The Grand Deception – Part One & Two
The Grand Deception – Part One
A Second Look at the War on Terrorism
© 2002 by G. Edward Griffin
Ladies and Gentlemen, the title of my presentation today is The Grand Deception – A Second Look at the War on Terrorism.
I was flattered to hear in my introduction that I have a reputation for taking complex subjects and making them easy to understand. I hope I can live up to that expectation, but I couldn’t help wondering if I can really do that with this topic: The War on Terrorism. How can you make that easy to understand? It’s such a huge and confusing topic. I feel like the proverbial mosquito in a nudist camp. I know what I have to do. I just don’t know where to begin.
There is a formula I often follow when I don’t know where to begin, and that is to start with history. If you discover the history, you should be able to figure it out as you go along. It was Will Durant who said, “Those who know nothing about history are doomed forever to repeat it.”
Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of history in the war on terrorism? If we continue to follow the path we are now taking, I’m afraid that we are. But to find out whether we are repeating the mistakes of history, we need to go back in time. So, I invite you to join me in my time machine. We are going to splash around in history for a while and look at some great events and huge mistakes to see if there are parallels, any lessons to be learned for today. I must warn you that it will seem we are lost in time. We are going to go here and there, and then jump back further, and then forward in time, and we will be examining issues that may make you wonder “What on earth has this to do with today.” But I can assure you, when we reach the end of our journey, you will see that everything we cover has a direct relevance to today and, in particular, to the war on terrorism.
THE HIDDEN AGENDA OF TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
Lets start our time machine. We turn the dial to the year 1954 and, suddenly, we find ourselves in the plush offices of the Ford Foundation in New York. We see two men seated at a large, Mahogany desk, and they are talking. They cannot see or hear us. These men are Roland Gaither, who was the President of the Ford Foundation at that time, and Mr. Norman Dodd. Mr. Dodd was the newly appointed chief investigator of what was called the Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations. The Ford Foundation was one of them, so he was there as part of his Congressional responsibilities.
It was about 1972 that I happened to meet Mr. Dodd in Virginia. I had a television crew with me, because we were producing a documentary film and had some open time. I called Mr. Dodd and asked if he would be willing to make a statement before our cameras, and he said, “Of course.” I’m glad we obtained the interview, because he was advanced in years, and it wasn’t long afterward that he passed away. We were very fortunate to capture his story in his own words. (For those who are interested in viewing his complete testimony on video, it is available from The Reality Zone, www.realityzone,com. It’s called “The Hidden Agenda” and is available in both video and audio formats. The printed transcript can be downloaded free of charge at www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html.)
So, back to our time machine. The year is 1954, and we hear Mr. Gaither say to Mr. Dodd, “Would you be interested in knowing what we do here at the Ford Foundation?” And, of course, Mr. Dodd says, “Yes! That’s exactly why I’m here. I would be very interested, sir.” Then, without any prodding at all, Gaither says, “Mr. Dodd, we operate in response to directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
Dodd almost falls off of his chair when he hears that. Then he says to Gaither, “Well, sir, you can do anything you please with your grant making powers, but don’t you think you have an obligation to make a disclosure to the American people? You enjoy tax exemption, which is an indirect way of saying you are subsidized by the taxpayer, so, why don’t you tell the Congress and the American people what you just told me?” And Gaither replies, “We would never dream of doing such a thing.”
A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
There is much more to be learned from this conversation, but our time is limited, so let’s move on. The question that logically arises is, “How would it be possible for people in these prestigious organizations to even dream that they could alter life in the United States so it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union?” What an absurd thought that would be! The answer, however, is not absurd at all. To bring this about, all that needs to be done is to alter the attitude of the American people to accept such a move. How could that be done?
The answer to this second question was provided by another powerful and prestigious tax-exempt foundation, the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace. When Dodd visited the President of that organization and began asking about their activities, the President said, “Mr. Dodd, you have a lot of questions. It would be very tedious and time consuming for us to answer those questions, so I have a counter proposal. Why don’t you send a member of your staff to our facilities, and we will open our minute books from the very first meeting of the Carnegie Fund, and your staff can go through them and copy whatever you find there. Then you will know everything we are doing.”
Again, Mr. Dodd was totally amazed. He observed that the President was a young man at the Carnegie Fund and assumed he had never actually read the minutes himself. So he accepted without hesitation and sent a member of his staff to the Carnegie Endowment facilities. Her name was Mrs. Catherine Casey who was, by the way, hostile to the activity of the Congressional Committee. She was placed on the staff by political opponents of the Committee to be a watchdog and a damper on the operation. Her attitude was: “What could possibly be wrong with tax-exempt foundations? They do so much good.” So that was the view of Mrs. Casey when she went to the boardroom of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. She took her Dictaphone machine (they used magnetic belts in those days) and recorded, word for word, many of the key passages from the minutes of this organization starting with the very first meeting. What she found in those minutes was so shocking, Mr. Dodd said she almost lost her mind, and she became very ineffective in her work after that.
Basically, this is what those minutes revealed: From the very beginning, the members of the board discussed how to alter life in the United States, how to change the attitudes of Americans to give up their cherished principles and concepts of government and be more receptive to what we will call the collectivist model of society. I will talk more about what the word collectivist means in a moment, but they used that word quite often. And they discussed this in a very scholarly fashion. After many months of deliberation, they came to the conclusion that, out all of the options available for altering the attitudes of people in the United States, there was only one that was really dependable. That option was war. In times of war, they reasoned, only then would people be willing to give up things they cherish in return for the desperate need and desire for security against a deadly enemy. And so the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace declared in its minutes that it must do whatever it can to manipulate the United States into war.
They also said there were other things needed, and these were their words: “We must control education in the United States.” They realized that was a pretty big order, so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their financial resources to control education in America – in particular, to control the teaching of history. They assigned those areas of responsibility that involved issues relating to domestic affairs to the Rockefeller Foundation, and those issues related to international affairs were taken on as the responsibility of the Carnegie Endowment. Their first goal was to rewrite the history books, and they discussed how to do that at great length. They approached some of the more prominent historians of the time and presented to them the proposition that they rewrite history to favor the concept of collectivism, but they were turned down flat. Then they decided – and these are their own words, “We must create our own stable of historians.”
They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, “If we provide the money, would you grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you grant them doctorates so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic world and in professional historical associations?” And the answer was “Yes.”
So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They interviewed them, analyzed their thinking processes, and chose the twenty they thought were best suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future.
Now lets go back to the words of Mr. Dodd, himself. He said: “This group of twenty historians eventually formed the nucleus of the American Historical Association. Then toward the end of the 1920’s the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in those days] for a study of history in a manner that points to what this country can look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is a summary of the contents of the other six. And the essence of the last volume is, the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.”
COLLECTIVISM VS INDIVIDUALISM
Now we must turn off our time machine for a moment and deal with this word collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical papers of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using the word over and over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what collectivism is, the advocates of collectivism have a very definite understanding of it, so let’s deal with that now.
In order to appreciate the essence of collectivism, we need to step backward and look at the larger picture encompassing the political ideologies that divide people in this age. You find those who claim they are conservatives, and they will debate wildly with those who think of themselves as liberals. Left wingers disagree with right wingers. You find people who say they are Socialists or Communists or Fascists or whatever words they choose to identify their point of view. But, when you ask them to explain what those words mean, very few can agree. For the most part, they are merely labels without clear or precise definitions.
Let’s put some meaning to them. I think that all of the great political issues, the ideological issues at least, can be divided into two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Basically, a person is either a collectivist or an individualist. We are talking about collectivism vs. individualism. What do these words mean?
First of all I should tell you that, from my observation, collectivists and individualist, for the most part, are all good people. They want the best life possible for their families, for their countrymen, and for the world – for mankind. They all want peace, prosperity, and justice. They want freedom. Sometime they disagree over what the tradeoff should be for freedom; but, still, they all want the good things for their fellow man. Where they disagree is how to bring those things about.
THE DANGER OF GROUP SUPREMACY
The collectivist believes the group is the most important element of society; that all solutions to problems are better solved at the group level than at the individual level; and that, the larger the problem is, the larger the group should be to solve the problem. And so they believe in collective action. They believe in organizing group activities to provide for all of the advantages they want people to have. They want to protect people. They want to make sure they don’t suffer, that they are well clothed and fed, and that they are treated justly. The solution to all of these problems is a collective solution. “We shall do it through group action.” The more complex the problem, the larger the group should be, until finally the most complex problems of all can be solved only by the largest groups of all.
The collectivist sees government as the solution, because government is the ultimate group, and so the collectivist mind can be easily recognized. It always has an affinity to government as the solver of problems. The individualist, by the way, is more skeptical. He tends to look at government as the creator of problems. But that’s another issue. We will get to the individualist in a moment. The collectivist sees government as the solver of problems; and, of course, the larger the unit of government, the better. Collectivist solutions gravitate from local government to state government to national government and finally to world government. If there is a really big problem, such as the environmental issue involving the whole planet, the collectivist is convinced that it cannot be solved except through the action of world government.
The collectivist believes that the group is more important than the individual and, if necessary, the individual must be sacrificed for the group. Sometimes that is expressed in terms of “the greater good for the greater number.” It’s a very appealing concept.
The individualist on the other hand says, “Wait a minute. Group? What is group? That’s just a word. You cannot touch a group. You cannot see a group. All you can touch and see are individuals. They make up the group. But the real substance of the group is the individual within it. It’s like a forest. Forest doesn’t exist. It’s a word concept. There are only trees.” So the individualist sees that, if you sacrifice the individual for the group, you have made a huge mistake. The individual is the essence of the group. He is the core of the group. The group has no claim to sacrifice its own essence.
Collectivists are often critics of religious and family values, because collectivism demands unquestioning obedience to the state. Since loyalty to family or religious codes often conflict with the concept of group supremacy, they cannot be tolerated in a collectivist system.
THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ drastically over what is the origin of those rights. There are only two possibilities in this debate. Either man’s rights are intrinsic to his being, or they are extrinsic; either he possesses them at birth or they are given to him afterward. In other words, they are either hardware or software. Individualists believe they are hardware. Collectivists believe they are software.
The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.” Nothing could be more clear than that. “Unalienable Rights” means they are the natural possession of each of us upon birth, not granted by the state. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them.
By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.”
The reason this is important is that, if we agree that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. You cannot have one without the other. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.
Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall pass no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law. What a difference there is between individualism and collectivism.
REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES
We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction between Republics and Democracies. We have been taught to believe that a Democracy is the ideal form of government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution. However, if you read the documents of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of Democracy. They said in plain English that a Democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government. And so they created what they called a Republic. The bottom line is that the difference between a Democracy and a Republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism.
In a pure Democracy, the concept is that the majority shall rule. That’s the end of the discussion. You might say, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there could be plenty wrong with that. What about a lynch mob? There is only one person with a dissenting vote, and he is the guy at the end of the rope.
Ah, wait a minute, you say. Maybe the majority should not always rule. How can we protect the individual from the group? Maybe the group could become dangerous. Perhaps we should put limits upon Democracy.
That is precisely what a Republic accomplishes. A Republic is simply a limited Democracy – a Democracy with limits on what the group can do, with limits on what the majority can do. Republics are characterized by written constitutions that say the government – even though it represents the majority – shall not do this; the government shall not do that; and it shall be prevented from doing that, also. We have individual liberties and rights that stand higher and are more important than the group. And so we begin to get a handle on the debate here, the issue, the cleavage between these two concepts: collectivism on the one hand, individualism on the other.
COERCION VS FREEDOM
We come now to the next element of this debate, which is how to bring about desirable group action. The collectivist says you have to force people. That’s why he has an affinity to government. Government is the embodiment of legalized force. You can always spot a collectivist because, when he confronts a problem, his first reaction is to say, “There ought to be a law.” His attitude is that we must force people to do what we think they should do, because they are not as smart as we are – we collectivists. We’ve been to school. We’ve read books. We participate in discussion groups. We are smarter than most of those people out there. If we leave it up to them, they are going to make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us. We are the privileged, fortunate ones. We are the ones who shall decide on behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so that no one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind.
By contrast, individualists say, “We also think we are right and others are wrong, but we don’t believe in forcing anyone to comply with our will because, if we grant that principle, then others, representing larger groups than our own, can compel us to act as they decree, and we will have lost our freedom. The collectivist will say, “I think everyone should wear seatbelts. That just makes a lot of sense. People can be hurt if they don’t wear seatbelts. So, let’s pass a law and require everyone to wear them. If they don’t, we’ll put them in jail.” The individualist says, “I think everyone should wear seatbelts. People can be hurt in automobile accidents if they don’t wear seat belts, but I don’t believe in forcing everyone to do so. I believe in convincing them with logic and persuasion, if I can, but I also believe in freedom-of-choice.”
As an individualist, I am not opposed to collective action. Just because I believe in freedom of choice does not mean I have to move my piano alone. It just means that I renounce the right to compel someone to help me. Individualists seek cooperation based on voluntary action, not compulsion.
And so here we have a second distinction between the collectivist and the individualist. The collectivist believes in coercion. The individualist believes in freedom.
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
There is one more issue to cover before restarting out time machine, and it has to do with the political spectrum. We often hear about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do these terms really mean? For example, we are told that Communists and Socialists are at the extreme Left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme Right. Here we have two powerful ideological forces pitted against each other, and the impression is that, somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all. They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze Communism and Nazism, they both embody the principles of Socialism. Communists make no bones about Socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international Socialism, whereas Nazis advocate national Socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is absolutely no difference between Communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists, and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find that Communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian concepts. Why? Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism and Socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical extension of their common ideology. They cannot help becoming what they are. More government is needed to solve bigger problems, and bigger problems require more government. Once you get on the slippery slope of collectivism, once you accept that ideology, there is no place to stop until you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is 100% government. Regardless of what name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different, collectivism is totalitarianism.
In truth, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical place for us to be is somewhere in the middle. We need government, of course, but, the concept of what kind of government must be built on individualism, an ideology that pushes always toward that part of the spectrum that involves the least government necessary to make things work instead of collectivism, which always pushes toward the other end of the spectrum for the most amount of government to make things work.
JOHN RUSKIN PROMOTES COLLECTIVISM AT OXFORD
We are finally ready to reactivate out time machine. From the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, we recall the curious words: “We must control education in America.” Who is this “we? ” Who are the people who are going to control education in America? To answer that question we must set the co-ordinates on our machine once again, and we are now moving further back in time to the year 1870. We find ourselves suddenly in England in an elegant classroom of Oxford University, and we are listing to a lecture by a brilliant intellectual, John Ruskin.
Ruskin was a Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford. He was a genius. At first I was prepared not to like him, because he was a total collectivist. I didn’t think I would like anything about him. But, when I got his books and started to read the notes from his lectures, I had to acknowledge his great talent. First of all he was an accomplished artist. He was an architect. He was a philosopher. About his only flaw was that he believed in collectivism. He preached it eloquently, and his students, coming from the wealthy class – the elite and the privileged from the finest areas of London – were very receptive to his message. He taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and the traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world and make sure that all the less fortunate and stupid people had proper direction. That was basically his message, but it was delivered in a very convincing and appealing manner.
Ruskin was not the originator of collectivism. He was merely riding the crest of an ideological tidal wave that was sweeping through the whole Western World at that time. It was appealing to the sons and daughters of the super wealthy who were growing up with guilt complexes because they had so much wealth and privilege in stark contrast to the world’s poor and starving masses.
In this milieu there were two powerful ideological movements coming to birth. One of them was Marxism, which offered the promise of defending and elevating these downtrodden masses. Wealthy young people felt in their hearts that this promise was worthy and noble. They wanted to do something to help these people, but they didn’t want to give up their own privileges. I will say this about John Ruskin, he actually did give of his own wealth to help the poor, but he was one of the rare ones. Most collectivists are hesitant about giving their own money. They prefer to have government be the solver of problems and to use tax revenues – other people’s money – to fund their projects. Collectivists recognize that someone has to run this governmental machine, and it might as well be them, especially since they are so well educated and wise. In this way, they can retain both their privilege and their wealth. They can now be in control of society without guilt. They can talk about what they are doing to lift up the downtrodden masses using the collectivist model. It was for these reasons that many of the wealthy idealists became Marxists and sought positions of influence in government.
THE FABIAN SOCIETY
Some of the more erudite of those from the wealthy, intellectual classes of England came together and decided they would form an organization to perpetuate the concept of collectivism. It was called the Fabian Society. It is now 1884, and we find ourselves observing a group of these people, including Sydney and Beatrice Web (founders of the London School of Economics), George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and people of that high caliber. The Fabian Society exists today, and a lot of very prominent, influential, and powerful people are members. Tony Blair, for example, England’s Prime Minister, is a member.
H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide for Fabians and their friends showing how collectivism can be embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open Conspiracy, and the entire plan is spelled out in detail. He even said that the old religions of the world should give way to the new religion of collectivism. The new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control.
As mentioned previously, there were two powerful ideological movements coming to birth in this same period of history, and they had much in common. One of them was Marxism, which eventually was physically planted onto Russian soil and manifested itself as Communism. The other was Fabianism. Please note that Communism and Fabianism are merely variants of collecivism. Their similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their participants often move from one group to the other with ease – or may even be members of both groups at the same time. Communists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may disagree intensely over procedural issues, but never over goals, because their mutual goal is collectivism.
Fabians say, “Let us come to power quietly so as not to alarm anyone. Let us penetrate and capture control of the organs of society: the educational institutions, the media, the labor unions, agencies of government. Let us penetrate into the power centers of society and quietly guide it in the direction of collectivism. No one will realize what is happening, and there will be very little opposition or bloodshed.” Fabians consider themselves to be humane. To emphasize this strategy of patient gradualism, they adopted the tortoise as their symbol, and the emblem on their shield is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Communists, on the other hand, are less genteel. They are adept at using all the same tactics of deception and quiet penetration into power centers as used by the Fabians, but they are more inclined to rely on violence and terror to accelerate their progress. They raise the clenched fist and say, “Let us come to power through revolution. Let us put masses into the streets and overthrow the target government by force and violence. Let the land be drenched with the blood of our enemies.” Communists are in a hurry.
That is the debate. The only difference between Communists and Fabians is a question of tactics. They may compete over which of them will dominant the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of collectivist power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial pre-eminence over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood brothers under the skin, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition to collectivism.
The Fabian tortoise and the wolf in sheep’s clothing are emblazoned on a stained glass window that used to be in the Web house. The Webs donated their home to the Fabian Society, and it is now the headquarters of that organization in Surrey, England. The window was recently removed, but there are many photographs of it showing the symbols in great detail. Perhaps the most significant part is written across the bottom. It is that famous line from Omar Khayyam: “Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?” Please allow me to repeat that line. This is the key to modern history, and it is the key to the war on terrorism: “Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?”
Elsewhere in the stained glass window there is a depiction of Sydney Webb and George Bernard Shaw striking the earth with hammers. The earth is on an anvil, and they are standing there striking the earth with hammers. “Shatter it to bits,” That’s what they were saying at the Carnegie Endowment Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford Foundation. “War is the best way to remold society. War! Shatter society to bits. Break it apart. Then we can remold it nearer to the heart’s desire. And what is our heart’s desire? Collectivism.”
THE SECRET SOCIETY CREATED BY CECIL RHODES
As we sit here in the classroom listening to the impassioned lecture by John Ruskin, we notice that one of the students is taking copious notes. His name is Cecil Rhodes. It will be revealed in later years that this young man was so impressed by Ruskin’s message that he often referred to those lecture notes over the next thirty years of his life. Rhodes became a dedicated collectivist and wanted to fulfill the dream and the promise of John Ruskin: to bring the British Empire into control over the entire world and to create world government based on the model of collectivism. Most people are aware that Rhodes made one of the world’s greatest fortunes in South African diamonds and gold. What is not widely known, however, is that he spent most of that fortune to promote the theories of John Ruskin.
One of the best authorities on the Fabian Society is Carroll Quigley, who wrote the book, Tragedy and Hope. Quigley was a highly respected professor at Georgetown University. You may recall that, shortly after President Clinton was elected, during a press conference he gave honorable mention to Quigley, his former professor. What Quigley was teaching was probably similar to what John Ruskin was teaching, and Clinton, as a student, took his lectures very seriously, even to the point of mentioning to the world how much he owed to his professor.
In his book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley says this: “The Rhodes scholarship established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’ seventh will are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes, in five previous wills, left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire. This secret society continues to exist to this day.”
The structure of the secret society was formed along classical, conspiratorial lines. If you study any of the better-known conspiracies of history, you find that they often are structured as rings within rings. Generally there’s a leader or a small group of two or three people at the center. They form a ring of supporters around them of perhaps eight or ten or twelve, and those people think they are the total organization. They are not aware that two or three of them are in control. And then the twelve are instructed to create a larger ring around them of perhaps one- or two-hundred people who all think they are the total organization, not realizing there are twelve who are really directing it. These rings extend outward until, finally, they reach into the mainstream community where they enlist the services of innocent people who perform various tasks of the secret society without realizing who is creating the agenda or why.
The Rhodes organization was set up exactly along those lines. Quigley tells us this: “In the secret society, Rhodes was to be leader. Stead, Brett, and Milner were to form an executive committee. Arthur Balfour, Sir Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a Circle of Initiates, while there was to be an outer circle known as the Association of Helpers.”
After the death of Cecil Rhodes, the organization fell under the control of Lord Alfred Milner, who was Governor General and High Commissioner of South Africa, also a very powerful person in British banking and politics. He recruited young men from the upper class of society to become part of the Association of Helpers. Unofficially, they were known as “Milner’s Kindergarten.” They were chosen because of their class origin, their intelligence, and especially because of their dedication to collectivism. They were quickly placed into important positions in government and other power centers to promote the hidden agenda of the secret society. Eventually, this Association of Helpers became the inner rings of much larger groups, which expanded throughout the British Empire and into the United States.
This is what Quigley says: “Through Lord Milner’s influence, these men were able to win influential posts in government, in international finance, and become the dominant influence in British imperial affairs and foreign affairs up to 1939. In 1909 through 1913, they organized semi-secret groups known as known as Round Table Groups, in the chief British dependencies and the United States. Once again the task was given to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing, submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company.”
Finally, we begin to understand the significance of an obscure organization that plays a decisive roll in contemporary American political life, The Council on Foreign Relations. Now we see where it came from, who controls it, and how its rings within rings fit into the global strategy for collectivism.
THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Who are the members of the Council of Foreign Relations? I’m going to take more time than I really want to spare in order to read these names to you but, otherwise, you may think this organization and its members are not important.
Let’s start with the Presidents of the United States. Members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) include: Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford. James Carter, George Bush Senior, and William Clinton. John F. Kennedy claimed he was a member, but his name does not appear on former membership lists. So there is confusion on that one, but he said he was a member. I might add that Kennedy was a graduate of the London School of Economics, which was founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb to promote the ruling-class and collectivist concepts of the Fabians.
Secretaries of State who were CFR members include: Dean Rusk, Robert Lansing, Frank Kellogg, Henry Stimpson, Cordell Hull, E.R. Stittinius, George Marshall, Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Christian Herter, Dean Rusk, William Rogers, Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Edmund Muskie, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagelberger, Warren Christopher, William Richardson, Madeleine Albright, and Colin Powell.
Secretaries of Defense who were members of the CFR include James Forrestal, George Marshall, Charles Wilson, Neil McElroy, Robert McNamara, Melvin Laird, Elliot Richardson, James Schlesinger, Harold Brown, Casper Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, William Perry, William Cohen, and Donald Rumsfield. It is interesting that Rumsfield has asked that his name be removed from the current list of CFR members. However, you will find his name on previous lists.
CIA Directors who were members of the CFR include Walter Smith, William Colby, Richard Helms, Allen Dulles, John McCone, James Schlesinger, George Bush, Sr., Stansfield Turner, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deutch, William Studeman, and George Tenet.
In the Media there are past or present members of the CFR holding key management or control positions – not just working down the line – but in top management and control positions of The Army Times, Associated Press, Association of American Publishers, Boston Globe, Business Week, Christian-Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, San Diego Union-Tribune, Times Mirror, Random House, W.W. Norton & Co., Warner Books, American Spectator, Atlantic, Harper’s, Farm Journal, Financial World, Insight, Washington Times, Medical Tribune, National Geographic, National Review, New Republic, New Yorker, Newsday, News Max, Newsweek, Reader’s Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific American, Time-Warner, Time, U.S. News & World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA, and the Walt Disney Company. Are you beginning to understand why we have a problem with our news and our media?
CFR media personalities include David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William Buckley, Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, and Barbara Walters.
In the universities, the number of past or present CFR members who are professors, department chairman, presidents, or members of the board of directors is 563.
In financial institutions, such as banks, the Federal Reserve System, the stock exchanges, and brokerage houses the total number of CFR members in controlling positions is 284.
In tax exempt foundations and think tanks, the number of CFR members in controlling positions is 443. Some of the better known names are: The Sloan and Kettering Foundations, Aspen Institute, Atlantic Council, Bilderberg Group, Brookings Institute, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, Guggenheim Foundation, Hudson Institute, John & Catherine MacArther Foundation, Mellon Foundation, RAND Corp., Rhodes Scholarship Selection Commission, Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Trilateral Commission, and the UN Association.
Some of the better known corporations controlled by past or present members of the CFR include The Atlantic Richfield Oil Co., AT&T, Avon Products, Bechtel (construction) Group, Boeing Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chevron., Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola, Consolidated Edison of New York, EXXON, Dow Chemical, du Pont Chemical, Eastman Kodak, Enron, Estee Lauder, Ford Motor, General Electric, General Foods, Hewlett-Packard, Hughes Aircraft, IBM, International Paper, Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss & Co., Lockheed Aerospace, Lucent Technologies, Mobil Oil, Monsanto, Northrop, Pacific Gas & Electric, Phillips Petroleum, Procter & Gamble, Quaker Oats, Shell Oil, Smith Kline Beecham (pharmaceuticals), Sprint Corp., Texaco, Santa Fe Southern-Pacific Railroad, Teledyne, TRW, Southern California Edison, Unocal, United Technologies, Warner-Lambert, Weyerhauser, and Xerox.
And finally, the labor unions that are dominated by past or present members of the CFR include the AFL-CIO, United Steel Workers of America, United Auto Workers, American Federation of Teachers, Bricklayers and Allied Craft, Communications Workers of America, Union of Needletrades, and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers.
Please understand that this is just a sampling of the list. The total membership is about four thousand people. There are many churches in your community that have that many members or more. What would you think if it were discovered that members of just one church in your community held controlling positions in 80% of the power centers of America? Wouldn’t you be curious?
First of all you would have to find out about it, which would not be easy if those same people controlled the avenues of information you rely on to learn of such things.
I should emphasize that most of these people are not part of a secret society. The CFR calls itself a semi -secret organization, which, indeed, it is. It is not the secret society. It is at least two rings out from that. Most members are not aware that they are controlled by an inner Round Table Group. For the most part, they are merely opportunists who view this organization as a high level employment agency. They know that, if they are invited to join, their names will appear on a prestigious list, and collectivists seeking to consolidate global control will draw upon that list for important jobs. However, even though they may not be conscious agents of the secret society, they have all been carefully screened for suitability. Only collectivists are invited, and so they have the necessary mindset to be functionaries within the New World Order.
Let’s review. The power centers of the United States are controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations. This, in turn, is controlled by a submerged Round Table Group, which is associated with other Round Tables in other countries. These are extensions of a secret society founded by Cecil Rhodes and still in operation today. I call it the Fabian Network, not because these people are members of the Fabian Society, for most of them are not. It is the Fabian Network, because they share the Fabian ideology of collectivism and the Fabian strategy of patient gradualism.
Is this for real? If I were in your position, hearing this for the first time, I probably would think, “Oh come on! This can’t be for real!” Well, before you dismiss it as theater of the absurd, I’d like to refer you one more time to Professor Quigley. He said this: “I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years during the 1960’s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have for much of my life been close to it and to many of its instruments. In general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown.”
Yes! Ladies and Gentlemen, this is for real!
– End of Part One –
The Grand Deception – Part Two
A Second Look at the War on Terrorism
© 2002 by G. Edward Griffin
TWO PRESIDENTS FOR ONE
As we once again activate our time machine, we find ourselves in the presence of a colorful historical figure. His name is Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was never in the military. The title of Colonel was honorary, granted by the Governor of Texas in appreciation for political services. He was one of the most powerful men in American politics and, yet, virtually unknown to most Americans today. He was the personal advisor to Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. He was close to the Morgan banking dynasty and also to the old banking families of Europe. He attended school in England and surrounded himself with Fabians. His father, Thomas, made a fortune in the United States as a lending agent for London banks which preferred to remain anonymous. It was widely believed that he represented the Rothschild consortium. He was one of the few in the South who emerged from the War Between the States with a great fortune.
The important thing for our visit in history is that Colonel House was a “king maker” in Texas politics. He personally chose Woodrow Wilson, the most unlikely of all political candidates, and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with great power in politics and media, to throw their support to Wilson, which is what enabled him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States.
House was certainly a member of the Round Table and possibly a member of its inner circle. He was a founder of the CFR. President Wilson, in his memoirs, said: “Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one.”
George Viereck was an admiring biographer of Colonel House and approved of almost every aspect of his career. This is what Viereck said: “For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson’s other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States. We had, indeed, two presidents for one! … He was the pilot who guided the ship.”
WORLD WAR I
As we contemplate a member of the Rhodes secret society, occupying two rooms in the White House, virtually in control of American foreign policy, our time machine finally brings us to World War I. Since our main topic today is war, we must prepare now to comprehend the events we are about to see in terms of the strategy of collectivism: using war to smash the world to bits and then remold it closer to the hearts desire.
The sinking of the Lusitania was the event that, more than any other, motivated the American people to accept the necessity and the morality of getting into World War I. Prior to that time, there was great reluctance. However, when the Lusitania left New York Harbor on May 1, 1915, with 196 Americans on board and was sunk six days later off the coast of Ireland, it became the cause celeb that moved the American consciousness into a war mood against Germany. Americans were outraged at a nation that could viscously and cold-heartedly attack a peaceful passenger ship.
What is not well known about that piece of history is the role played by J.P. Morgan. As you recall, the CFR was described by Professor Quigley as a front for J.P. Morgan and Company. We must remember that Moran was, not only a founding member of the CFR, he was also a member of the Round Table, the inner group directing it, so how does Morgan fit into this?
During World War I, the Morgan Bank was the subscription agent for war loans to England and France. These countries had quickly exhausted their financial resources to raise money for military equipment and supplies to continue the war against Germany. So they came to the United States and asked J.P. Morgan – who was culturally closer to Britain than to America – to be their agent for selling war bonds. The House of Morgan was happy to do that, and it floated approximately $1.5 billion in war bonds on behalf of England and, to a lesser extent, for France.
At this point in history, Britain and France were very close to defeat. The Germans had unleashed a surprise weapon, the U Boat – the submarine – that was new to warfare in those days, and they were sinking the supply ships that carried food and other necessities to the British Isles. The Germans were literally starving the British into submission who, by their own estimate, said they had only about seven weeks of food left. After that, there would be massive starvation in England, and they would have no choice but to surrender.
For the British, there was only one salvation, and that was to have the Americans come into the war to help them. But on the American side, there was a different agenda. What would happen to that $1.5 billion in war loans if Britain and France lost the war? The only time war loans are repaid is when the nation borrowing the money wins the war. Losers don’t pay off their bonds. So Morgan was in a terrible fix. Not only were his friends in England in dire danger, he and all his investors were about to lose $1.5 billion! A very serious situation, indeed.
The U.S. Ambassador to England at that time was Walter Page. Page was far more than just an ambassador. Among other things, he was a trustee to Rockefeller’s General Education Board. It was in that capacity that he played a role in shaping educational policies to promote collectivism in America. However, as Ambassador to England, Page sent a telegram to the State Department, and this is what he said, ” I think that the pressure of the approaching crisis has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency to the British and French governments. The greatest help we could give the allies is such credit. Unless we go to war with Germany, our government of course cannot make such a direct grant of credit.”
THE STRATEGY TO GET THE U.S. INTO WAR
It is not surprising that there was a great deal of pressure from Wall Street to get the United States into the war. Colonel House became the lead man for this group. He went back and forth across the Atlantic and consulted with the Round Tables in both England and America. He arranged a secret treaty on behalf of President Wilson to bring the United States into the War. The reason for secrecy was that the Senate would never have approved it. There was still strong opposition to war and, had it been revealed that Wilson was engaging in a secret – and unconstitutional – treaty to get the U.S. into war, it would have been politically disastrous to his Administration.
George Viereck, in his book, The Strangest Friendship in History – Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House, said this: “Ten months before the election, which returned Wilson to the White House because he ’kept us out of war,’ Colonel House negotiated a secret agreement with England and France on behalf of Wilson which pledged the United States to intervene on behalf of the Allies. If an inkling of the conversation between Colonel House and the leaders of England and France had reached the American people before the election, it might have caused incalculable reverberations in public opinion.”
How did they do it? How did these collectivists maneuver the United States into war? It was not easy, and it came about only after extensive planning. The first plan was to offer the United State as a negotiator between both sides of the conflict. They would position the U.S. as the great peacemaker. But the goal was just the opposite of peace. They would make an offer to both sides that they knew would not be acceptable to Germany. Then, when the Germans rejected the offer, they would be portrayed in the press as the bad guys, the ones who wanted to continue the war. This is how the plan was described by Ambassador Page in his memoirs. He said: “Colonel House arrived … full of the idea of American intervention. First his plan was that he and I and a group of the British cabinet should at once work out a minimum program of peace which he assumed would be unacceptable to the Germans, and that the President would take this program and present it to both sides. The side that declined would be responsible for continuing the war. Of course the fatal moral weakness of the foregoing scheme is that we should plunge into the war, not on the merits of the cause, but by a carefully sprung trick.”
AGGRAVATE, INSULATE, FACILITATE
The trick eventually evolved into something far more dramatic than deceptive peace negotiations. It called for three strategies in one. They were: aggravate, insulate, and facilitate.
The first stage was to aggravate the Germans into an attack, literally to goad them until they had no choice but to strike back. Much of this was implemented from the British side. For example, Churchill established the policy of ramming German submarines. Prior to that, the code of warfare on the seas required that, if a submarine challenged an unarmed merchant ship, it would fire a shot across its bow. The merchant ship would be expected to stop its engines and it would be given time for the crew to get into lifeboats before the submarine would sink the ship. It was a small humanitarian gesture in the middle of warfare. That is the way it was done until Churchill, as Lord of the Admiralty, ordered all merchant ships, regardless of circumstances, to steam full speed directly toward the submarines and attempt to ram them and sink them. They actually succeeded in doing that a few times. This eliminated the distinction between merchant ships and war ships. Henceforth, all merchant ships had to be considered as war ships. Not surprisingly, Germany quickly adopted the policy of no more warning shots.
When that happened, those seeking to involve the United States in the war had a heyday. Editorializing through the British and American press, they said: “See how evil these Germans are? They sink unarmed ships and don’t even give the crews a chance to get off! It is our moral duty to fight against such evil.”
Churchill also ordered British ships to fly American flags so the Germans wouldn’t know if they were really British or American. He wanted German submarines to strike American ships, even if by accident. It was his strategy to do whatever possible to bring the United States into war on the side of Great Britain, and the sinking of an American ship by Germany would have been an excellent way of doing so.
There was plenty of goading from the America side as well. The United States government consistently violated its own neutrality laws by allowing war materials to be sent to Britain and France. Munitions and all kinds of military-related supplies were blatantly shipped on a regular basis. In fact, the Lusitania, on the day it was sunk, was loaded with military arsenal. The Germans knew all along that this was going on. The people in Washington knew it as well. By openly violating their own neutrality laws, they were doing everything possible to aggravate Germany into an attack.
The second prong of the strategy was to insulate. That means to insulate the victims from information that would have allowed them to protect themselves. You can’t have a successful surprise attack if you tell the victims in advance that they are likely to be targeted. It was important not to let any of the Lusitania passengers know that the ship was carrying war materials and was likely to be sunk. They could not be allowed to know that several of its decks, normally assigned to passenger quarters, had been cleared out and loaded with military-related supplies, including ammunition and explosive primers. They could not be informed that they would be riding on a floating ammunition depot. The German embassy tried to warn American civilians not to book passage on that ship. They placed an advertisement in fifty newspapers, mostly along the eastern seaboard, warning that the Lusitania would be in danger, that it was heading into hostile waters, and that Americans should not be on board.
The U.S. State Department contacted all fifty of those newspapers and ordered them not to publish the ad. They threatened that they would be in dire trouble with the government if they did. There was only one newspaper, in Des Moines Iowa, that had the guts to go ahead and run the ad anyway – which is why we know about it today. Unfortunately, an ad in Des Moines was of small value to the people in New York who were actually boarding the ship.
SINK THE LUSITANIA!
The third prong of the strategy was to facilitate. That means to make it easy for the enemy to strike and be successful. On the morning of the sinking of the Lusitania, Colonel House was in Britain and recorded in his diaries that he spoke with Sr. Edward Gray and King George. They calmly discussed what they thought the reaction of the American people would be if the Lusitania were to be “accidentally” sunk. This is what Colonel House wrote: “I told Sir Gray if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep America which would in itself carry us into the war.”
Four hours after that conversation, the Lusitania entered the war zone where German submarines were known to be active. Designed and built by the British as a ship of war, she had four boilers and was very fast and could outrun a submarine. That means she was vulnerable only to subs that were ahead of her path, not those to the side or behind. This greatly improved her chances for survival, especially with a military escort running ahead. However, this was not to be her destiny. On this voyage she had been ordered to turn off one of her boilers. She was running on three turbines instead of four. At only 75% speed, she was now vulnerable to attack from all sides.
The Juno was a British destroyer, which had been assigned to escort her through those dangerous waters. At the last minute, the Juno was called back by the British Admiralty and never made its rendezvous. Inevitably, the Lusitania, running at reduced speed, and without protection, pulled into the periscope view of the U-20 German submarine. One torpedo was fired directly mid center. There was a mighty explosion. As the Germans were preparing for the second torpedo, much to their surprise, there was a second explosion, and the whole bottom of the ship blew out. Exploration of the wreckage in later years shows that it was an outward explosion. Something inside blew up with a tremendous force, and the great ship sank in less than eighteen minutes.
The strategists finally had their cause. To the unknowing world, this was the dastardly deed of those war-mongering Germans who were sinking passenger ships with innocent American civilians on board. The flame of indignation was ignited and eventually it did sweep America into war on April 16, 1917. Eight days later, Congress authorized $1 billion of taxpayer money to be sent to Britain and France to assist in the war effort. The next day, the first $200 million was sent to Britain and immediately applied to the Morgan debt. A few days later, $100 million was sent to France, and the same thing happened. It was applied to the Morgan debt. By the end of the war, $9.5 billion had been sent to the Allies and applied to the Morgan Debt. Add to that the infinitely higher cost of American blood sacrificed on the alter of collectivism in a war supposedly to make the world “safe for democracy,” and you begin to see a different aspect of World War I than has been popularized in orthodox history books – which, incidentally, have been written and funded by collectivists.
WORLD WAR II
We are back in our time machine now and find ourselves at World War II. The parallels with World War I are striking. Britain again was losing the war with Germany. The president of the United States, again, was an internationalist surrounded by Fabians and Leninists. The primary difference was that the center of gravity in the CFR was swinging away from the Morgan group and toward the Rockefeller group. Other than that, things were pretty much the same. Colonel House was still a presidential advisor, but his rooms at the White House were now occupied by Harry Hopkins. Hopkins was not a collectivist agent of the Fabians; he was a collectivist agent of the Soviets. The American people were still opposed to war. However, once again there were secret arrangements at the highest levels of government to maneuver the United States into war without the voters suspecting it. The strategy was to get the Axis powers to strike first, all the while telling and reassuring the American people that their leaders were opposed to war. It was almost an exact repeat of the ploy used in World War I.
On October 30, 1941, in a campaign speech in Boston, FDR made this amazing statement: “And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I will give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” FDR repeated that pledge many times, all the while working behind the scenes to get the United States into war. FDR’s speechwriter at that time was Robert Sherwood, who later became a famous playwright. On this topic, Sherwood said: “Unfortunately for my own conscience, I happened to be one of those who urged him to go the limit on this, feeling as I did, that any risk of future embarrassment was negligible as compared to the risk of losing the election.”
As FDR was delivering this soothing message to the voters, the American and British military staffs were meeting secretly in Washington D.C., working out the details of a joint strategy. They planned, not only how to get the United States into the war, but how to conduct the war afterward. The resulting agreement was called the ABC-1. It was incorporated into a Navy war plan and given the code name Rainbow Number Five. We now have a great deal of information on this plan although, at the time, it was highly secret. The key for getting into the war was to maneuver the Axis powers to strike first to make it look like the U.S. was an innocent victim. Their first hope was that Germany would attack. If that didn’t work, the fallback plan was to involve Japan.
In an effort to provoke an attack from Germany, FDR sent U.S. Naval ships to escort British convoys carrying war supplies, knowing that they would be targets for German submarine attack. When Germany refused to take the bait, he ordered U.S. ships to actually get into the middle of sea battles between British and German war ships. The strategy was simple. If one walks into the middle of a barroom brawl, the chances of getting slugged are pretty good.
On October 17, 1941, an American destroyer, the USS Kearny, rushed to assist a British convoy near Iceland that was under attack by German submarines. It took a torpedo hit and was badly damaged. Ten days later, FDR made this statement to the nation: “We have wished to avoid shooting, but the shooting has started, and history has recorded who has fired the first shot. In the long run, however, all that will matter is who fired the last shot. America has been attacked. The U.S.S. Kearny is not just a Navy ship. She belongs to every man, woman, and child in this nation…. Hitler’s torpedo was directed at every American.”
When it was later revealed that the Kearny had aggressively sought combat, the public lost interest, and FDR dropped the rhetoric. It was time to involve Japan.
MANEUVERING THE JAPANESE INTO FIRING THE FIRST SHOT
The Secretary of War at that time was Henry Stimson, a member of the CFR. In his diaries he said: “In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that, in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there could be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors…. The question was, how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much damage to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.”
How was this done? It was accomplished exactly as in World War I: aggravate, facilitate, insulate. Aggravate the enemy into an attack. Facilitate his attack to make it easy with no opposition. Insulate the victims from any knowledge that would allow them to escape their fate.
For many years, the government denied any knowledge of the impending Japanese attack. Gradually, however, the pieces of the puzzle began to bubble up out of the mire of secrecy and, one by one, they have been assembled into a clear picture of the most monstrous cover-up one can possibly imagine. The smoking gun was discovered in 1995. Author Robert Stinnett found a memo in the Navy Archives written by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, who was assigned to Naval Intelligence. The memo was dated October 7, 1940. It was directed to two of FDR’s top naval advisors: Captain Dudley Knox and Capt. Walter Anderson, who was head of Naval Intelligence. This memo was approved by both men and forwarded to FDR for action. The full text is now public information, and a photo of it appears in Stinnett’s book, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Peal Harbor.
The McCollum memorandum contained an eight-point action plan to implement a two-point strategy. The two points were: (1) Aggravate Japan into a military strike as a matter of economic necessity and national honor on her part; (2) Facilitate the attack by not interfering with Japan’s preparations and by making the target as vulnerable as possible. The memorandum concluded with this phrase: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.”
The necessity to insulate the victims from any foreknowledge of the attack was not mentioned in this memorandum but it was not necessary to do so. Obviously, this plan could not succeed if the targeted victims were warned in advance. So, once again, there was the familiar strategy: aggravate, insulate, and facilitate.
Was Japan aggravated into an attack? Judge for yourself. The sale of critical goods from the United States to Japan was suddenly embargoed; commerce was brought to a standstill; Japan’s access to oil from the Dutch East Indies was crippled by U.S. diplomatic pressure on the Dutch government; the U.S. closed off the Panama Canal to Japanese ships; and Japan’s major assets in the United States were seized by the government. In other words, the strategy advanced by Lt. Commander McCollum was followed in every detail. There was a deliberate assault against Japan’s economy and an insult to her national honor. A military response was predictable. The only question was when.
MAKING PEARL HARBOR AN EASY TARGET
Was Japan facilitated in the attack? There is massive evidence to support that conclusion, but we have time here for only a few examples. A Japanese spy by the name of Tadashi Morimura was sent to Pearl Harbor under the cover of a phony political assignment at the Japanese embassy. The FBI knew that his real name was Takeo Yoshikawa and that he had been trained as a military officer. He had no political experience, so they knew his assignment to a political post was a cover. They photographed him as he came off the ship. They tracked him everywhere he went. They bugged his telephone. They knew what he was doing every minute of the day. Often he would take a car to the top of a hill overlooking the harbor and photograph the location of ships. Then he would use a clandestine radio to send coded messages to Japan giving the exact grid locations for all the ships, the times of their movements, how many soldiers and sailors were on duty, what time they reported, and what time they left the base. All of this information was clearly of military importance and pointed to the possibility of a surprise attack. The FBI wanted to arrest Yoshikawa and send him home, but the Office of Naval Intelligence intervened, with White House approval, saying: Leave this guy alone. He is our responsibility. We’ll handle it. J. Edgar Hoover, who was head of the FBI at that time, objected strongly, and it almost erupted into a contest of inter-agency authority between the FBI and Naval Intelligence. In the end, Naval Intelligence had its way, and Yoshikawa was allowed to continue his mission without even knowing he was being watched.
Just four days before the attack, U.S. Navy Intelligence intercepted this message from Yoshikawa: “NO CHANGE OBSERVED BY AFTERNOON OF 2 DECEMBER. SO FAR THEY DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ALERTED. SHORE LEAVE AS USUAL.”
On December 6, just one day before the attack, this message was intercepted: “THERE ARE NO BARRAGE BALLOONS AT THESE PLACES – AND CONSIDERABLE OPPORTUNITY IS LEFT FOR A SURPRISE ATTACK.”
It was bizarre. Here was an enemy agent gathering strategic information in preparation for a surprise attack on American forces, and people at the highest levels of the United States government were protecting him. They deliberately allowed the flow of information to continue so the Japanese would be successful in their mission.
VACANT SEAS POLICY
Another example of facilitating the attack on Pearl Harbor is what was called the Vacant Seas Policy. For many months, the Navy had known from what direction the Japanese were likely to approach, what sea corridor they would use to launch their attack. They even had conducted maneuvers simulating it themselves. One was called Exercise 191 and the other OPORD1. Because of weather patterns, sea currents, location of commercial ship lanes, demand on fuel supplies, and other factors, they knew that the Japanese would approach from the North Pacific Ocean in an operational area between 157 and 158 degrees west longitude. This presented a special challenge. If the crew of any ship had seen a Japanese armada steaming toward Hawaii, they undoubtedly would have used the radio to send word ahead. They would have said: “Hey, there’s something going on here. There’s a fleet of aircraft carriers and destroyers heading your way.” That, of course, would have spoiled everything. Also, if the Japanese knew that their approach had been detected, they would have lost the advantage of surprise and might have aborted their plan.
American intelligence was well aware of every stage of Japanese preparations. It was already known that Admiral Nagumo was outfitting his carrier strike force at Hitokappu Bay on the Japanese island of Etorofu. His progress was monitored closely, and daily reports were sent to Washington. His ships departed from Japan and headed for Pearl Harbor on November 25. One hour later, Navy headquarters in Washington initiated the Vacant Seas directive that all military and commercial ships must now stay out of the North Pacific corridor. They were diverted hundreds of miles on a trans-Pacific route through the Torres Straits so there would be no encounter that might alert the intended victims or cause the Japanese to abort their mission.
The next stage in this strategy was to bring the ships of the 7th Fleet home from sea duty and bottle them up inside Pearl Harbor where they could not maneuver or disperse. This, of course, would make them easy targets. To accomplish this over the strong objection of Admiral Kimmel, who was in charge of the Fleet, his superiors in Washington cut back on deliveries of fuel. Without fuel, Kimmel had no choice. He had to curtail training exercises at sea and bring two-thirds of his ships back into port. In his memoirs, published in 1955, he said: “Shortly after I organized the Fleet in three major task forces, I attempted to keep two of the three forces at sea and only one at Peal Harbor. I quickly found that fuel deliveries were falling behind consumption. The reserves were being depleted at a time when it was imperative to increase them. It was this fact, and this alone, which made it necessary to have two task forces simultaneously in Pearl Harbor.” A Congressional investigation in 1946 revealed that, just a few days before the attack, Navy headquarters in Washington ordered twenty-one of the most modern ships in the 7th Fleet to leave Pearl Harbor and deploy at Wake and Midway Islands. The aircraft carriers, Lexington and Enterprise were among those ships. This not only left the remaining Fleet with drastically reduced protection, it also meant that the ships anchored in the harbor were primarily old relics from World War I, many of which were already slated to be scrapped. As Secretary of War Stimson had stated in his diaries: “The question was, how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much damage to ourselves.” Sacrificing only the old and marginally useful ships was the solution to that problem.
Were the victims at Pear Harbor insulated from information that might have allowed them to protect themselves? Could those thousands of Americans who lost their lives been alerted in time to take defensive action? Or were they deliberately sacrificed on the alter of collectivism because their deaths were needed to create the emotional drama to justify going to war? The answer to this question is not a pleasant one.
INTERCEPTED CODED MESSAGES
Throughout this time, the Japanese were using a combination of military and diplomatic codes. United States intelligence agencies had cracked all of them. For three months prior to the allegedly surprise attack, they knew everything in minute detail. Yet, not one of those messages was ever forwarded to the commanders at Pearl Harbor. In his memoirs, Admiral Kimmel said: “At Pearl Harbor, General Short and I knew only a small part of the political story behind the Japanese attack. Care was taken not to send us the intercepted Japanese messages, which told in great detail each step in the Japanese program…. For three months prior to the attack on the fleet a wealth of vital information received in Washington was withheld from the commanders in Hawaii. The information received during the ten days preceding the attack clearly pointed to the fleet at Pearl Harbor as the Japanese objective, yet not one word of warning and none of this information was given to the Hawaii commanders.”
The most important intercept of the Japanese code was obtained on the night before the attack. That message made clear even the exact hour that the strike would come. It was to be 1:00 PM Pearl Harbor time. The intercept was decoded 6½ hours before that. It was rushed to President Roosevelt and his top military advisors for immediate action. Their response was to do absolutely nothing. They sat on it and deliberately let the clock run out.
The military Chief of Staff at that time was General George Marshall, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Marshall claimed that he was on horseback that morning, riding in the park, and the reason he did not take immediate action was that he didn’t know about the intercept until he arrived at his office at 11:25 AM, Washington time. However, even then he still had 1½ hours before the attack. He could have picked up the telephone and spoken to the Hawaii commanders directly. He could have used any one of several military radio systems designed for exactly such kinds of urgent communications, but he did none of those things. According to witnesses, he read and re-read the intercept and shuffled the paper from one side of his desk to the other while another half hour ticked away. Then, at 11:52, he finally sent a warning to the commanders at Pearl Harbor. The method? It was a commercial telegram sent through Western Union! It arrived six hours after the attack!
THE WAR ON TERRORISM
Finally we come to the end of our journey through time and arrive at the present. Our leaders today, as before, continue to advocate a world union of nations built on the model of collectivism. As before, they seek to change the social and political structure of the free world to accommodate that goal. And, once again, we find that we are engaged in a war. This time, it is not against a particular nation. We are told it is a war on terrorism. The burning question that now must be answered is this: Is the war on terrorism a repeat of history? Is it merely a grand deception to intimidate and frighten us into accepting the harsh realities of collectivism – and the continued loss of freedom – as a reasonable price for safety in time of war? In other words, is it yet one more implementation of the Fabian strategy to smash the world to bits in order to remold it nearer to the heart’s desire?
Only time will answer that question. We are in the middle of the event, and the facts are still pouring in. We know very little yet compared to what will be known in another few years. In the meantime, each person must answer for himself based on his own level of study and understanding. However, while evaluating the evidence, we need to consider certain facts that are already established. One is that the key figures directing the war on terrorism are members of the Round Table and the Council of Foreign Relations. They are collectivists. They are dedicated to world government based on the model of collectivism. Next, we need to consider that every move they make in this war results in strengthening the power of the United Nations, which is the structure they hope will become the seat of power for their heart’s desire.
The strategy of aggravate, facilitate, and insulate is already clear. For several decades, the United States has been confronted by a steady stream of new enemies. We tend to view that record as a failure of foreign policy, but is it really? Perhaps it is not a failure at all. Perhaps a plan is being implemented that is not readily apparent. Perhaps the plan is to create and then aggravate enemies into an attack, to smash the old order of things, to bring about war and destruction as a necessary step toward the creation of a new world order. That, of course, is a preposterous assumption – just as preposterous as suggesting that there were similar hidden agendas behind World Wars I and II.
Since 1945, the United States has had two powerful adversaries: Russia and China. Both of them have been built and sustained by members of the Council on Foreign Relations who dominate American government and business. In more recent times, the U.S. has chosen sides with Israel against the Arab world, even to the extent of supplying military equipment used against Palestinian civilians. Is anyone surprised that those people hate America? At the time of the attack on September 11, the United States had a quarter-million soldiers in 141 countries. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has launched attacks against Panama, Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Haiti, Granada, Afghanistan, and Somalia, supposedly in pursuit of stopping drugs, or defending freedom, or pushing back Communism. In the great majority of cases these objectives have not been achieved. The single most consistent result has been the building of hostility toward America. These countries are the best enemies money can buy.
Have terrorists been facilitated in their attacks? Since the end of World War II, under the leadership of members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States has terminated all of its internal-security agencies. Everything from the House Committee on Un-American Activities, to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, to the anti-subversion agencies of local police departments; they have all been wiped away. We have opened our boarders to security risks from around the world. People come in from countries that we know are hostile to us, and we make it easy for them to do so.
OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
In the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, we know now that there were at least four bombs and two teams at work. All we hear about in the media is the one truck bomb detonated in the street; but, according to the testimony of Brigadier General Benton Partin, a military explosive expert, there is no possibility that a fertilizer bomb on the street could have brought that building down. There was a second demolition team that apparently had security clearance to get into the building and was able to strap high-impact explosives around the sustaining pillars, and that is what caused the building to collapse. There was at least one more bomb that did not go off as planned, and it was removed and de-fused by the local bomb squad. This was reported live on Oklahoma City television stations as it happened, and it is fortunate that we have a video copy of those reports because, after the FBI arrived on the scene and took charge of media information, no more mention was ever made of the other bombs. Had this additional bomb been detonated as planned, it is possible that the entire building would have fallen, exactly as with the World Trade Towers several years later.
The FBI had undercover agents working inside many of the terrorist organizations and knew almost everything they did or planned to do. Carol Howe was one of them. She had posed as a loyal member of what was called W.A.R., the White Aryan Resistance, which was a white supremacist organization linked to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted and executed for his role in the bombing of the Murrah Building, was a close friend of Andreas Strassmeir, who was one of the leaders of this group. After the bombing, Miss. Howe testified that she had reported to her FBI superiors that members of this group were planning to blow up federal buildings, including the one in Oklahoma City. This did not fit with the FBI’s story that it had no advance warning about the Murrah Building, so the agency responded by claiming that Howe was not an informant at the time she claimed to have made her reports and that she was emotionally unstable. They called her “the poster girl” for “conspiracy theorists.” Then they actually charged her for committing such crimes as possession of an illegal explosive device and conspiracy to make a bomb threat. In other words, they attempted to put her in prison for doing exactly the things she was expected to do as an undercover agent. It was an incredible betrayal. Fortunately she was able to prove to a jury that every one of her claims was true and that it was the FBI that had lied on every count. Clearly, this was no longer the same FBI that operated under J. Edgar Hoover during World War II.
TERROR FROM THE AIR
The terrorist cell that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Towers on February 26, 1993, was organized by Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. During the 1980s, Rahman had traveled throughout the Middle East calling for Jihad, or “Holy War,” against the West. Consequently, he was on the State Department “watch list” of suspected terrorists who were not to be allowed into the U.S. Yet, there he was, and he had entered the country under his real name. How did that happen? It happened because, in July of 1990, the CIA intervened and gave him a visa. Then, when his visa was revoked four months later, the Immigration Service located him and, instead of expelling him from the country, granted him a work permit! That is how he was able to prepare and execute the plan that led to the first bombing of the World Trade Towers. It was the same treatment given to Takeo Yoshikawa at Pearl Harbor fifty-two years earlier.
On September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Towers again became the target of terrorism – this time using hijacked airliners – the official position of the FBI was that the government had no advance warning and that there was no way that the attack could have been prevented. Unfortunately, the facts do not support that claim. For several years prior to that, U.S. intelligence agencies were well appraised that Islamic extremists were plotting attacks against American targets, especially the World Trade Towers and government buildings in Washington, DC. It was well known that these groups were planning to use hijacked passenger airliners to deliver the blows.
One of the earliest pieces of information on that came from the Philippines as far back as 1995. The police had arrested Abdul Hakim Murad when they discovered a bomb-making factory in his Manila apartment. Investigation revealed that he was part of the Osama bin Ladin terrorist network and closely associated with the same group that, six years later, would hijack the planes that flew into the World Trade Towers. Murad confessed that he and his friends were planning an operation called “Bonjinka,” which means “loud bang.” Bonjinka was a plan to blow up as many as eleven airliners at the same time and fly at least some of them into landmark targets such as the World Trade Center, The TransAmerica Building in San Francisco, the Sears Tower in Chicago, and various government buildings, such as the CIA headquarters and the Pentagon. They had also planned to assassinate the Pope during his visit to Manila later that year. All of that information was turned over to U.S. intelligence agencies and also to the security service for the Vatican.
The FBI had been collecting evidence that international terrorists were attending flight schools to learn how to fly jumbo jets since at least 1995 Much of this had come from foreign governments and from professional analysis by terrorism experts. However, by 2001, the information was far more specific. It involved names, dates, and actual places. For example, two months before the fateful attack against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Kenneth Williams, who was a counter-terrorism agent in the Phoenix office of the FBI, requested permission from his superiors to canvass all flight schools in the U.S. to see if any of their students fit the profile of potential terrorists. His memo was approved by his supervisor and forwarded to FBI headquarters for action. Williams included with his memo an update of his investigation of eight Arabs who then were taking flight training at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona. Williams reported that one of those students had a picture of bin Ladin on his wall, while another had been in telephone contact with a known al-Qaeda supporter. In view of the flood of information about terrorists planning to use planes as bombs, Williams felt that his request was a prudent and relatively simple precaution. Incredibly, the request was turned down. The stated reason was that the Bureau did not have enough resources to implement it.
Here is another example. On August 13 of 2001 – just four weeks before the attack on 9-11, the Pan Am International Flight Academy, located in Eagan, Minnesota, called the FBI to report that one of its students was acting suspiciously. They said that Zacarias Moussaoui claimed to be from France but, when French was spoken to him, it was clear he did not know the language. He had requested Boeing-747 flight simulator training but only wanted to know how to steer the plane, not how to take off or land. He also had asked how much fuel was on board a jumbo jet and how much damage that would do if it hit anything. It was quickly determined that Moussaoui was in the country illegally, so the next day he was arrested and held for deportation. So far so good, but that is where the matter stopped. When FBI agents of the local counter-terrorism team requested permission to investigate Moussaoui’s activities, their request was denied from Washington. They were also denied permission to search his computer or even his apartment. Had that been done, the agents would have discovered that he was in close contact with the terrorists who participated in the 9-11 massacre three weeks later. The chances of thwarting the plan would have been excellent.
According to the January 27 issue of the Washington Post, when Moussaoui was arrested, the FBI already had a five-inch thick file on him. Much of that probably came from the French government, but that means they already knew everything about him, what his intentions were, and who his friends were. In other words, they already had the information they needed to deport him but chose not to do so until they were forced into it by the fact that the flight school had reported his bizarre behavior.
Moussaoui was not the only terrorist at that flight school. Another was Hani Hanjour, who became one of the hijackers on September 11. Officials at the school had raised questions about Hanjour’s inability to speak English, the international language of aviation. When they shared this concern with the Federal Aviation Agency, instead of disqualifying Hanjour from further training, the FAA sent a representative to sit in on a class to observe him and then requested school officials to find an Arabic-speaking translator to help him with his English.
The refusal of FBI headquarters to allow local counter-terrorism agents to do their job at first baffled them and, eventually, drove them to desperation. One of them even put her career on the line by publicly blowing the whistle on her superiors. On May 21, 2002, Coleen Rowley, a Special Agent at the Minneapolis office, sent a scathing letter to the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, accusing him and others at FBI headquarters of gross negligence and deceit in handling the war on terrorism. In the single-spaced, thirteen-page letter, which was released to the public a few days later, she said: “The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI’s law enforcement mission and mandate.” She said that her application for a warrant to search Moussaoui’s computer had been deliberately altered by her superior in Washington so it would not pass the necessary legal review. She said that headquarters “continued to almost inexplicably throw up roadblocks and … brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent effort to undermine” her efforts to obtain a search warrant. She also pointed out that, after the 9-11 attack, the same FBI supervisor who was most responsible for stopping the investigation was actually promoted to a job with more responsibility.
After all this struggle on the part of local FBI agents to be allowed to investigate known and suspected terrorists in flight schools, and after continuing efforts by FBI headquarters to prevent any such investigation, FBI Director Robert Mueller faced the press on September 15, 2002, and, with a straight face, said this: “The fact that there were a number of individuals that happened to have received training at flight schools here is news, quite obviously. If we had understood that to be the case, we would have – perhaps one could have averted this.”
Why did the FBI not act to prevent the bombing of the Murrah Building when it had prior information that it was being planned? Why would it betray its own agent in order to deny that such information existed? Why would the CIA make it possible for terrorists to operate freely on American soil? Why would the FBI prevent its own agents from investigating known and suspected terrorists at U.S. flight schools? None of this makes any sense unless we understand the strategy of facilitating an enemy, unless we recognize the role of war in the building of that heart’s desire called collectivism, unless we understand that horrendous acts of terrorism are Fabian hammer blows to society that soften the public mind to meekly accept the expansion of government power supposedly for our protection and safety.
There are many who cannot bear the burden of this knowledge. They will prefer the reassuring analysis offered by the CFR-dominated media. They will dismiss all of this as conspiracy theory and claim that none of it is proof.
In one sense, they will be right. There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only evidence. Proof may be defined as sufficient evidence to convince the observer that a particular hypothesis is true. The same evidence that is sufficient to convince one person may be insufficient for another. The case may be proved to the first but not to the second who still needs more evidence. The purpose of this presentation has been to introduce at least some of the evidence, hopefully enough to convince you that it is worthy of further examination.
Having doubts about evidence reminds me of a story about a man who was worried that his wife was unfaithful. He told his friend about it and said, “I have doubts, doubts, always doubts.” His friend said, “Why do you have doubts?” He replied, “Well, every day she gets all dressed up, puts on perfume, leaves the house about noon and doesn’t get back until five or sometimes six, and I don’t know where she goes. I just can’t help having doubts, doubts, always doubts.” His friend said, “Why don’t you put an end to your doubts? Why don’t you follow her to see where she goes?” The husband thought about that for a moment and said, “OK, I’ll do it.” So the next day he and his friend got together in the friend’s car and waited down the street at the end of the block. Sure enough, at about a quarter of twelve, his wife came out of the house, all gussied up, got in her car and headed into town. They followed her at a discreet distance to a quaint restaurant. As she entered, she was greeted at the door by a handsome young man. They embraced affectionately and then went inside, hand-in-hand. The husband and his friend peered through the window of the restaurant and observed that the couple was laughing and drinking Champaign and holding hands across the table. When it was time to leave, the two men jumped back into their car and observed from a distance. The wife got into the handsome young man’s car and, of course, the husband and his friend followed. Eventually, the couple pulled into a motel and checked into a room, and the two men hid in the bushes just outside. As they were looking through the window of the room, they saw the couple tenderly embrace for a long moment. Next, the woman loosened the young man’s tie. Then she walked over to the window and closed the drapes. Whereupon the husband turned to his friend and said, “There you see? Doubts! Doubts! Always doubts!”
ENTER THE REALITY ZONE
It’s time now to enter the reality zone. It’s time to put doubt and denial behind us. Behold the grand deception. The war on terrorism is a war on freedom. It is the final thrust to push what is left of the free world into global government based on the model of collectivism. Its purpose is to frighten us into abandoning our freedoms and traditions in exchange for protection from a hated and dangerous enemy. This ploy has been used two times before. Each time it moved us closer to the final goal, but was not sufficient to achieve it in full. This time it is expected to be the final blow.
We have allowed this to happen because we have been denied the knowledge of our own history, and so it seems that we are doomed to repeat it. But all that can be changed. In the twilight zone from which we have emerged, it is said that knowledge is power. But in the reality zone, we know that is a myth. Men with great knowledge are easily enslaved if they do nothing to defend their freedom. Knowledge by itself is not power, but it holds the potential for power if we have the courage to use it as such, and therein lies our hope for the future. If we act upon this knowledge, it is an opportunity, not just to know about history, but actually to change its course. The big question I leave with you is “how?” Is there anything we can do, especially at this late date to change the course of history? My answer is a resounding “YES!” Is anyone interested?
The date posted here is due to our website rebuild, it does not reflect the original date this article was posted. This article was originally posted in Yonip in 2002