MacShane may be right; one cannot buy friendship with money. But according to Monday’s broadcast one can certainly buy British politician’s subservience for just a few shekels. According to the Guardian 50% of the Shadow Cabinet are now ‘friends of Israel’. In that context one common saying comes to mind. “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are”

I would assume that if there was any public respect left for the British Parliament, British political parties and the BBC, it should be gone by now. Just a few months ago Brits were devastated to find out about their MPs’ personal expenses bills. Yesterday they learned about their leading politician’s affiliation with the darkest possible regime and ideology around. They also learned that their national broadcast corporation is influenced by Zionists pressure groups run from Jerusalem.

Mark Gardner from the Zionist ‘Community Security Trust’ is not happy either. He complained that Dispatches producers behaved as if they were investigating a “criminal gang rather than various Jewish community-linked organizations,”

Gardner is also correct. It is indeed tragic to admit that the Jewish lobby is far more worrying than a criminal gang. It is there to serve a murderous state with a devastating record of crimes against humanity. Thanks to the Jewish lobby, we are all complicit in the Zionist crime. Not only are those lobbyists heavily corrupted and removed from any ethical value system, they also corrupt everything they touch. They obviously contaminate every politician who is happy to take their shekels. Consequently they incriminate us all as a society.

Watching Cannel 4’s Dispatches yesterday I wondered to myself whether this is the ‘democracy’ some British politicians, such as David Miliband insist on spreading around. I also wonder whether this is the governing model that Jewish Chronicle writer Nick Cohen and the Israeli Hasbara committee author David Aaronovitch were trying to promote when they were supporting the invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

Political commentator Peter Oborne indeed fulfilled his promise. He told us almost everything we want to know about the lobby, “who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.”

However, there is a single observation that must be added. People out there must never forget that Britain was taken into a war that cost more than a million Iraqi lives and at the time Lord Levy was the Number 1 Labour fund-raiser. Putting the two together: an illegal war that only serves Israeli interests and Sir Richard Dalton’s observation that Zionist ‘contribution’ comes with ‘strings attached’, leaves a very bitter taste. Due to its heavily corrupted politicians, Britain is now willingly serving the darkest possible racist national ideology and supporting a criminal terrorist state.

British politicians and media are caught in bed with too many Zionist wolfs. In order to reclaim sovereignty and dignity, Britain must de-Zionise itself immediately.

The TV program can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POtk6G7q4Bw

About The Social Contract: Our Society and the Future

This past week, in Detroit, Michigan, a group of Muslim immigrants engaged the FBI in a gun battle.

Journalists Paul Egan and Oralandar Brand-Williams of The Detroit News wrote, “The leader of a Detroit mosque who allegedly espoused violence and separatism was shot and killed Wednesday by the FBI in a gun battle at a Dearborn warehouse. Luqman Ameen Abdullah, imam of the Masjid Al-Haqq mosque in Detroit, was being arrested on a raft of federal charges including conspiracy, receipt of stolen goods, and firearms offenses. Charges were also filed against 11 of Abdullah’s followers. Eight were in custody Wednesday night awaiting detention hearings today; three remained at large. A federal complaint filed Wednesday identified Abdullah, 53, also known as Christopher Thomas, as “a highly placed leader of a nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group.” His black Muslim group calls itself “Ummah,” or the brotherhood, and wants to establish a separate state within the United States governed by Sharia law, Interim U.S. Attorney Terrence Berg and Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge in Detroit, said in a joint statement.”

While most Americans ignore that minor incident in Detroit, it proves indicative of a larger dilemma facing the United States’ immigration policy. Former President Bush in 2008, began importing 1,000 Iraqi immigrant refugees into the USA monthly. He jumped that to 19,000 a year for 2009. President Obama, earlier this year, signed a bill to add thousands more from Palestine.

How long can a country maintain its own language, culture and identity in the wake of endless immigration from cultures that do not assimilate into the host country? What happens when immigrant numbers grow greater than the native people?

For a simple example, look to North America in 1492 where 522 Indian tribes lived upon the land for centuries without change to their languages, religions and cultures. They enjoyed their ‘space’ all around America. The Blackfeet ‘ruled’ Montana. The Apache occupied Arizona, etc. The Seminoles lived in Florida. The Chippewa owned Michigan, etc.

By 1850, white settlers slaughtered millions of them and sent them to reservations. In the Smithsonian Indian exhibit in Washington DC, gives the reason for the destruction of the indigenous people of North America: “After first contact, the main destruction of the red man stemmed from guns, disease, the Bible and alcohol.”

Samuel P. Huntington said, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

Today, American Indians suffer on reservations with 80 plus percent alcoholism, lost languages, loss of religion, cultures and ways of life. We subdued them, so much so, they could not respond to our onslaught.

But enter the 21^st century and enter Islam. Muslims now fan out around the world with one “prime directive” to “…convert or kill non-believers.” Muslims, whether peaceful or radical, they all follow the same edict in their Koran. Given enough numbers, they overwhelm their host country.

Example: Holland fights for its life today. It suspended any further immigration by Muslims last year. They pay immigrants to go back home. France mandated that all immigrants must speak French and no more wearing of the burka. Great Britain cowers under growing Sharia Law and more emboldened numbers of Muslims. They will not recover from their immigration dilemma nor will their culture as it becomes overwhelmed by immigrants: projections show them adding 11 million more within two decades. British society and British culture will not survive.

If you would like to learn more, visit www.thesocialcontract.com

“The English philosopher John Locke, whose thinking helped inspire the American Revolution, said that society should be governed by an understood set of values he termed the social contract. Under the social contract, governments have obligations to their citizens, and citizens have responsibilities to society,” the website reads, “Most public issues are basically moral and ethical ones. What is the right thing to do? How do we decide what we think is right? When rights collide, which ones take precedence? The concept of the social contract helps us sort out the difficult issues confronting American society today and helps us find balance.”

Each quarter THE SOCIAL CONTRACT journal examines trends, events, and ideas that have an impact on America’s delicate social fabric. This journal addresses the following key topics: Human Population issues; including absolute size, rate of growth, and distribution. Do cherished American ideals prosper or suffer through further population growth?

• Immigration issues. In order to best facilitate meeting the highest goals of the American people, (1) how many immigrants should we admit? (2) who should he admitted? And (3) how can we humanely enforce the rules?
• Language, assimilation, culture, and national unity considerations. What shared values are necessary to the maintenance of our social contract?
• The balance of individual rights with civic responsibilities. Since the previous issues are so often framed in terms of rights, what are the balancing obligations?
• Other nations’ efforts at creating and guarding their own social contracts. What practical insights can be gained. from observing the failures and successes in nation-building by other societies?

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT explores these complex and interrelated issues with articles, essays, and book reviews that vary greatly in outlook and philosophy. They encourage a wide spectrum of opinion as they publish contributions from many vantage points.

If you want to learn more, spend $25.00 a year for the “Social Contract Quarterly”. It educates beyond anything you will hear in the main stream media. MSM only reports accelerating consequences, but it’s better to solve the problems rather than to continue racing into them.

Just as the ‘tiny’ incident in Michigan will be dismissed, like a cancer, it will grow and it DOES grow without attention, until, it will become a tumor that destroys the ‘social contract’ that successfully served this civilization for 233 years. But, like what happened to the Aborigines of North America, we will become victims of our own immigration policies.

How do we stop what is happening to us? Empower your collective strengths by joining www.NumbersUSA.com ; www.capsweb.org ; www.alipac.us ; www.firecoalition.com ; www.fairus.org ; www.thesocialcontract.com

What Obama Isn’t Telling American Workers

A lot is happening in the tumultuous realm of global economics. The “Great Recession” has caused tectonic shifts internationally, with outcomes that will dramatically change the lives of millions of people in the U.S. and beyond. And while Obama is acknowledging this fact with repeated references to “a new world order,” he isn’t explaining how this adversely affects working-class Americans. The truth would be far too “controversial.”

The first unmentionable fact is the inevitable, long-term decline of the dollar, a phenomenon that can now be considered government policy. The business magazine Forbes comments:

“The Treasury Department would never admit this, but for the time being it’s in the country’s interest to keep its currency low because it stimulates exports for the economy’s manufacturing base and lowers the value of the debt that the Treasury is piling up.” (October 5, 2009)

These policies are essentially economic attacks on foreign corporations and governments, and U.S. workers.

A cheaper dollar means an off-shoring of America’s debt onto countries like China and Japan — and foreign corporations, who are large buyers of U.S. currency and/or debt. These foreign entities have already issued public warnings about this dynamic, and will not sit forever as their investments turn to mush. Economic retaliation should be expected.

A cheaper dollar also antagonizes foreign corporations in another way. U.S. corporations benefit from dollar deflation because it lowers the price of their goods/exports on the global marketplace. But foreign competitors can play this game too, and the result would be economic warfare.

Most importantly, a cheaper dollar lowers the living standards of U.S. workers, since the price of foreign goods will become inflated. With a catastrophic U.S. debt, inflation will continue for years to come. Obama’s silence on the issue equals a premeditated plan to pursue the above objectives. Workers will thus be forced into demanding wage increases that match this new inflation.

Another big secret Obama is keeping from workers is also U.S. debt related (keep in mind much of U.S debt is the result of fighting foreign wars and bailing out banks). Under Obama these policies will continue; “sacrifices” are going to be made in other areas. Obama has already talked at length in favor of “reforming entitlement programs,” without mentioning loudly that these include Social Security, Medicare, and other much needed social programs. The Democrats’ priorities are perverse; money for war and banks, but not for those who really need it.

Obama’s secrets were partially revealed at the recent G-20 summit. There, Obama pushed a plan that aimed “to reform the global architecture to meet the needs of the 21st century.” Part of the plan said that “G-20 members with sustained, significant external deficits [the U.S.] pledge to undertake policies to support private savings and undertake fiscal consolidation while maintaining open markets and strengthening export sectors.”

In plain English this means that the U.S. will reduce its debt by slashing domestic consumption and increasing exports. Reducing “domestic consumption” is another often-used codeword for lowering the standard of living of U.S. workers through lower wages and the elimination of “entitlement programs.” Once workers’ wages have been reduced low enough, U.S. corporations will be able to export more on the global marketplace, the other key to Obama’s G-20 plan.

These plans are not mere schemes for conspiracy theorists; they’re already being implemented. Massive unemployment has a direct, negative impact on workers’ wages. The Democrats know this and are using it as a tool to enforce the pro-corporate G -20 policy. What else explains the deafening quiet from Obama around unemployment — already a social catastrophe ruining the lives of millions of people?

Another way the G-20 plan is already being enforced is by the restriction of credit for workers and small businesses. A recent Wall Street Journal article was titled, “The ‘Democratization of Credit’ Is Over — Now It’s Payback Time.” (October 10, 2009) The “democratization of credit” simply means that workers and low-income people had access to credit if they needed it. No more. Credit that was once used to cover end-of-the-month expenses and emergencies will once again be a privilege of the highly paid and wealthy.

Workers must understand that the current effects of the Great Recession are to become the new rules of the “reformed” U.S. economy. The living standards of the past are to stay in the past. Before, U.S. workers took out enormous amounts of debt to maintain their standard of living, since wages and benefits were steadily shrinking. The hope was that the economy would improve, and better times would return. The reality is far different.

The U.S. economy is losing its place of total dominance in world affairs. And instead of the U.S. government reacting to this by adding social programs, they are taking them away. Government money will continue to bail out banks when needed while funding trillion-dollar wars.

Once the reality of the above situation can no longer be denied, and U.S. workers recognize these policies as a corporate and government attack on their collective standard of living, they can begin to act. Workers without unions will fight to organize them. Those organized workers will push their unions to fight back by building united coalitions — representing the majority of working people — to organize massive demonstrations, protests, and strikes to demand a recovery plan to benefit the working-class and unemployed. The conditions that led to the large U.S. workers’ struggles of the 1930s and 40s are reappearing, and workers will act accordingly.

Translating the Bible into Hebrew

Or, How We Can Upset the Elders of Zion Conspiracy…

[A Talk at Rhodes Conference, 8-12 October 2009]

They say that at a press-conference before departing from Israel, President George W. Bush was asked: “What impressed you most of all in Israel?” The Texan replied: “The Bible in my room. It was in your tongue! Despite the wars and terrorism, you did not begrudge the effort and translated the Holy Bible into Hebrew in such a short time! That impressed me the most”.

Besides ridiculing proverbial Texan ignorance, this Israeli joke aims to remind us that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and every Old Testament book that you find in your hotel room is a translation from the ancient Hebrew text. There is a far-reaching implication: the Jews are the guardians and keepers of a primary sacred text of Christendom. This implication is subliminally or even consciously accepted by the West.

The consequences of this implication go far beyond textual details. India’s Brahmins are guardians of the Vedas, and this brings them influence, money, ministerial positions. Likewise in the West, the Jewish guardians of the Scripture possess by this right such extraordinary influence – totally out-of-sync with their demographic numbers – that can’t be explained in any other way.

Money, clannishness, media ownership – all are frequently mentioned among the reasons for this disproportionate Jewish influence. Here’s the problem, though: This influence is greatest in the US in particular and in the West in general. The Jews of Serbia and Greece, of Turkey and Syria, of India and China are not poor either, and are no less clannish, but they are much less influential. We may propose a different reason, then: the Texan-Israeli joke wouldn’t have been immediately understood in these countries, because for Muslims, for Hindus, for the Chinese as well as for Orthodox Christians, Jews have no sacred function – they are not the guardians of a holy text. Non-Christians have their own scriptures. And for Orthodox Christians, the Old Testament is the Septuagint, the Greek text composed some two hundred years before Christ and one thousand years before the present Jewish Bible (called MT, Masoretic Text) was completed.

Though the schism between the Eastern and the Western churches is usually connected with the filioque controversy, the true bifurcation point between the Christian East and the Christian West is located in their choice of the primary text (aside from the New Testament). Westerners (Catholics and Protestants) use the Old Testament they translated from the Jewish MT; Easterners use the Greek text as the original. This is an extremely important difference. When St Paul said that the opposites are united in Christ, he mentioned man and woman, Jew and Hellene (Galatians 3:28). Indeed, the ideal Jew and Hellene are as opposed to each other as the ideal man and woman, and the Jewish and Hellenic texts are equally opposed to each other. Moreover, translations from either of these texts carry the imprint of the original spirit with them. The Hellenic spirit found its expression in the Septuagint, while the Judaic spirit was expressed in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the MT. Christianity as a whole treads a narrow path between its Judaic and Hellenic tendencies, which are locked in an eternal fight like the Yin and the Yang. Their choice of primary text for the Old Testament caused the Eastern churches to favour the Hellenic, and the Western the Judaic tendency.

Before continuing, a full disclosure: until fairly recently, I was not aware of the problem, and like everybody else, I thought that the Old Testament in every language was a translation from the Hebrew MT original. A few months ago, I visited Moscow where I thoroughly enjoyed the fabulous hospitality of the Muscovites, who can turn every friendly meeting over a couple of vodkas into a Platonic symposium – a banquet of reason and a celebration of the soul. Once, my friend Michael, a Moscow University teacher, told me that a famous Starets wanted to receive me. “Starets,” the Russian equivalent of Greek gerōn, or “elder”, means, in Eastern Orthodoxy, a monastic spiritual leader – a charismatic spiritual guide who can aid others in attaining spiritual progress and success, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica tell us. The Starets is well known in Moscow as a confessor and heart-reader – a man who understands the human soul and its way to salvation. I was immensely touched and flattered by the invitation, for people normally wait months on end to see him and receive his blessing. Though I have met with princes of the Church – with bishops and cardinals, with the monks of Athos and Jerusalem – the elders are the hidden heart of the faith.

We drove out of Moscow to the monastery at four a.m. The road was empty, and there were only a few pilgrims in front of the monastery waiting for the heavy gates to open. This is neither the time nor the place to relate everything that happened at this meeting, but I’ll tell you the most important thing: the Starets told me of his desire to publish the Old Testament in Hebrew, corrected in accordance with the Queen Elizabeth Bible of the Russian Orthodox Church. At first, I was deeply shocked and confused. The Queen Elizabeth Bible (1751), or the QEB, is a translation, and a translation of the Greek translation into the Old Church Slavonic. Wasn’t this rather too daring a project, to correct the original according to a translation? Its scope would eclipse any post-modernist project!

Here another, even fuller disclosure is called for: the idea of translating a translation or even reconstructing the original according to a translation was not totally foreign to me. Translations are not machine-made neutral reproductions; they carry with them the twin loads of the original culture and of the translator’s culture. A translation can be translated. I was aware of this complexity – some years ago I had translated the Odyssey into Russian from the English translations of Lawrence (1932) and Rieu (1946) instead of from the Greek original. (It was published by Aletheia, the Heidegger-inspired St Petersburg publishers of Greek classics in AD 2000). I did it that way in order to convey Jorge Luis Borges’ idea that for the modern reader Joyce’s Ulysses precedes Homer’s Odyssey. The English post-Joyce translations of the Odyssey carried this subliminal message, and I tried to preserve it in my translation into Russian. (More on this in Russian on http://www.israelshamir.net/ru/odysseia0.htm )

The longer I considered the words of the Starets, the more sense they made to me. Practically, he was proposing to reconstruct the H70, the lost Hebrew original of the Septuagint, while using the QEB to select between numerous versions. You will see soon why this could begin the reversal of a long-term Judaisation and degradation process, and start the healing of the schism between the West and the East, while at the same time helping the Jews to overcome their hubris and to make peace with the nations. The Jews have translated the Bible into the languages of the nations in order to influence them; the world is indebted to them, and it’s time to pay them back by giving them the true original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, free from censorship and later additions, just as it was read in the days of the Second Temple.

Why will this bookish project influence the real world? Sacred matters influence our world far more than is acceptable to admit in polite society. The dummies believe that all things are done out of pecuniary considerations, but in truth, it is spiritual authority that decides. The world based on the Jewish Bible is not the same as would be a world based on the Greek Bible. Its priorities would be different. Even the texts themselves are different. The Hebrew text used today by Jews (and by tiny communities of Hebrew-speaking Christians), usually called MT (Masoretic text) is not the same text that was read by Christ and His apostles.

If you open the New Testament you’ll see that its references to the Old Testament do not fit. For instance, Matt. 12:21 quotes Isaiah: “in His name will the Gentiles trust”. But if you look up Isaiah 42:4, you’ll see something completely different: “the isles shall wait for his law”. Or (Acts 7:14) Stephen says “seventy-five” souls went down to Egypt with Jacob. But look up your Old Testament (Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22) – it says that only seventy people went to Egypt. This does not mean that the translators of King James, or any other translators of the Old Testament, made a mistake. They translated correctly, but from the wrong version, from the MT, while Jesus, His apostles and the New Testament writers in general had read and quoted the Septuagint (LXX) or its Hebrew Source (H70).

The transposition of the MT in place of the Septuagint (LXX) or its Hebrew Source (H70), making it the source for all subsequent Western translations, was the biggest coup the Jewish scholars ever pulled off, and this is the deep-lying cause of Judaisation of the West.

The MT is not particularly old. The oldest complete manuscript of the MT – The Leningrad Codex (1008) – is just over a thousand years old, whilst the LXX is much, much older. The LXX translation was created in a very different era – not only before Christ, but even before the Maccabee revolt. In those days, in the third century BC, the Hellenistic world embraced Palestine, Egypt, Syria and their neighbours. The Jews were integrating well into this Hellenic world, and the long struggle between the two spirits of the ancient faith of Israel had just started:

One was the inward-looking nationalist exclusivist spirit. It claimed private ownership over the Divine Law and exclusive access to the Creator for the Chosen of Israel. A stranger reading the Law was to be executed. A translation of the Bible into Greek was a most serious sin, equivalent to fashioning a golden calf (Ex 32:4), they said.

The other spirit proclaimed universality and led to Christ. The Law and God’s mercy were to be given to all.

In modern terms, these are the spirits of privatisation and nationalisation. The battle was fought in the three seats of ancient wisdom, – Alexandria, Babylon and Jerusalem. Alexandria was the most universalistic, Babylon the most proprietary – Jerusalem was their battleground. In Alexandria, a happy synthesis of Jewish and Hellenic ideas was reached in the translation of Seventy Elders appointed by the High Priest. Thus came the revelation of Israel to the world, preparing the way for Christ.

This translation was nothing short of miraculous. The translators consisted of six from each tribe of Israel, making altogether seventy-two. But the translation is called the Translation of the Seventy because seventy is the numeric value of “Sod” – “Secret” in Hebrew. The Seventy revealed the secret that the exclusivist Jews did not want to share. “A curse upon him who reveals our secret to the Gentiles”, they had written on the floor of the En-Gedi Synagogue. Three times the daughters of Jerusalem were charged “not to stir or awaken love until she pleases” (Song of Songs 3) and this meant “do not disclose our secret to Gentiles”, says the Talmud. Furious at the disclosure of the secret, the exclusivist Jews destroyed the Hebrew Source of the Septuagint. Every single copy perished. In Jerusalem, the nationalist Jews slaughtered the Hellenised proto-Christian Jews in the Maccabean revolt.

With the coming of Christ, the free Judeo-Hellenic spirit once again found its expression which was hated by the nationalists, who embarked on the long road to regaining full control over the Scripture. For hundreds of years, the scribes worked over the Old Testament, taking advantage of its ambiguous consonant readings, until they eventually achieved a text we know today. Its main paradigm was changed: if the old text led to Christ, the personal/universal Saviour, the new text implanted the nationalist concept of a messiah of and for the people of Israel. The nations of the world were to be seen as sinful semi-animals who had no access to God. The name ‘Jews’ stuck with this small fanatic band, while the Hellenised Jews became known as ‘Christians’ and were no longer called ‘Jews’. What was previously a battle between two schools of thought within the Judaic framework, became known as the battle between Judaic and Christian spirits.

The exclusivist Jews could not destroy the Septuagint – there were too many copies extant among non-Jews, and the LXX had been spread around and had succeeded in bringing the nations to Christ. That is why, in their attempt to force the genie of free spirit back into its bottle, the Jews made – one after another – three translations of the Old Testament into Greek to counter the LXX. These translations were made from their proto-Masoretic version, and were quite tendentious. “The Virgin” in the prophecy became “a young woman” in their rendering. Since then, the Jews have made and/or influenced dozens of translations into all languages, while ferociously defending their own Hebrew version, the MT, as the only legitimate primary source.

The young church had not worried overmuch, as they considered Hebrew only a language of the scribes, whilst cultured people used Greek, and the local masses spoke Aramaic. The Church dismissed the Hebrew version as an empty cocoon shed by a beautiful butterfly. LXX was considered the God-inspired text, and on its basis, the New Testament and the works of the Fathers of the Church were created. The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers the Septuagint to the MT, for the translation of the Seventy Elders had been kept in the Church and by the Church, whereas the Hebrew text had been kept and prepared by anti-Christian forces.

When later Christian scholars became interested in the Old Testament, and compared the Judaic translations with the LXX, they unavoidably resorted to the Jewish Bible, for by that time the Jews had the edited Hebrew manuscripts and tools for their interpretation. As you will recall, the H70, the old Hebrew Source of the Septuagint had been destroyed by the nationalists. A great scholar, Origen, therefore turned to the Jews for advice, and they gave him plenty of advice – only their advice was based on their understanding of their text. Origen decided to improve the Septuagint and emended the LXX according to the Jewish Bible of his day. Some of these emendations made their way into the body of the LXX. Still, the Eastern Church remained rather safe, for the Septuagint remained the official version of the Old Testament for the Greek-speaking East from Constantinople to Alexandria.

But the West did not read Greek. For a long while, the West used the Old Latin translations from the Septuagint; the unity of the Church remained strong, but the translations were weak. Eventually Jerome, a wonderful man and a great scholar, who lived for 34 years in Palestine, decided to correct the Old Latin translations and update them. He even began his work using the Septuagint. Afterwards, though, he followed Origen and turned to the Jews for their advice and interpretation. That was his undoing. He got carried away, and took the fateful step that made the West susceptible to Jewish influence. He parted with LXX and made a brand new translation into Latin – from the Hebrew Bible of his day, the proto-MT. The Jews surely liked the result, but St Augustine was shocked by this deed, and wrote in The City of God:

Although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labour [of Jerome translating the Old Testament from the Hebrew] to be fruitful, while they contend that the Seventy translators have erred in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of [the Seventy], and we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with [the Seventy].

Contemporaries condemned Jerome, as they noticed that he slowly began to appear more and more Jewish in his positions as he got older and his Jewish friends began to have more influence. One of his former friends, Rufinus, publicly attacked Jerome’s Jewish leanings. Jerome, in response to this work of Rufinus, freely admitted the truth of Rufinus’s claims. Jerome wrote in his own Apology: “There is nothing to blame in my getting the help of a Jew in translating from the Hebrew.” He said that he “did not understand how Jewish interpretations here and there would undermine the faith of Christians.” In this way the Jews managed to plant the seed that would eventually blossom into the acceptance of the Hebrew MT and the virtual abolition of the Greek Septuagint, the authentic Christian Scriptures of Christ and His Apostles.

A reason why Jerome, and Origen before him, accepted the Jewish version was their lack of historical perspective. Perspective in the visual art was discovered in 15th century, while the historical perspective was not known until the seventeenth century. Until that time, mankind was not aware of the torrent of Time. Don Quixote considered Achilles and Hector to have been knights like himself or like Lancelot. The Crusaders had thought the Muslim mosque of Jerusalem was the Temple of Solomon. For Origen and Jerome, the Old Testament was the Old Testament, and the Jews were the Jews. They did not understand that the Hebrew text of the OT had been changed since the days of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, when the Septuagint was produced. Some of these changes were tendentious, others were due to scribal errors, and still others were the result of misunderstanding.

Orthodox Bible scholar Nicolas Glubokovsky wrote: “The Greek translation reproduced an independent Hebrew textual type that was not severely censored and redacted by rabbinic authorities. That is why LXX and MT do differ profoundly, and their readings of messianic and Christian spirit are at loggerheads”.

Origen and Jerome believed the myth about careful Jewish stewardship of the OT scrolls. They did not know that the Jews had destroyed the manuscripts of other types. The Church had no such practice, and at Jerome’s time there were “tot exemplaria paene quot codices” — as many versions as there are codices. Islam, however, followed the Jewish way, and all differing versions of the Koran were destroyed, so only one type survived.

Jerome planted the seed of Jewish influence, and it had made its major inroads by the Ninth century, when the Vulgate of Jerome became universally accepted. Still, the Old Testament was not widely read – Latin was not universally understood and its influence remained somewhat limited – that is, until the Protestants began to spread their translations of the Old Testament in the vernacular.

The immediate result can be likened to an outbreak of a long-sleeping disease: Previously unheard-of devastation and massacres of civilians during the Thirty Years’ War were influenced by spread of the MT-based vernacular translations, as the nations were infected by its exclusivist nationalist spirit unknown in Europe until that time. The King James Bible was translated from the MT, and the result was amazing: the Brits began to consider themselves a racial new Israel of the flesh, as opposed to the Church being regarded the New Israel of the spirit. They fought the Church, and inflicted the ethnic cleansing prescribed in the book of Joshua on their colonies in the New World. They privatised the commons and turned ordinary British people into paupers. The German Bible translated from the MT turned the Germans into ferocious nationalists and eventually prepared the ground for Hitler. Thus, the MT and its translations had an enormous, even magical, effect. The petard placed in the second century below the walls of the Christian society went off!

The Jews became the collective Merlin behind the throne of a British King Arthur. People dissatisfied with this pre-eminence of the Jews left Christianity for various heathen cults, or became engrossed with the material side of the world. The Judaisation of the West and the degradation of its spirit accelerated.

Today, the translation battle continues as unabatedly and as one-sidedly as ever. The Jews produce dozens of translations into many languages, each more Judaic than the last. Some are openly Jewish, like the Jewish Publication Society Bible, others are crypto-Jewish or “Christian-Zionist”, like the Scofield Reference Bible that reduces the Christian faith to ‘love of Jews and of the Jewish state”. This long, hard work on these corrosive translations is the real Conspiracy of the Elders of Zion.

Russia was the latest to submit to the Judaising influence of the MT translation. Until the late 19th century, the Russians were exposed only to the QEB, the Old Slavonic translation from the Septuagint, and they were pious, religious, loyal to the throne. In the late 19th century, the pro-British Masonic Bible Society had published a translation of the MT into the Russian vernacular. Very soon, the Jewish influence in Russia began to rise. However, the Russian Church did not accept this Judaised Russian Bible for liturgical purposes, and continues to pray and read from the QEB. This caused a tragic rift between the LXX-orientated Church and MT-induced reading public, a rift that came to forefront with the Revolution.

Let me add yet another disclosure: As an ex-Jew who was received into the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, I am acutely and personally aware of the continuous struggle of these two spirits in the world. Will the Christian world submit to Judaisation, or will the Jews accept Christ? A few days ago, in a church in the Holy Land, I saw a Bible in Hebrew published by a Christian society for the purpose of bringing the Jews to Christ. However, the Old Testament had been reproduced from the MT. If a Jew sees that Christians actually use the Jewish text prepared by anti-Christian Jewish Rabbis, how can he ever accept the Christian interpretation? The encounter of Jews and Christians should bring Jews to the Church, not lead to Christians leaving the Church in dismay.

Proselytising efforts usually fail because the Jews consider themselves the guardians of the Scripture, while they should be seen as keepers of their own distinct text on a par with the Aramaic Peshitta, the Ethiopian Bible or the Samaritan Torah.

The MT is the petard laid centuries ago under the besieged City of God’s fortifications. The reconstruction of the Hebrew OT according to the LXX would hoist the Jewish sappers on their own petard and relieve the siege. A truly Christian Hebrew Bible has now become a distinct possibility. The H70, the Hebrew Source of the LXX, can be reconstructed on the basis of the textological discoveries of the last hundred years, with the help of the Qumran scrolls. We can do it – we can do it fairly quickly and fairly accurately. We intend to do it, with your help. Such a publication will become the turning point in this millennial struggle. The battle will be carried into the adversary’s territory for the first time since A.D. 128, when Rabbi Akiba’s disciple and convert Aquila produced his Judaic translation of the OT into Greek. If this project had been attempted by the young Church in the second century, the Jewish influence today would be the same as the Samaritan one – negligible. Now it is late, but not too late.

People who doubt the very possibility of reconstructing H70 usually refer to the multiple interpretations and versions within the sea of LXX manuscripts. These objections are not sincere. The Church has an exact answer regarding interpretations and versions, and we can trust Her inspiration. In our dark times of confusion, we can follow the interpretation of the Queen Elizabeth Bible, as I said in the beginning.

Why the Queen Elizabeth Bible, and not any other? Why not the Greek text? The QE Bible was prepared in the least Judaised country of the Christian world, in 18th century Russia, under the royal protection of its least Judaised queen. Queen Elizabeth was asked to permit Jewish traders to enter Russia, as they would bring her much profit, and she replied: “I wish no profit from Christ’s enemies.” Western ideas (and in their guise, Judaic influence) made few inroads then. The QE Bible was edited by churchmen, not by scientists, and edited within the full view of the Church tradition. The QE Bible can be likened to a mammoth unearthed in the frozen tundra – its corpse survived for millennia because it was protected by permafrost. One may dislike permafrost and prefer the tropics, but permafrost is better for preservation. Likewise, one may prefer more Westernised, more Judaised Christianity, but if one wants to discover the pure old Hellene tradition, one can turn to Queen Elizabeth.

The Septuagint has plural interpretations and various versions. The QEB has the great advantage of being a single text based on the LXX and fully approved by the Church. Its language is lucid, its meaning is clear, and this allows us to find and reconstruct its lost Hebrew source. (However, other possible approaches could be considered.) The reconstruction of the Pentateuch can be completed soon – with your help.

In order to receive a few chapters of our tentative reconstruction of H70, send an email to adam@israelshamir.net with subject H70. Your contribution is tax-exempt in the US; for small contributions use PayPal to the email above; for bigger contributions a bank account will be supplied upon request.

Will Tel Aviv Take the U.S. to War – Again?

Tel Aviv long ago proved its mastery at waging war “by way of deception” – the operative credo of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate. Yet its latest operation reveals a need to freshen up its repertoire of dirty tricks. As Israel’s patron, those of us who live in the U.S. are painfully familiar with such duplicity. Yet the recent frequency of its frauds renders their latest treachery remarkably transparent.

Consider the similarities. First a network of pro-Israelis fixed the intelligence that induced us to invade Iraq in support of an expansionist agenda for Greater Israel. Who can forget Iraqi WMD, scary images of mushroom clouds and secret meetings in Prague? Who can fail to recall the yellowcake uranium from Niger and those ominous warnings of “high-level contacts” between secular Baghdad and the religious fundamentalists of Al Qaeda?

Even Colin Powell was duped when pro-Israelis in the G.W. Bush administration associated his credibility with false U.N. testimony avowing Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories. Though all was deception, it had the intended effect. To others, it looked like the U.S. was at fault. Yet our policy-makers are no better than the information on which they must rely—and the allies they are persuaded to trust.

The same old Israeli duplicity is back but with a new twist. And, importantly, ably aided by a new commander-in-chief. As with the deception that induced the invasion of Iraq, war in Iran also requires weaving a web of consensus beliefs from threads of deceit.

This time there is less emphasis on fixed intelligence than on false impressions—albeit with the same goal: to advance an Israeli agenda. Though Tel Aviv’s goals for Iran are now within reach, the success of this latest operation is not yet assured.

The Cast

The stage-managing of this presidency has been a wonder to behold—even when compared with G.W. Bush. This latest production involves two key insiders, both Jewish. Rahm Emanuel, son of an Irgun operative and the most influential chief of staff in decades, served in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Gulf War. Communications Director David Axelrod oversaw a campaign strategy that garnered 78% of the Jewish vote.

It’s not difficult to imagine the source of the chutzpah that flew Obama from a speech in Cairo—meant to mollify Muslims—directly to a Holocaust photo-op at a death camp in Germany. Communication-wise, which event left the deeper impression? Was that trip meant for the 1.3 billion Muslims miffed at six decades of U.S. support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine? Or did these presidential image-makers aim to please the American Ashkenazim that fondly refer to Barack Obama as “the first Jewish president”?

Who but pro-Israeli insiders could insert in a U.N. speech by the first Black president a racist reference to “the Jewish state of Israel”? That code phrase was certain to provoke Muslims worldwide, particularly those whose lands Israel occupies. Even Harry Truman, a political product of Kansas City’s corrupt Pendergast political machine, deleted that theocratic and racist reference when, in May 1948, he extended U.S. recognition to an enclave of violent Jewish extremists soon after they ethnically cleansed 400-plus Palestinian villages.

The Plot

So now comes a new twist on an old trick. First Barack Obama was persuaded by his advisers to lambast Iran for a covert nuclear site—days after it was revealed by Tehran. So already it looks to the public like yet another U.S. president is relying on flawed intelligence. When Iran promised cooperation with international inspectors, Tel Aviv quickly countered that Israel may well attack anyway. Why not? After all, the U.S. attacked Iraq. And clearly U.S. intelligence is no better now than then, right?

So what if Iran, like Iraq, has no WMD? That misses the point. A nuclear-armed “Jewish state” of five million can still attack a Muslim nation of 75 million using U.S.-provided, laser-guided bunker-buster bombs. Tel Aviv can then point to the similarity of its patron’s conduct when the U.S. launched a preemptive attack based on false intelligence.

Winning is not the point. There is no military solution in the Middle East. The point is to create yet another crisis and yet another provocation. And, importantly, to once again make the U.S. appear guilty by association. Absent another crisis that misdirects attention and consumes scarce intelligence resources, Americans will soon enough be forced to confront an uncomfortable fact: Israel, its lobby and its supporters deceived us to wage its wars.

Americans are not stupid. We are, however, perilously misinformed. Yet that too traces to pro-Israelis in mainstream media. Absent another crisis, Americans may well awaken to the essential role played by a complicit media in these serial deceptions.
The Consequences

Iran is not about nuclear weapons. Neither was Iraq. Iran is about the need for serial well-timed crises to advance Israel’s expansionist agenda. No one dares bring that agenda to a vote. Or even mention it. Thus the treachery required of those whose numbers are few but whose ambitions are great. What choice do they have but to wage war by way of deception?

Yet this time Americans are more aware of how such duplicity can progress in plain sight. They have access to Internet news. Wade through the online clutter and the analyses found there can expose the common source of this deceit, including its media support.

Plus Americans are hurting. They know something is fundamentally amiss. Yet they are understandably wary of conspiracy theories. They want facts. As the facts point to a common source for much of what is wrong, those complicit are scrambling to obscure that source. That scrambling, in turn, is making that source steadily more transparent.

To date, this political product of Chicago’s Ashkenazim has been a catastrophe for national security. And for an economy poised to decline at an accelerating pace. Yet he’s ideal for those skilled at waging war on nations from within. And for those proficient at inducing us to freely embrace the very forces that now imperil our freedom.

We Americans may persist on this path, seduced by the allure of empty eloquence. Or we could awaken. If so, this latest president could find that, like recent predecessors, his legacy is relegated to infamy. Given the course Obama has set, Americans may yet take matters into their own hands to protect what he is allowing this purported ally to imperil.

The U.S. Creeps Closer to a Police State

When word first arrived that the G-20 would be meeting in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, activists began organizing protest demonstrations. Events like this are what freedom of speech is made for. What better occasion to protest than a meeting of the world’s 20 top leaders — most of them deservedly hated — where they will be imposing policy on billions of people worldwide?

The majority of protesters consisted of labor and community groups; they encountered an army of police…literally. The New York Times paints an intimidating picture:

“…the police were out in force, patrolling on bicycles, foot and horseback, by river and by air … protesters trying to march toward the convention center…encountered roaming squads of police officers carrying plastic shields and batons. The police fired a sound cannon (a new weapon) that emitted shrill beeps … then threw tear gas canisters that released clouds of white smoke and stun grenades that exploded with sharp flashes of light.” Rubber bullets were used in a separate incident.

And:

“Riot fences lined the sidewalks. Police helicopters, gunboats and Humvees darted to and fro. City officials announced they had up to 1,000 jail cells ready after county officials freed up additional space last week by releasing 300 people who had been arrested on minor probation violations.” (September 25, 2009).

What threat required such a military-like response? None was given. The New York Times article and many like it imply that the mere existence of marching protesters warrants a colossal reaction. Of course the presence of “anarchists” is used to further scare readers into accepting such foolishness, as if this breed of protester is especially lethal (the vast majority of anarchists are like all protesters — they do not attack the police or anybody else, though some protesters respond aggressively when being confronted with the above mentioned police weapons).

The G-20 police presence is not a terrible surprise to anyone who has attended a legitimate, community-organized protest over the years. Non-provoked usage of brutal weaponry is becoming commonplace; the police-enforced use of “free speech zones” at protests — small areas surrounded by fences in some cases — is nothing new.

But the staggering police presence at the G-20 confirms that the stakes have been raised. Two turning points that deserve special attention — since the mainstream media continues to ignore them — are last years Democratic and Republican National Conventions. In both cases incredible abuses of police powers were witnessed, with the Republican Convention (RNC) showcasing the most extreme cases of state repression.

At the RNC the unlawful tactic of mass arrests were used when, in separate incidents, a public park and bridge were surrounded by police, trapping everyone in the dragnet. The documentary, Terrorizing Dissent, has excellent footage of both episodes (www.terrorizingdissent.org). Police brutality was also a regular occurrence at the RNC — including much unnecessary usage of pepper spray and tasers — while occurring alongside an even more troubling episode.

The group now referred to as the RNC 8 consists of eight community organizers potentially facing years in jail for helping organize protests at the RNC. The original charge was the Orwellian Conspiracy to Riot in the second degree in Furtherance of Terrorism (other terrorism-related charges were later added). These terrorism charges were the first ever usage of the Patriot Act toward political activists. And although the terrorism provisions of the charges have since been dropped, due to public pressure, the attempt to equate terrorism with activism has incredible, non-accidental implications for the future.

When the Patriot Act was first enacted, there was no shortage of writers and activists warning about the potential of misuse. These predictions have been fully confirmed. Both the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act have created what many believe to be the framework for a full-fledged police state, with the initial flurry of abuses creating a series of dangerous precedents.

One famous precedent is the so-called Telecom scandal, where tele-communication corporations colluded with the Bush-controlled National Security Agency to illegally spy on an unknown number of innocent people. No one has gone to jail for this. Indeed, as a Senator, Obama was one of many Democrats who supported Bush’s telecom immunity bill, which excuses those who broke the law while creating new powers to make spying on Americans legal.

Equally outrageous is the Military Commissions Act, created under Bush to destroy a fundamental democratic right: habeas corpus, or due process. This right says that the government cannot jail a person unless there is proof of crimes committed, while also giving that person a chance to challenge these charges in a legal court with a jury.

Bush created a separate category of person called an “enemy combatant,” which he claimed was too dangerous to be treated constitutionally. An “enemy combatant” can be tried in a military court with secret or no evidence; or they can be jailed forever without even the symbolic military trial. Of course, it is only a hop and a skip away for political activists charged with terrorist crimes to be considered “enemy combatants” or “domestic terrorists.”

Obama continues to uphold Bush’s destruction of due process. Obama has said publicly that many so-called enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay will be held “indefinitely” without being tried for their alleged crimes. Supposedly, they are “the worst of the worst.” If this is true then evidence should be produced to prove it, since anyone can accuse anybody of the most heinous crimes. Without evidence, however, such accusations correctly fall on deaf ears. But no more. Now, accusations of “terrorist activities” warrant life sentences. No crime need be committed, only a vague intention — even if such intentions were formed by the suggestions of an FBI informant and are impossible to implement. The media blares these absurd “terrorist plots” as facts, and the rationale behind the destruction of civil liberties is re-enforced.

It must not be forgotten that many of the “crimes” Guantanamo Bay inmates are being accused of are merely acts of resistance to the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, something they have every right to do.

The grossly illegal Guantanamo Bay is not being closed down like Obama promised, but moved. The equally illegal Bagram air base in Afghanistan is getting an upgrade, this according to the Independent:

“The air base is about to undergo a $60 [million] (£42m) expansion that will double its size, meaning it can house five times as many prisoners as remain at Guantanamo.” (February 22, 2009).

Not only will Bagram continue to be an institution of terror, but also some analysts estimate that there remain 18,000 people held worldwide in foreign U.S. facilities — so-called black sites — with no legal rights. The absence of even Red Cross observation at these prisons insures that “harsh interrogations” (torture) will remain a regular habit.

The above abuses of the Patriot Act have trickled down from high-profile terrorism cases (some who have made confessions under torture), to regular usage against alleged gang members, drug dealers and immigrants.

For example, one section of the Patriot Act gives police the power to search people’s home secretly without notifying the homeowner — called “sneak and peeks,” a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. The logic again was that “special powers” were needed to track down “terrorists.” The Huffington Post reported, “Only three of the 763 “sneak-and-peek” requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases… Sixty-five percent were drug cases.” (September 23, 2009).

The illegal entry and searching of immigrant’s homes — or anyone suspected of being an immigrant — is widely known by the Latino community and continues to include the terror-inducing tactics of pre-dawn raids with guns drawn.

Once anti-constitutional behavior is applied to alleged terrorists, and extended to immigrants and people suspected of being gang members or drug dealers, such police behavior becomes normalized, and can then be easily expanded to all people accused of being “criminals.” Police are widely known to consider political activists, protesters, and striking workers as criminal types, beliefs encouraged by the mainstream media.

Which brings us to why? Why does the destruction of democratic rights that accelerated under Bush continue with Obama? With every political “why” question one must first answer: who benefits?

In this case the benefiting parties are the giant corporations that dominate politics in the U.S. The people steering these companies had good foresight: they saw that the global capitalist economy necessitated a race to the bottom for workers’ living standards. As U.S. corporations faced stiffer competition abroad for international markets, wages and benefits for U.S. workers would have to shrink, especially when U.S. corporations were investing heavily in emerging economies — China, India, etc., — for their slave wages.

U.S. corporate executives also understood that China became a police state out of necessity, so that its dollar-a-day workers could be brought into line (U.S. corporate investment rose sharply after the Tiananmen Square massacre). The trend of U.S. workers’ wages leads logically to similar conclusions.

The creation of NAFTA to extend the dominance of U.S. corporations to Mexico and Canada would also have predictably negative effects on workers’ living standards. Now, with two unpopular wars taking place and a third on the way (Pakistan) to further extend the profit margins of U.S. corporations, a breaking point is nearing.

Public money is being used to bail out banks and wage foreign wars while the recession continues to destroy jobs and drive down wages. This unpopular policy is viewed as a necessity for U.S. corporations, and Obama has no intention of reversing course. The police-state foundation created by Bush and continued under Obama is a stern warning to the U.S. working class to accept our fate or face dire consequences. It is already a fact that many people are too afraid of police repression to attend a protest, just as some workers are too afraid to be on a picket line during a strike.

Ultimately, a real democracy cannot function where there exists tremendous inequalities in wealth, where large sections of the population are in poverty. This is why democracies are not viable in poor countries: the super-rich use their power over the state — including dictatorships and mass repression — to crush social movements that challenge the status quo, as we are witnessing today in Honduras. The same dynamic is being created in the United States, where the vast majority of people are clamoring for real change, while those in the two-party system are using all means available to keep their rotten system in place.

Malthusians Become Messiahs

By Phillip D. Collins | ConspiracyArchive.com

Nowadays, anyone and everyone who raises a disparaging word about the Obama Administration’s policies is immediately assigned the stigma of “alarmist,” “scaremonger,” or “paranoid.” Perhaps such stigmas are actually applicable in some cases, like Genesis Communications Network radio talk show host Alex Jones and Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck. In both of these cases, there are, no doubt, serious sanity issues involved. However, those who have familiarized themselves with the résumé of President Obama’s recently appointed Science Czar, John Holdren, have good reason to be afraid.

Before I proceed any further, allow me to dissuade readers from ascribing any sort of partisan biases to me. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Foreign policy commentator Robert Kagan once observed that this false dichotomy represents “two variations of the same worldview.” The dialectical commonalities exhibited by Republicans and Democrats bear out this contention. Neither party is interested in dismantling the labyrinthine machinations of Big Government or restoring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Both are merely committed to the maintenance of their two-party political cartel.

‘Nuff said.

Having dispelled any accusations of partisan prejudices, allow me to provide a brief overview of Holdren’s résumé. In 1977, Holdren co-authored Ecoscience with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. Of course, Paul Ehrlich was the environmental scientist who published The Population Bomb in 1968.

This hyperbolic collection of demographic doomsday prophecies foolhardily predicted, “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Of course, the arrival of the 70s banished such forecasts to the realm of Chicken Little eschatology. Yet, Ehrlich wasn’t done embarrassing himself. In 1980, the wannabe demographer bet University of Maryland economist Julian Simon that an impending era of scarcity would lead to rising prices among various commodities. Ehrlich bought five different metals for $1,000 on the condition that Simon would have to pay him the difference should their combined value be higher in 1990. A decade later, the combined price of the metals had actually fallen and Ehrlich had to pay Simon $576.

It comes as little surprise that Ehrlich’s prophecies never materialized. His views were heavily influenced by the 19th century Anglican clergyman Thomas Malthus. Malthus authored Essay on the Principle of Population, a treatise premised upon the spurious thesis: “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetic ratio.” Although Malthus articulated his observations in succinct mathematical equations, the complexities of the natural order typically defy such numerical reductionism. Nevertheless, Malthus concluded that society should adopt certain social policies to prevent the human population from growing disproportionately larger than the food supply.

Malthus’ genocidal policies specifically targeted the poor. Through the promotion of hygienically unsound practices amongst impoverished populations, Malthus believed that the “undesirable elements” of the human herd could be naturally culled by various maladies. The spread of disease could be further assisted through discriminative vaccination and zoning programs. Worse still, Malthus promoted infanticide for illegitimate children, a practice that is still advocated by many bioethicists today. Peter Singer is one case in point. Ominously enough, Singer recently argued for the rationing of health care in a New York Times editorial.

Ehrlich’s prescriptions for the alleged “population bomb” were equally draconian. They included “compulsory birth regulation… (through) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size.”

Given his failed predictions, one would think that people would have stopped listening to Ehrlich a long time ago. Unfortunately, fools abound, as is evidenced by Obama’s appointment of Holdren to the position of Science Czar. Holdren merely reiterates Ehrlich’s core normative contention: “Population control is the only answer.”

In fact, on page 786 of Ecoscience, Holdren writes, “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

On pages 786-87, Holdren endorses “sterilizing women after their second or third child” and administering a “long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin” for “coercive fertility control.”

On pages 787-88, Holdren reintroduces the draconian notion of adding sterilants to drinking water on the condition that such a substance “must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.” How humanitarian. At least Holdren made the provision for some exemptions, like chickens, cows, pigs, and other barnyard buddies. That Holdren includes the elderly and children in the same category as livestock bespeaks a rather low valuation of human life.

As is the case with most proponents of population control, Holdren’s recommendations invariably assume a eugenical character. On page 838, he states, “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility…”

It comes as little surprise that, at a July 30 hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller said, “Dr. Holdren, I don’t want to embarrass you but I sometimes refer to you as walking on water.”

Of course, the Senator is a scion of the Rockefeller dynasty, a lineage of consummate American oligarchs who have harbored a historical flirtation with eugenics. The Rockefeller Foundation, which was formed by John D. Rockefeller in 1909, created and directed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity. The chief executive of this institution was none other than Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene.

Rockefeller’s messianic portrayal of Holdren underscores the power elite’s disturbing preoccupation with population control. The unsettling rationale for this preoccupation comes into clearer focus when one considers a study conducted by the Royal Commission on Population in 1944. Formed by King George VI to examine the declining fertility rates in the British Commonwealth, the Commission observed that the demographic implosion advanced “fastest among the higher occupational categories.” Apparently, a distinct fertility differential was making itself evident along socioeconomic demarcations. According to the Commission’s official report, it was the aristocracy that was demographically receding.

This fertility differential was attributable to the oligarchs’ tradition of “deliberate family limitation.” The demographic costs of such practices were becoming evident. Not surprisingly, Malthusianism and its theoretical correlative, Darwinism, were promoted by scientific minds within elite quarters. The theories of Malthusianism and Darwinism were formulated according to the sociological considerations of the ruling elite. Out of these two pseudo-scientific theories would emerge the socially and politically expedient concept of eugenical population control.
Simply stated, population control is camouflaged class warfare. In truth, the oligarchs are not concerned with carrying capacity. Ultimately, they are concerned with the capacity of their control. For the adherents of the gospel of elitism, a Malthusian like Holdren is, indeed, a messiah.

Lockerbie & the CIA

Mainstream documentary that looks at the various scenarios surrounding the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988. Was a CIA heroin trafficking operation compromised, allowing a bomb to be placed on board?

Sky Television – Conspiracies: Lockerbie & the CIA

All the President’s Bigoted Men

When Barack Obama said that the Henry Louis Gates affair was a teaching moment, he spoke truly. But the key is ensuring that the right things are taught and the right people learn. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen.

There is no need to rehash the events of July 16 chapter and verse. We all know about how the Harvard professor flew into a rage of racial accusations and haughty posturing after Sergeant James Crowley appeared at his Cambridge home to investigate a report of a possible break-in. We’ve heard that Gates called Crowley a “racist” and said he was being targeted because “I’m a black man in America.” We know how Barack Obama stirred the pot, saying at a press conference that he didn’t know all the facts but then averring that the police “acted stupidly.” And we also know that it’s a foot-in-mouth moment Obama wishes he could do a Groundhog Day on, and that he fancies a beer a substitute for an apology.

Moreover, the obvious points have already been made. We know that the police were simply following procedure in requesting Gates’ identification and asking that he step outside his home. It has also been mentioned that, far from the police racially profiling the man, he and Obama applied that technique in assuming that the white police officer was bigoted and/or acting stupidly. And, in keeping with last point, some of the boldest commentators even have hinted that bigotry may lie in the hearts of Gates and Obama. Yet no one has thus far dared expose the pretense.

I didn’t need the Gates affair, eye-opening for some, to understand the nature of a Gates or of Obama. Immediately upon learning of Gates’ existence, I knew he was another one of the president’s many, many bigoted men. And even before Obama dared stray beyond the guiderails of the teleprompter and commented on the matter, I knew that another one of the president’s bigoted men stared back at him every day in the mirror.

In reality, I knew this even before learning of yet another one of the president’s bigoted “men,” Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor and even, actually, prior to being bombarded with the bile of his most notorious bigoted man, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I knew it for a very simple reason.

For all intents and purposes, politically liberal blacks are by definition bigoted.

This is true virtually to a man.

Of course, we all know what is coming. Many will say that I’m prejudiced for painting all the members of such a large group with the same brush. But let’s note that “prejudice” in the negative sense denotes an unfavorable opinion about a person, group or thing that has no basis in reality. For instance, the Wise Latina had her foot-in-mouth moment when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” However, if this had a basis in reality, it would not be a prejudice. So let’s examine whether or not my assertion has that basis.

I’ll begin by emphasizing two things, the first of which will make it seem as if I’m being politically correct and the second of which will disabuse the reader of that notion. First, it goes without saying that there are blacks who aren’t bigoted — they also aren’t liberal. There are my two favorite economists, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell; the man I want as president, Alan Keyes; talk show host Larry Elder; minister and head of B.O.N.D Jesse Lee Peterson; and many, many others. Between this ideological set and politically liberal blacks is another basic group, one epitomized by Colin Powell. While its members are weak sisters philosophically, it wouldn’t be fair to describe all of them as bigoted.

Now for the second thing: even putting the Keyes and Powell groups together, percentagewise they are part of a very small minority.

Now let’s move on. In the movie Boyz N’ the Hood, the father character, played by Laurence Fishburne, gives a motivational speech about how the presence of alcohol and gun stores in South Central L.A. is the result of a white conspiracy. Note that he is cast in the film as the wise patriarch, a voice of reason.

Of course, this is Hollywood, but it’s also a case of art imitating life. We long ago learned about the large numbers of black people who believe the AIDS virus is the result of a white conspiracy to wipe out blacks. And this paranoia also explains countless everyday interactions. For instance, some years ago there was the story of that public official who used the word “niggardly” at a meeting, and I documented the woes of Illinoisan David Gonzalez, who, replying to a query, told a black co-worker that a symbol he was wearing was a clan badge (Scottish clan, a symbol of ethnicity). In both cases, the men were targeted by bigoted leftist blacks who were sure they were prejudiced.

Then there is bigoted Obama man Attorney General Eric Holder, who mentioned that he also was “profiled” by the police in this nation of cowards. Now, I don’t doubt that he believes he was unjustly targeted, but, then, I know something else: I’ve been “profiled” as well. I could tell you about a couple of incidents in which I was pulled over simply because I was in the wrong place, in the wrong kind of vehicle and, in one case, the wrong age. This, not to mention that I was the wrong sex — remember, the police view men much more suspiciously than women because, like some other groups, they commit an inordinate amount of the crime (note that the complaints of profiling we hear always involve black men). Then there is that esteemed academic Professor Gates, who was sure that Sgt. Crowley was a “‘racist’ police officer.” And there are many other such examples.

Now, why would anyone read bigoted motives into innocent things? It’s not always a Machiavellian playing of the race card, I can assure you. There is another reason.

We’ve all had experiences with those who are prejudiced against an individual. It might have been a mother-in-law who just couldn’t stand her son’s wife, or a person who, after years of marital conflict, was fatally biased against his spouse. And when you thus hate someone, it’s so often the case that you view him through colored glasses. His trespasses are then never innocent mistakes, are they? And are his errant comments ever just slips of the tongue? No, they’re the result of evil motives, a desire to target you for attack. The thinking is, “You know, that’s just the kind of thing that scum of the Earth would do!” In reality, we’d do well to bear in mind that you should “Never attribute to malice what is better explained by stupidity,” but the prejudiced person will never distinguish between the innocent and insidious. For hatred is like darkness: the more there is, the less you can see.

It is no different with politically liberal blacks. Gates, AIDS conspiracy theorists, the niggardly-and-clan police and many others are just sure that those who “offended” them are bigoted because, well, that’s just what white people do.

Also note that the demonization of whites is part of leftist dogma (I refute this here). This was apparent even four decades ago when feminist Susan Sontag infamously proclaimed, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” And the idea gains ever more currency. In fact, I have encountered numerous whites who have expressed such sentiments, including a man online recently who wrote that he was “ashamed” to be white.

Yet, if such anti-white loathing is present among leftist whites out of a sense of being “oppressors,” how much more prevalent is it among leftist blacks, who view themselves as the oppressed? The answer is that it’s common enough — and accepted enough — so that another one of the president’s bigoted men, Reverend Joseph Lowery, was given the podium and allowed to pray for a day “when white will embrace what is right” during Obama’s inauguration. Oh, and Obama didn’t say he was sorry for that, either. It just seems that he only apologizes to those he considers alien when they reside overseas.

Then we have that old political observation about how blacks are actually quite conservative culturally. This evidenced itself just last November when 70 percent of blacks voted for California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union between a man and woman, versus only 49 percent of whites. Now, while the phenomenon of black cultural conservatism is certainly exaggerated a bit, we have to ask, why would such a group vote Democrat 95 percent of the time? The answer is race. There is a strong feeling in the black community that the Republicans are the white party, which is no doubt why Screaming Howard Dean played upon this stereotype in 2008. And to rise above this — as Alan Keyes and the other fine gentlemen I’ve mentioned have done — is to transcend leftist politics itself.

As for politically liberal blacks, the reality is that they are consumed by race. They live and die with it, eat it and breathe it. As an example, consider a certain affirmation black women sometimes utter to young black boys: “You’re going to grow up to be a strong, young black man!” Now, this isn’t designed simply to reassure the lads that they’re not going to go the way of Michael Jackson. There is another reason.

Everyone tends to define himself in some manner, viewing some particular status as central to his being. This should be “child of God” but usually is something else; it could be the quite wholesome identity of “father” or “mother,” or it could be “policeman,” “doctor” or “athlete.” Then again, it could also have to do with one’s group.

In the case of politically liberal blacks, they identify so closely with their race that there simply is little, if any, separation between them and it. As an example of how this manifests itself, consider Congressman Sheila Jackson-Lee’s 2005 statement during a House discussion, “I came here as a slave; I now want the right to vote!” Now, just for the record, this woman isn’t 175 years old. But was it just a manner of speaking? Well, when I gave a talk about so-called racial profiling at a Toronto symposium some years back, I took questions afterwards and one I fielded was from a black student. He began by passionately saying, “There was a time when you and I couldn’t drink out of the same water fountain . . . .”

He was about 16 years old.

Rest assured, it’s not that these folks had a Shirley MacLaine vision of a past life. It is that identification. In their universe, “I” am the group; the group is me. Anything that has happened to the group has happened to me, and any characterization of the group is a characterization of me. The latter is, by the way, one reason why people (of any group) exhibiting this phenomenon cannot abide any criticism of their group. Their self-image is so intertwined with the image of the collective that anything diminishing the latter diminishes the former. This helps explain why such people will jump through hoops to rationalize away unflattering facts about their groups. It sheds light on why individuals such as Obama can say that blacks get stopped by law enforcement disproportionately while ignoring the reason for it: they commit crimes disproportionately. The black person who has amalgamated group and self cannot acknowledge this fact because, in his mind, it would be tantamount to saying that he was criminally inclined. It would make him feel like less as a person.

Now, there is a funny thing about hang-ups. Many of us have them, but we usually don’t recognize them as hang-ups. We don’t realize that our hang-ups are just that: things that seem all-important and ever-relevant because they’re blown out of proportion in our minds and hearts. Rather, we think they seem all-important because they are so. And here is the crux of the matter: because we believe this, we assume other people have recognized their importance as well and thus must also make them a priority. In other words, blacks who place race at the center of their being will assume that whites would, recognizing the importance of this factor, follow suit.

This perspective explains a lot. It explains why a black man who hears a white guy utter a word that sounds vaguely like a racial epithet or who is asked to step out of his home by a white cop reads bigoted motives into the situations. It explains why many blacks, despite being advantaged by an affirmative-action society, believe they’ve experienced great “racism.” Is it real or is it Memorex? When you interpret all the normal bumps and stumbles of human interaction as expressions of bigotry, you certainly have experienced great “racism.” That is, at least in your own mind.

Couple the above perspective with the fact that many blacks are told from toddlerhood on that the white man has kept them down (just think of the kids in Jeremiah Wright’s church), and it explains something else. We’ve all heard the leftist shtick about how only whites can be “racist,” which is based on the convenient interpretation that being so requires power, something only whites possess (untrue itself). Of course, since “racism” was originated by leftists to facilitate their arguments, they can define it any way they want. This is why I avoid the term and instead try to use “bigotry” — I reject their lexicon. Yet, this language manipulation is driven by something real, something substantive, and it harks back to what I said earlier about prejudice.

You see, when you view the object of your hatred as truly evil (“white devils,” anyone?), then, in your eyes, your feelings aren’t actually prejudice, are they? They cannot be because you will view them as having a basis in reality. In other words, you can’t be “racist” because, by gum, you have a right to hate evil. And this is of course a common failing of man; other people may be wrong to hate, but, well, we’re different. We have a reason to despise our bogeymen.

Of course, because I wrote this essay, many people will hurl that r-word at me. But who really is prejudiced? Who really has drawn conclusions that have no basis in reality? If I’m wrong in what I’ve said, then, sure, perhaps it is me. If I’m wrong, then you may have reason to suspect I’m hung-up. But if I’m right, then I have just explained for you the Gateses, Lowerys and Wrights of the world — and the Obamas. If I’m right, it means we have put someone who is hung-up — and perhaps hateful — in the White House.

Seizing Power and Property

Governments, local, county, state or federal, are artificial entities created by the people. Governments, collective organizations, were created to protect the life, liberty and property of each and every person.

Frederic Bastiat said: “If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.” [1]

Individuals cannot transfer rights or powers they do not inherently possess to an artificial government entity. One cannot bestow a right or privilege that one does not possess – those powers that each and every person possessed prior to the establishment of said government. Individuals may not legally plunder the property or resources of others, kill people, impose moral sanctions, or a plethora of other regulations, public and private extortions that governments regularly engage in.

Bastiat said: “Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?” [2]

The government, constitutionally, is limited only to those functions in which an individual citizen has a right to act. The government has derived its powers from the governed. People cannot delegate powers it does not possess to its creation. John Locke explained the concept: “For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” [3]

For instance, if Citizen A has a vehicle and Citizen B doesn’t, Citizen B cannot arbitrarily seize citizen A’s vehicle. That would be stealing! Citizen B, despite the fact that he may lust after Citizen A’s vehicle, cannot legally delegate a government entity to take Citizen A’s vehicle in his behalf. If the government usurps such authority, that would constitute public plundering – the road to tyranny. America is obviously well down that road, given the current pandemic public plundering sanctioned and facilitated by the government.

The vehicle analogy is also applicable to car dealerships, many of which are being illegally seized and transferred to other parties. The following letter appeared in a Florida newspaper in late May 2009: “My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business. We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability. I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life. On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as “new,” nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory. Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank. HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN? THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong. This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster. HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I am certain that George Joseph is just one of many dealers whose businesses have been seized by major car manufacturers, sanctioned by the bankers directing the current administration’s spoils system of rewarding campaign contributors, friends and corporate allies. This is a blatant Communistic redistribution of property. The Elite have no loyalties – other than to each other.

Unfortunately, government power was usurped long ago by the Elite, the majority of them lawyers, who impose laws favorable to themselves and their corporate cohorts but disastrous to the common citizen. To keep us fighting among ourselves, the Elite fashioned political parties. The sincere Republican and Democrat citizens are so preoccupied blaming the specific parties that they fail to recognize that the Elite within both parties utilize the spoils system – no matter which party is in power. Politicians are like professional wrestlers with orchestrated differences who choreograph their moves and celebrate after each match. Citizens naively believe the rhetoric because we hope things will improve while government Elites of both parties plunder our lives, liberties and pockets. We have all become enslaved and ransacked by a government that was “hired” to protect us from such egregious abuse.

In the 1700s the term “slave’ was applied to all indentured servants. Both black and white servants were granted their freedom as serving a specified length of time – typically seven years. Black and white slaves worked, lived, and played together, apparently indifferent to skin color differences. Racism was absent. That mutual acceptance was artificially altered when the minority colonial Elites, concerned about possible rebellion from the majority non-voting lower classes, took firm measures to divide poor whites and blacks “both socially and economically.” The bulk of society was composed of servants, landless tenants or small yeomen who owned inconsequential land that the Elite didn’t want. The Elite established a “divide and conquer” tactic that is still very much in place in most societies. [4]

Historian Edmund S. Morgan pointed out, “For those with eyes to see, there was an obvious lesson in the rebellion. Resentment of an alien race might be more powerful than resentment of an upper class.” [5]

Edward Bernays, the grand master of propaganda stated: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.” [6]

The government and their compliant corporate press mold and manage our perceptions and prefer that we focus our anger and attention on numerous distractions – the illegal aliens, illusive terrorists, same-sex marriages, welfare recipients, North Korean testing, whether the CIA lied or was it Pelosi, Islamic fundamentalism, whether torture photos should be released or the current Supreme Court nominee, as if one court appointment can change the political landscape. The fact is that the government Elite set up this entire environment of contention to divert our attention from their treacherous unconstitutional, criminal activities – in both parties. This is all part of America’s drive into a One World Order, now hyper accelerated under the current administration.

You might ask – how did government Elites create the current environment. Decades ago the government abandoned the constitutional principles of non entanglement with foreign countries. Government officials are no longer public servants but private servants to deep-pocketed multinational corporations whose money keeps ego-driven politicians in power. Those same multinational corporations control the media flow of information in order to keep the people in an ignorant trance. Character-challenged politicians, mesmerized by power and money, cater to the insatiable greed of the privileged Elite under the pretext of spreading democracy, ousting cruel dictators, restricting the spread of Communism, Nazism, Fascism or terrorism.

The CIA created al Qaeda, the database and instigated Islamic fundamentalism by training 100,000 fundamentalist Muslim Mujahadeen. The CIA-friendly Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed that, unbeknownst to the American public and Congress, that Trilateralist Jimmy Carter authorized $500 million on July 3, 1979 to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism throughout Central Asia in order to destabilize the Soviet Union, another made-in-America enemy that had served the purpose of its creation and now had to be dismantled. The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and functioned from 1979 to 1989 at a cost of $20-30 million per year beginning in 1980 which rose to $630 million per year in 1987. The U.S. poured another $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means student). Young zealots were recruited and sent to the CIA’s spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al Qaeda were taught sabotage skills – terrorism. Young Afghans, Egyptian and Jordanian Arabs and some African American Muslims were instructed in the latest sabotage skills.Underground Dissident [7]

Taxpayer funds financed the I-hate-America textbooks for Muslim students. Prior to 1967, Islamic fundamentalism was a relatively small movement. In the early 1980’s, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) gave a taxpayer funded grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and it’s Center for Afghanistan Studies to develop specialized textbooks. For more than twenty years the U.S. spent millions of dollars producing fanatical Islamic schoolbooks for distribution in Afghanistan, a country now known for its terrorist training camps. The schoolbooks, used throughout the 1990s for the country’s core curriculum, included illustrations of guns, bullets, soldiers, and mines to indoctrinate young minds towards violent destruction. Who authorized this hateful instruction for young impressionable minds? [8]

For $190,000 a year, Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board and “attended nearly all of the board meetings” of the Swiss-based ABB Company between 1990 and February 2001. [9] In 2000 (based on a Clinton era contract) ABB sold $200 million worth of components to North Korea to allow construction of two nuclear reactors. Currently, there are concerns about their activities. In December 1983 and again in March 1984, Ronald Reagan sent his personal emissary, Donald Rumsfeld, a former Secretary of Defense, to meet with Saddam Hussein along with Reagan’s handwritten note. This first meeting, on December 20, 1983, was for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Iraq and the United States, the first since the 1967 war. We formally restored diplomatic relations with Iraq in November 1984. Then, Rumsfeld and his corporate cronies secretly supplied Saddam’s military with the components to build chemical and biological weapons. Rumsfeld is just one example from dozens of Elites who repeatedly shift from boardroom to government office while stuffing their pockets from both positions.

David Rockefeller admitted in his relatively-recent book: “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [10] What further proof do we need of a pervasive conspiracy – just look at the mounting evidence and forget the mesmerizing, feel-good political jargon emanating from Washington.

Footnotes:

1, The Law, The Classic Blueprint for a Just Society by Frederic Bastiat, Foundation for Economic Research, New York, pp. 2-3
2, The Law, The Classic Blueprint for a Just Society by Frederic Bastiat, Foundation for Economic Research, New York, pp. 2-3
3, Locke, John, 1632-1704. Two Treatises of Government: of Civil Government Book II, p. 135
4, Divided, the South’s Inner Civil War by David Williams, The New Press, New York, 2008, p. 15
5, American Slavery, American Freedom by Edmund S. Morgan, W.W. Norton & Co., 2003, pp. 269-270
6, Propaganda by Edward Bernays, Organizing Chaos, p. 37
7, How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahadeen: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), January 15-21, 1998, p. 76; The CIA’s “Operation Cyclone” – Stirring the Hornet’s Nest of Islamic Unrest, October 27, 2002,
8, From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts by Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, Washington Post, March 23, 2002
9, Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North Korea
10, David Rockefeller: Memoirs by David Rockefeller, Random House, owned since 1998 by the large German private media corporation Bertelsmann, 2002, p. 405

Next Page »