted the commission,

    "because the British already know what the problem is but hide behind commissions and do nothing to stop the causes."

The Peel Commission took evidence in Palestine in 1936, and just before leaving for London in January 1937, heard from an Arab delegation which had previously boycotted commission meetings. On July 8,1937, the Peel Commission Report was made public. It dealt a devastating blow to Jewish aspirations, flatly stating that Jews and Arabs could not live together, and recommended that Palestine be split into three states:

        A Jewish state to occupy about one third of the land. In it, would reside 200,000 Arabs, with the land being held by Arabs.

        A British mandated territory comprising a strip of land from Jaffa along the railway to Jerusalem. It would include Bethlehem and Jerusalem.

        The remainder of the land to be an Arab state united with Trans Jordan.

The Peel Commission report was adopted by the World Zionist Federation, but it was denounced by the Arab world and several European countries, especially France. The Peel Commission recommendations were adopted by the League of Nations on August 23, 1937.

The assassination of High Commissioner Yelland Andrew on August 2, 1937 was attributed to the Zionists, which the Palestinians and Arabs said was arranged to engender hatred among the British people for the Arabs. By 1937, pitched battles between Jews and Arabs took on the semblance of all-out war.

This led to a postponement of the Peel Commission recommendations and the appointment of a new commission under Sir John Woodhead. It is important to know that the diplomacy by deception tactics of the British government were leading up to one objective, the total abandonment of the Arab cause in Palestine. Secret MI6 documents of the period were not disclosed even to the British parliament They suggested that the "Palestinian problem" was impossible to solve, and gave suggestions for dissembling to prevent further Arab unrest When the Arab leaders spoke of the problem as being a "Zionist problem", Lord Rothschild issued orders to the British press that the problem was always to be expressed as a "Palestinian problem."

A horrible massacre of 20 Jews occurred at Tiberias and Arab forces took Bethlehem and the old city of Jerusalem; the two cities only being recaptured by British troops with considerable difficulty. British foreign office documents, while not clearly expressing an opinion, nevertheless seemed to indicate that attacks on the cities and towns, and the murder of Jews was the work of agent-provocateurs who did not wish to see any agreement reached that would accommodate further Jewish immigration.

The Woodhead Commission report, expressing the view that partitioning Palestine was not a practical solution, was released in Nov. 1938. It called for an immediate conference of Arabs and Jews. Talks commenced in London in February 1939, but a stalemate arose that was not resolved and the meeting broke up one month later without any results being achieved.

Then, on May 17,1939, the British government announced a new plan which provided for an independent Palestine state by 1949. It would have a treaty relationship with Great Britain; Arabs and Jews were to share in the government "in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded," the report said.

The plan was for Jewish immigration to be halted for five years unless the Arabs agreed to let it continue, but, in any case, by 1949, 75,000 Jews were to be allowed enter the country. The aim of the British government was to arrange matters in such a way that Jews would make up about one-third of the population. The transfer of Arab land to Jews was to be prohibited.

The plan was approved by the British Parliament, but violently denounced by the World Zionist Congress and American Jewish leaders. The Palestinians also rejected the plan, and fighting between Jews and Arabs erupted across the land. But Palestine took a back seat a few months later when Britain declared war on Germany and was promptly backed by the World Zionist Congress.

Once Britain declared war on Germany, a flood of Jewish refugees from Europe went to Palestine, and in May of 1942, a conference of American Zionists adopted the Biltmore Program, which repudiated the modified Woodhead plan which called for an independent Palestine, demanding in its place a Jewish state, with a Jewish army, and a distinctly Jewish identity.

Three years later, the World Zionist Congress demanded that one million Jews be admitted to Palestine as refugees from war-torn Europe. Egypt and Syria warned President Truman in October of 1945 that war would follow attempts to create a Jewish state in Palestine. By July 1946, Zionist pressure was at a fever pitch, culminating in a bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem that took 91 lives. The United Nations report stated that the bombing was the work of Irgun terrorists. The Arabs accused the United States and Britain of arming and training both the Irgun and Haganah as the forerunner to establishing an Israeli army.

The British abandoned Palestine in February of 1947 and handed it over to United Nations, which was their way of admitting that they had betrayed Lawrence and the Arabs, and finally reneging on their responsibilities toward Palestine. In so doing, they abandoned their own agreement to hold the line until 1949. The U. N. General Assembly voted to partition Palestine on November 29,1946. There was to be a Jewish and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under U.N. trusteeship. The vote was approved by the World Zionist Congress but rejected by the Arab states and Palestine.

The Arab League Council announced in December of 1947 that it would stop the partition of the country by force, and began attacking Jewish communities all across Palestine. 1948 saw the open rise to power of the MI6-trained and American armed Irgun and Haganah counterforce. Terror reigned and hundreds of thousands of Arabs left their lands. In the final act of betrayal and the abdication of its responsibilities toward the Arabs, the last of the 30,000 British troops were withdrawn.

In defiance of U.N. resolutions, on May 14,1948, Zionist leader David Ben Gurion announced a provisional Jewish government for the State of Israel. The United Nations, unwilling or unable to stop Ben Gurion, let the declaration stand. On May 16, the United States and Russia both recognized the newly formed Ben Gurion government, brushing aside cries of betrayal emanating from Palestinians, all the Arab nations and at least eight European governments.

Later in the same month, the Arab League declared war against the newly created state of Israel. The Israeli forces, illegally equipped and armed not by the British, but by U.S. military supplies from stockpiles for American forces in Europe, gained the upper hand. Count Folke Bernadotte, a U.N. mediator was assassinated by Irgun terrorists on Sept. 17 while trying to bring about a truce. This eventually led to a U.N. brokered armistice and a temporary halt to hostilities. Bernadotte was accused of favoring the Arab cause, although the record shows he tried to be neutral.

Israel joined the United Nations in May of 1949, and was recognized by the U.S., Britain, the USSR and France. Arab countries protested to the United Nations and blamed Britain, France and the U.S. for helping Israel open a pipeline from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev Desert which made possible extensive irrigation for Jewish settlements and agriculture at the cost of unilateral tapping into the waters of the River Jordan at the expense of the Arab population. The Arabs were not consulted about this extensive project "to make the desert bloom" and considered it a breach of a May, 1939 agreement that called for administering the country "in such a way as to ensure that the interests of each community are safeguarded."

On May 9,1956, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a member of one of the top 13 families of the American Illuminati, went before Congress to practice his own diplomacy by deception, explaining that the U.S. would not supply Israel with arms because we wanted to avoid a U.S. USSR war by proxy. The fact that Israel was already fully armed and equipped by the U.S. was not brought out. What the Dulles declaration accomplished provided a reason for the USSR to halt arms supplies to the Arab nations on the basis of the U.S. position of "neutrality." At that point, there was a glaring imbalance of arms in favor of Israel.

Another point worth noting in the game of deception was that in spite of its alleged friendship with the Arab countries, in response to a U.S. initiative in 1956, the Soviet Union signed a secret deal which called for stepping up oil supplies to Israel, fearing that an Arab oil embargo might hurt Israel's defense capabilities.

Dulles, in another change of face, told members of Congress to get around restrictions by offering aid to any Middle Eastern nation desiring it. On March 9,1957, a joint congressional resolution empowered the president to use up to $200 million for economic and military assistance to any Middle Eastern nation desiring it. According to the Eisenhower Doctrine, this was supposed to "assure vital U.S. interest in the integrity and independence of all Middle East countries."

President Eisenhower embarked on what was billed as "a goodwill tour" in December of 1959, which took in several Arab countries, including Tunisia and Morocco. Both of these Arab countries later tried to tone down Arab resistance to Israel, efforts which, however, during the next 10 years, the arms build-up of both the Arabs and the Israelis continued to grow until war broke out again. Israeli forces took Jerusalem and refused to return the city to U.N. control in spite of several Security Council resolutions calling upon the government of Israel to comply.

 

In a transparent move on June 10,1967, the Soviet Union announced it was breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel although it did not cancel a 1956 agreement made which stepped up oil supplies to Israel. As the two main French newspapers pointed out, had the USSR been genuine in its opposition to Israel, it could have vetoed Israel's membership in the United Nations, but it did not.

By breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel, the Soviets opened the way for the U.S. to supply Israel with 50 F-4 Phantom jet fighters. This so angered President Charles De Gaulle, that he signed a decree forbidding any further financial or military assistance to Israel by France. The decree was rigidly enforced for about two years.

The U.N. Security Council met on July 3,1969 and censured in the strongest terms Israel's continued occupation of Jerusalem and deplored Israel's failure to respect previous resolutions which demanded that Israel withdraw from the city. According to a former general assembly member from Pakistan,

    "the Israeli delegation was not at all perturbed, having met earlier that day with the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who gave the Israeli delegates absolute assurances that the resolution 'has no teeth,'" and that "any active attempt to punish Israel will be blocked by the United States and the Security Council."

But when the Security Council met, the United States joined in the condemnation of Israel. Of such stuff is diplomacy by deception made.

In closing this chapter, it seems fitting to give a summary of the diplomatic treachery of Britain toward its Arab ally, Sherif Hussein of Mecca:

    On Nov. 2,1921, Ibn Saud captured Hali, ending the ancient dynasty of the Rashids.

    In July, 1922, Ibn Saud overran Jauf and ended the ancient Shalan dynasty.

    On Aug. 24,1924, the Wahabis and Ibn Saud attacked Taif, in the Hijaz, and overran it on Sept. 5.

    On Oct. 131924, Ibn Saud took Mecca. Sherif Hussein and his son, Ali, were forced to flee. This is how Saudi Arabia usurped the holy city, an act which remains, to this day, deeply resented by millions of Moslems in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere. Without British help, Ibn Saud would not have been able to subdue Mecca. The British oligarchical structure had long expressed hatred of the prophet Muhammad, and no doubt took great satisfaction in the Saudi victory.

    Between January and June of 1925, the Wahabis laid siege to the city-state of Jiddah.

    On Dec. 5, 1925, Medina surrendered to Ibn Saud, and on Dec. 19, Sherif Ali, son of Hussein, was forced to abdicate.

    On Jan. 8,1926, Ibn Saud was proclaimed King of the Hijaz and Sultan of Nejd.

    On May 20,1927, the Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families, represented by Ibn Saud, signed a treaty with Great Britain, which recognized the complete independence of all territories held by the two families, and allowed them to become known as Saudi Arabia.

Without the help of the Arab nation-states under Hussein, and without the conquest of Arabian city-states by the Wahabi and Abdul Aziz families, the Turks would not have been driven out of Egypt and Palestine, and Jewish immigration into that country would have been strictly curtailed or possibly halted altogether. As President Hafez el Assad of Syria said in 1973, "the British planted a Zionist dagger in the heart of the Arab nations."

It is said by friends of the late Col. Lawrence that his ghost walks the corridors of Whitehall, unable to find peace because of the manner in which diplomacy by deception succeeded in undercutting his firm promise to the Arab armies of Sherif Hussein, and because of his culpability in accepting Allenby's and Whitehall's false promises that Jewish immigration to Palestine would not be permitted.

[email protected]~-

Buy Blacks Law Dictionary - Amazon
[email protected]~-

*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
Tavistock and "Operation Research" - Undeclared War
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2012, 11:28:50 PM »
Tavistock and "Operation Research" - Undeclared War

The founder for the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, John Rawlings Reese, was to perfect a system that would subvert and then control the thinking of human beings so that they could be channeled in any direction so desired by the Committee of 300, also known as the Olympians. It must be said that to do this, one must introduce an automated mentality into the bulk of the targeted population. This is an objective with very far-reaching implications nationally and internationally.

The end result of Reese's objectives were and remain, control of all human life; its destruction when deemed desirable, whether it be through mass genocide or mass slavery. We are witnessing both today. One is the Global 2000 genocidal plan, which calls for the deaths of more of 500 million people by the year 2010; the other is slavery by an economic means. Both systems are fully operational and working side-by-side in today's America.

Reese began his Tavistock experiments in 1921; it soon became clear to him that his system could be applied both domestically and militarily. Reese said that the solution to the problems he foresaw needed a ruthless approach, without concern for religious or moral values. He later added another area to his list that of nationalism.

Reese is known to have studied the work of the Nine Unkown Men, as referred to in 1860 by the French writer Jacolliot. Among Jacolliot's remarks were that the Nine Unknown Men knew about the liberation of energy, sterilization by radiation, propaganda and psychological warfare, all of which were absolutely unheard of in that century. Jacolliot said that the technique of psychological warfare was "the

When it became obvious that British politicians were bent on solving the country's economic problems by means of another war, Reese was given 80,000 British Army recruits to use as guinea pigs. Operation Research was the name given to his project, and basically, it was designed to develop a methodology (logistics) in military management that would make the best use of limited military resources sea, air and land defense systems against Britain's foreign enemies.

Thus, the original program was a military-management one, but by 1946, Reese had developed Operation Research to the point that it could be applied as a civilian management program. Reese had "arrived," insofar as social engineering was concerned, but his work is concealed in top secret files at Tavistock. Technically, the Reese Tavistock manual, of which I have a copy, is a full declaration of war against the civilian population of any targeted country. Reese said that it had to be understood that "whenever any government, groups, persons in positions of power" use his methods without the consent of the people, it is understood by these governments or groups of people that conquest is the motive, and that domestic warfare exists between them and the public.

Reese discovered that with social engineering comes the greater need for information that can be rapidly collected and correlated. One of the earlier statements attributed to Reese was the necessity to stay ahead of society and predict its moves by engineering situations. A big breakthrough for Reese and his social tinkerers came with the discovery of linear programming by George B. Danzig in 1947. This came at a time when Reese was engaged in a war with the American nation, a war which is still ongoing, and which was greatly facilitated by the invention of the transistor by Bardeen, Brittain and Shockley in 1948.

Enter the Rockefellers, who gave a huge grant to Tavistock to enable Reese to press ahead with a study of the American economy, using Operation Research methods. Simultaneously, the Rockefeller Foundation gave Harvard University a four-year grant to create its own American economy model. The year was 1949, and Harvard pressed ahead with its own economic model, based on Tavistock's.

The only stipulation Reese made as a condition of his cooperation with Harvard, was that Tavistock methods be followed throughout. These were based upon the Prudential Assurance Bombing Survey Study, which led to saturation bombing of German worker housing as a means of bringing about the capitulation of the German war machine. These methods were now ready to be applied in a civilian context.

Reese made a detailed study of America's entry into WWI, which he deemed to be the beginning of the 20th century. Reese realized that for America to be seduced away from so-called "isolationism," American thinking would have to be drastically changed. Woodrow Wilson had dragged America into European affairs in 1916 with corruption and corrupting policies. Wilson sent American forces to fight on Europe's battlefields, in spite of the warnings issued by the Founding Fathers, to stay out of foreign entanglements. The Committee of 300, was determined to keep the United States entangled in European and indeed world affairs forever after.

Wilson did not change Europe, but Europe changed America. The banishing of power politics, which is what Wilson thought he could do, was not possible, because power is politics and politics is economic power. This has been so since the earliest recorded history of politics: those of the city-states of the Sumer and Akkad of 5,000 years ago, right down to Hitler and the USSR. Economics is only an extension of a natural energy system, but that system, the elitists have always said, belongs under their control.

In order for an economy to be under the control of elite body, it has to be an economy that is predictable and totally manipulatable. This is what the Harvard model set out to accomplish, backed by the social dynamics of the Reese Operation Research. Reese had discovered that to achieve total predictability in population groups, the elements of society had to be brought under control under a yoke of slavery, and dispossessed of the means of discovering their predicament, so that not knowing how to unite or a joint defense, they would not know where to turn to for help.

That Tavistock methodology is at work can be found everywhere in the United States. People, not knowing where to turn to understand the predicament they find themselves in, turn to the worst place of all for supposed help: the government. The Harvard Economic Research Project, which began in 1948, embodied all the Reese principles, which, in turn, came out of the Prudential Bombing Survey and Operations Research. By joining forces, the elite felt that a means of controlling a nation's economy and the population was now available with the coming of the computer age ? both a blessing and a terrible curse for mankind.

All science is only a means to an end, and man is knowledge (information), which ends in control. Who the beneficiaries of that control are was decided by the Committee of 300 and its antecedents 300 years ago. The war waged against the American people by Tavistock is now 47 years old and shows no signs of letting up. As energy is the key to all life on this planet, through diplomacy by deception and outright strong-arm methods, the Committee has gained control of most energy resources.

The Committee, by deception and dissembling, has also gained control of social energy, which is expressed in economic terms. Provided that the ordinary citizen could be kept ignorant of the real economic methods of bookkeeping, then the citizens would be doomed to lead a life of economic slavery. This is what has happened. We, the people, gave our consent to the economic controllers of our lives and became slaves of the elite. As Reese once said, people who will not use their intelligence have no better rights than dumb animals who have no intelligence at all. Economic slavery is essential if good order is to be maintained, and the ruling class may enjoy the fruits produced by slave labor.

Reese and his team of social scientists and social engineers went to work on the American public by learning first, then understanding, and then attacking, the social energy (economics) and the mental and physical weaknesses of the nation. Earlier, I said that the computer is both a blessing and a curse for mankind. On the positive side, there are many emerging economists who, through the use of computers, are starting to wake up to the fact that the Harvard model is a blueprint for economic slavery.

If this new breed of economic programmers can get its message out to the American people fast enough, the New World Order (of slavery) can still be stopped. This is where diplomacy by deception plays such a vast role in subverting through the media, education and influencing the way we think by distracting us with issues of absolutely no importance, while the truly important issues are glossed over. In a major policy study meeting ordered by the Committee of 300 in 1954, it was made clear to economic experts, high-ranking government officials, bankers, and leaders of commerce and industry, that the war against the American people was to be stepped up.

Robert McNamara was one of those who said that, because peace and good order was being threatened by an out-of-control population, the wealth of the nation had to be moved away from the undisciplined masses and into the control of the self-disciplined few.

 

McNamara savagely attacked overpopulation, which he said threatened to change the world in which we live and make it ungovernable:

    "We can begin with the most critical problems of population growth. As I have pointed out elsewhere, short of nuclear war itself, it is the gravest issue that the world faces in the decades ahead. If current trends continue, the world as a whole will not reach replacement level fertility - in effect an average of two children per family - until about the year 2020. That means that the world's population would finally stabilize at about 10 billion, compared with today's 4.3 billion.

    "We call it stabilized, but what kind of stability would be possible? Can we assume that the levels of poverty, hunger, stress, crowding and frustration that such a situation could cause in the developing nations which by then would contain 9 out of 10 human beings on earth would be likely to assure social stability? Or, for that matter, military stability?

    "It is not a world that any of us would want to live in. Is such a world inevitable? It is not but there are only two possible ways in which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birthrate must come down more quickly, or the current death rates must go up. There is no other way.

    "There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, war can accomplish it very quickly and decisively. Famine and disease are nature's ancient checks on population growth, and neither one has disappeared from the scene."

In 1979 McNamara repeated his message to the leading bankers from around the world, and Thomas Enders, a high-ranking State Department official, made the following statement:

    "There is a single theme behind all of our work. We must reduce population growth. Either they do it our way, through nice, clean methods, or they will get the kind of a mess that we have in El Salvador, or Iran, or Beirut. Once population growth is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. Civil war can help things, but it would have to be greatly expanded. To reduce population quickly, you have to pull all males into the fighting and kill significant numbers of fertile, child-bearing-age females."

The solution to the problem of a world in which the elite would not want to live is mass genocide. The Club of Rome was ordered to produce a blueprint that would wipe out 500 million of excess population. The plan was called Global 2000, and it was activated by spreading the AIDS virus throughout Africa and Brazil. Global 2000 was officially accepted as U.S. policy by President James Carter.

The conference members agreed that the,

    "low-class element of society must be brought under total control, trained and assigned to duties at an early age, which can be accomplished by the quality of education, which must be the poorest of the poor. The lower-classes must be trained to accept their position, long before they have an opportunity to query it."

    "Technically, children must be 'orphaned' in day care centers under government control. With such an initial handicap, the lower-classes will have little hope of upward mobility away from their assigned positions in life. The form of slavery we have in mind is essential for good social order, peace and tranquility.

    "We have the resources to attack the vitality, options and mobility of the individuals in society by knowing through our social scientist, understanding and manipulating and attacking their sources of social energy (income), and therefore, their physical, mental and emotional strengths and weaknesses. The general public refuses to improve its own mentality. It has become a herd of proliferating barbarians, and a blight on the face of the earth.

    "By measuring the economic habits by which the sheep try to run from their problems and escape from reality via the medium of 'entertainment', it is absolutely possible, applying Operation Research methods, to predict the probable combination shocks (created events) which are necessary to bring about complete control and subjugation of the population by subverting the economy. The strategy includes the use of amplifiers (advertising), and when we speak on television in the manner that a ten year old can relate to, then because of the suggestions made, that person will purchase that production impulse, the next time he comes across it in a store.

    "The balance of power will provide the stability that the world of the 21st century is likely to achieve, rent as it will be, by passionate tribalism and by such seemingly insoluble issues like that posed by mass migration from the South to the North, and from farm to city. There may be mass transfers of population, such as those between Greece and Turkey in the aftermath of the First World War; really mass murders. It will be a time of troubles, in need of a unifier; an Alexander or Mohammed.

    "A great change that will come about as a result of emerging conflicts between peoples who live side by side ? and which will, by their intensity, take primacy over their other conflicts ? is that political rivalry will be within regions, rather than between them. This will bring about a turning back from global politics. After a decade in which the U.S. and the Soviet Union dueled across oceans, the powers will focus on protecting themselves against forces on their frontiers ? or within them.

    "The American people do not know economic science and care little about it, hence, they are always ripe for war. They cannot avoid war, notwithstanding their religious morality, nor can they find in religion the solution to their earthly problems. They are knocked out of shape by economic experts who cause Shockwaves that wreck budgets and buying habits. The American public is yet to realize that we control their buying habits."

There we have it. Split up nations into tribal factions, keep the populace struggling to make a living and concerned with regional conflicts so that they will never have an opportunity to get a clear view of what is going on, let alone challenge it, and at the same time, bring about a drastic lowering of the world's population.

 

We see this happening in the former Yugoslavia, where the country is being forced into small, tribal entities, and we see it in America, where the average family has both parents working, and yet cannot make ends meet. These parents do not have time to pay careful attention to how they are being deceived and led into economic slavery. It is all a set-up.

Today, we observe ? if we have the time? that the United States stand at the threshold of progressive dissolution as the result of Tavistock's silent "control" war against the American nation. The Bush presidency was a total disaster, and the Clinton presidency will be even more of a shock. This is the way the blueprint is drawn, and we, the people, are fast losing faith in our institutions and our ability to remake America into what it was intended to be ? a very far cry from what it is now ? overrun by foreign people who threaten to engulf the nation ? a South-North invasion right here in our own country.

We have surrendered our real wealth for a promise of greater wealth, instead of compensation in real terms. We have fallen into the toils of the Babylonian system of "capitalism," which isn't capitalism at all, but an appearance of capital, as typified by currency which is in fact negative capital. This is deceptive and destructive. The U.S. dollar has the appearance of currency, but it is in fact a token of debt and indebtedness.

Currency as we know it will be balanced by war and genocide?which is what is happening in front of our very eyes. Total goods and services is real capital, and currency can be printed up to this level, but not beyond it. Once currency is printed beyond the level of goods and services, it becomes a destructive, subtractive force. War is the only way to "balance" the system by killing those creditors, which the people docilely gave up true value in exchange for inflated currency.

Energy (economics) is the key to all earthly activities. Hence the often repeated statement I have made that all wars are economic in origin. The thrust of the One World Government-New World Order must, of necessity, be to obtain a monopoly of all goods and services, raw materials, and control over the manner in which economics is taught. Only in this framework can the New World Order gain full control. In the United States, we are constantly helping the One World Government to obtain control of the world's natural resources by being tricked into giving part of our income for this purpose. It is called "foreign aid."

Tavistock's Operation Research project states as follows:

    "Our research has established that the simplest mode of gaining control of people is to keep them undisciplined and in the dark of basic systems and principles while at the same time keeping them disorganized, confused and distracted by issues which are of relatively little import

    "In addition to our less direct long-range penetration methods, this can be accomplished by a disengagement of mental activities and providing low quality programs of public education in mathematics, logic, system designs and economics and by discouraging technical creativity.

    "Our mode calls for emotional stimulus, increased use of amplifiers which induce self-indulgence, whether direct (television programs) or advertising. We at Tavistock have found that the best way to accomplish the goal is through an unremitting and unrelenting emotional affrontation and attack (mental rape) through a constant barrage of sex, violence, wars, racial strife both in the electronic and print media. This steady diet could be called 'mental junk food'.

    "Of primary importance is the revision of history and law and subjecting the populace to the deviant creation, thus shifting thinking from personal needs to constructed, fabricated outside priorities. The general rule is that there is profit in confusion, the greater the confusion, the greater the profit. One of the ways in which this can be accomplished is to create problems and then offer solutions.

    "It is essential to divide the people, keep the adults' attention away from real issues and overcome their thinking with matters of relatively little importance. The young must be kept ignorant of mathematics; the proper teaching of economics and history must never be made available. Keep all groups so occupied with an endless round of issues and problems that they have no time to think clearly, and here, we rely on entertainment which should not reach beyond the mental capacity of a child in the sixth grade.

    "When government is able to seize private property without just compensation, it is certain that people are ripe for surrender and consenting to slavery and legal encroachment. Energy sources which support a primitive economy are a supply of raw materials, the consent of people to labor, and assume a certain place, position, level in the social structure viz., provide labor at various levels of the structure.

    "Each class, therefore, guarantees its level of income and hence controls the class immediately below it, thereby preserving the class structure. One of the best examples of this was found in the caste system in India, in which rigid control was exercised, ensuring that upward mobility which could threaten the elite at the top, was constrained. In this method is security and stability attained, and also a government from the top.

    "The sovereignty of the elite is threatened when the lower classes, through communications and education become informed and envious of the power and possessions of the class above them. As some of them become better educated, they seek to rise higher through a real knowledge of economics-energy. This presents a real threat to the sovereignty of the elite class.

    "It follows that the rise of the lower classes must be postponed long enough for the elite class to achieve energy (economic) dominance, labor by consent becoming a lesser economic source. Until such economic dominance is achieved to the fullest extent possible, the consent of people to labor and let others handle their affairs has to be taken into account. Failure to achieve this goal would result in interference in the final transfer of energy sources (economic wealth) to the control of the elite.

    "Until such times, it is essential to recognize that public consent is still the essential key to the release of energy in the process of economic amplification. A consent of energy release system is therefore vital. Artificial security must be provided in the absence of the mother's womb, which can take the form of withdrawal, protective devices and shelters. Such shells will provide a stable environment for stable and unstable activity, and provide a shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth, that is to say, survival in a shelter that gives defensive protection against offensive activities.

    "It applies equally to the elite and the lower classes, but there is a definite difference in the manner in which both these classes approach the solution of the problem. Our social science scientists have made out a very compelling case that the reason why individuals create a political structure is because they have a subconscious desire to perpetuate their childhood-dependency relationship.

    "In the simplest of terms, what the subconscious longing demands is an earthly god to eliminate risks from their lives, put food on the table and pat them on the back in a comforting way when things don't go well. The demand for an earthly problem-solver-risk-eliminator is insatiable, which has given rise to a substitute earthly god: the politician. The insatiable public demand for 'protection' is met by promises, but the politician actually delivers little or nothing on his promises.

    "Ever present in humans is a desire to control or subdue others who disturb their daily existence. However, they are unable to cope with the moral and religious issues such actions would raise, so they give the task to professional 'hit men', which we collectively call politicians.

    "The services of politicians are engaged for a number of reasons, which, in the main are listed in the following order:

            1) To obtain the longed-for security without managing it.

            2) To obtain action without the need to act, and without having to give the desired action thought.

            3) To avoid responsibility for their intentions.

            4) To obtain the benefits of reality without exerting the necessary discipline of learning.

    "We can readily divide a nation into two sub-categories, the Political Sub Nation and the Docile Sub-Nation. The politicians hold quasi-military jobs, of which the lowest is the police force, next come attorneys. The presidential level is run by the international bankers. The docile sub-nation finances the political machine by consent, that is to say, through taxation. The sub nation remains attached to the political sub-nation, the latter feeding off it and growing stronger, until the day comes when it is strong enough to devour its creator, the people."

When read in conjunction with the systems outlined in my book, the "Committee of 300", it is relatively easy to see just how far Tavistock's Operation Research project has succeeded, and nowhere more so than in the United States.

 

Recent statistics show that 75 percent of sixth grade school children were unable to pass what was called "the maths test." The maths test consisted of elementary simple arithmetic, which ought to tell us something. Mathematics did not come into the test at all. Cause for alarm?

 

You be the judge.


*

Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
Covert Operations
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2012, 11:29:56 PM »
Covert Operations

Covert operations ? the stuff that "James Bond" was made of. As I have often said, James Bond was a fictitious character, but the organization portrayed in the movie series is very real, only it is known as "C" and not "M." Britain's Secret Intelligence Service and Security Service was what "James Bond" portrayed. These are known as and MI5 (internal security) and MI6 (external security). Together they are the oldest of the world's secret intelligence agencies. They also lead the world in the development of techniques and new technologies of spying. Neither service is responsible to the British people through Parliament and both operate in the utmost secrecy behind a wide variety of fronts.

The beginnings of these agencies date back to the time of Queen Elizabeth I, the founder being recognized as Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's Secretary of State, and have existed since then under different names. It is not the intention to write a history about these super secret espionage agencies, but merely to give a background to the main thrust of this chapter, which is covert action and assassinations for economic and/or political reasons.

The cardinal thing to remember that in almost all cases, covert actions are forbidden by international law. Having said that, I should also point out that it is one thing to have laws against covert actions, but it is another, very difficult thing to enforce such laws, because of the extreme lengths which the parties will go to keep the operation secret America is no exception when it comes to disobeying laws. President Gerald Ford's executive order banning "engaging in, or conspiring to engage in political assassination" is largely ignored by the CIA.

The excuse that Bush didn't know what was going on in the Iran/Contra covert operation cannot be sustained because of the Hughes Ryan Amendment, which was tailor-made to knock the supports out from under such a defense. The amendment was meant to make the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies accountable:

    "...unless and until the President finds that each such operation is important to the national security of the United States and reports in a timely fashion to the appropriate committee of the Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee," the covert operation would become unlawful.

So if either President Reagan or President Bush knew about the Iran/Contra operation, or, if they did not, then those who engaged in it were acting in an illegal manner.

In the Iran/Contra covert operation, Admiral John Poindexter was the "fall guy" for President Reagan and President Bush, both of whom claimed to have no knowledge of it. This is shocking, because it implies that here are two presidents who had no control over their military and intelligence departments. Had Poindexter not taken the stand to say that he never informed Bush about the specifics of the Iran/Contra operation, impeachment proceedings would have followed, which Bush with all of his powerful protection would not have been able to avoid. In this, Bush was ably assisted by Congressman Lee Hamilton, whose investigation of the covert action was so poorly carried out as to amount to a total whitewash of the guilty parties, including Reagan and Bush.

Apart from "James Bond," perhaps the best known MI6 operatives were Sydney Reilly, Bruce Lockhart and Captain George Hill, who were seconded to Russia to help the Bolsheviks overcome their enemies and at the same time, secure vast raw


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL