Summary
âž¡ General Thorpe sent multiple warnings about a potential attack on Pearl Harbor, but was told to stop. Despite this, the attack happened, leading to questions about whether it could have been prevented. A book called “Day of Deceit” suggests that the U.S. had broken Japan’s naval codes before the attack. The sinking of the Lusitania and the USS Maine were also controversial events that led to U.S. involvement in wars, with evidence suggesting that the public was misled about the causes of these incidents.
âž¡ This text discusses the influence of powerful figures and organizations on American foreign policy and economy. It suggests that these entities, such as Dean Acheson and the Council on Foreign Relations, have shaped major events like the Vietnam War and the creation of international trade agreements. The text also argues that these agreements, like NAFTA, have led to job losses in America due to the influx of cheaper imports. Lastly, it implies that these actions are part of a larger plan to restructure North America and create a new world order.
âž¡ The text discusses the potential political integration of North America, similar to the European Union, due to economic consolidation. It also raises concerns about the war on terror leading to increased government surveillance. The text suggests that these developments could lead to a loss of national sovereignty and the rise of a world government. It also criticizes the media for not adequately covering these issues.
âž¡ In a 1991 dinner, a speaker thanked major publications for keeping their plans discreet for 40 years, allowing them to work towards a world government. The speaker encouraged the audience to explore different news sources and mentioned his books, which discuss the idea that the world is not a product of chance but design.
âž¡ Kim Il Sung, North Korea’s dictator, came to power indirectly due to U.S. actions during World War II. The U.S. supplied the Soviet Union with resources to fight Japan, which led to the Soviets gaining control over surrendered Japanese munitions and territories, including North Korea. This decision, initially seen as a mistake, resulted in the Korean War, causing the death of over 50,000 American soldiers and 1.1 million Koreans. The article also discusses the controversial Tonkin Gulf incident, which led to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
âž¡ The speaker discusses the controversial war in Iraq, highlighting that the initial reason given for the war was the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. He suggests that many wars have been based on deception or false pretexts, and that a powerful group, referred to as the establishment, has influenced these decisions. This establishment, linked to Wall Street and the banking community, allegedly manipulates the electoral system and maintains power regardless of who is in the White House. The speaker also mentions the Council on Foreign Relations as a significant influence on the president.
âž¡ The Council on Foreign Relations aims to establish a world government, as stated by Admiral Chester Ward, a former member. This idea is criticized by some, who fear it could lead to a loss of national sovereignty and independence. The European Union is seen as a model of this concept, with countries like Spain and England losing some of their autonomy. However, there are concerns that a world government could lead to tyranny, as power would be concentrated in one place.
âž¡ The Federal Reserve, America’s central bank, was established due to the efforts of powerful bankers like the Rockefellers, Morgans, and Rothschilds. This group secretly drafted the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, which was then introduced by Senator Nelson Aldrich. The Federal Reserve has the power to set interest rates, influencing the stock market and the economy. This power has been criticized as it can lead to economic depressions and benefits the wealthy bankers who control it.
âž¡ The text discusses the creation of the Federal Reserve and its impact on the economy. It suggests that the Federal Reserve’s ability to create money from nothing led to inflation and economic instability, including the stock market crash of 1929. The text also argues that the Federal Reserve and the introduction of income tax in 1913 allowed the government to fund wars and other policies without limit, benefiting corporations and bankers but leading to inflation for the general public. The text concludes by suggesting that this system is problematic and needs to be scrutinized.
âž¡ The article discusses the history and implications of income tax in America. Initially, it was only 1% of income, but it gradually increased over time. The article also mentions how wealthy individuals often avoid paying taxes by putting their assets into tax-free foundations. It further discusses the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the income tax in 1913, which led to America’s involvement in World War I and the subsequent increase in the federal deficit.
âž¡ The League of Nations, a weak world government, was created by bankers and politicians, including House and Wilson, with the aim of eventually establishing a powerful global government. However, the U.S. Senate rejected the idea and refused to join. In response, the bankers formed the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the U.S. to influence public opinion towards global governance. The CFR, initially dominated by bankers and lawyers from JP Morgan, later included university professors and influential figures like the Rockefellers. The CFR has significantly influenced U.S. foreign policy, including the creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, and the World Bank.
âž¡ New York banks like National City and Chase loan money to countries, expecting the American taxpayer to cover any missed payments. This system benefits the banks and organizations like the IMF and World Bank, who also influence the governments they lend to. The Vietnam War is also discussed, highlighting how it was mishandled and prolonged due to poor strategies and restrictions. The article suggests that influential figures and organizations were more interested in their own agendas than the nation’s welfare.
Transcript
American history in a way that some of you may never have heard it told before. And we’re going to start with one of the most tragic events in american history. Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. December 7, 1941. About 2000 Americans dead, 18 ships, including eight battleships sunk or heavily damaged. About 200 planes destroyed on the ground, many more damaged. Very tragic day for America. Now, here’s a question for you. What question do you think Americans were asking the day after Pearl harbor, besides what’s going to happen next? What question do you think Americans were asking the next day? Yeah.
How could such a tragedy have befallen us? How were we caught off guard? Well, President Roosevelt appointed a commission to answer that question. It’s called the Roberts commission, and the Roberts commission could be called very Washington friendly. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, who headed it, was very close to Roosevelt, and retired Admiral Joseph Rees had been given a job in lend lease by Roosevelt. The two army generals on the commission. One was on the personal staff of General George Marshall. The army chief of staff was chosen as a recommendation. The other was his close personal friend.
Well, the commission conducted 19 days of hearings, the three in Washington and 16 in Hawaii. At the conclusion, they issued an official report in which they said that Washington, prior to Pearl harbor, had discharged its duties in an exemplary manner. They said all the blame for Pearl harbor lay with our two commanders there, namely Admiral Husband Kimmel, who’s on the left, of course, the Pacific Fleet commander in Hawaii, and General Walter C. Short, the army commander there. They said these men were guilty of dereliction of duty. They had failed to take adequate surveillance measures of the waters surrounding Hawaii.
And in the headlines across America, the words dereliction of duty appeared, and these two were inundated with hate mail and death threats. Congressmen stood up and said they should be shot. They’re responsible for the deaths of 2000 Americans. While Kimmel, in short, protested the findings of the Roberts commission, they pointed out there were a number of irregularities. Justice Roberts had taken unsworn testimony for a good portion of the hearings of he had refused them the right to have fellow officers serve as their attorneys. They were not allowed the right to ask witnesses questions. And they also found that significant testimony was left out of the commission’s report.
So Kimberly short did something that was very unusual for an officer to ask for. They requested that they be court martialed. But President Roosevelt refused. He said, no. No court martials. These men, I’ve already relieved them of their duties. We’re at war now. What good could come of a court martial? The Kimmel, in short, kept pressing their case, and Congress did, too. They also wanted court martials. And finally, in 1944, Congress mandated that the hearings take place. Members of Congress said, hey, we’re obviously winning the war. Now, what’s the big deal about letting these two guys have their day in court? So in 1944, the naval court of inquiry and the Army Pearl harbor board convened.
Now, these two proceedings, the attorneys for Kimmel, in short, presented undeniable evidence that Washington had complete foreknowledge of the attack, but denied that information to the two commanders. As the admirals on the naval court of inquiry heard that evidence being read, they threw their pencils on the ground in disgust. Admiral Kimball was completely exonerated by the court, and all blame was placed on Washington. Now, of course, President Roosevelt was outside their official jurisdiction. He couldn’t be named. But everybody knew who was being implicated. The army. Pearl harbor also reached the same conclusion, that Washington had full foreknowledge of the attack.
And here are their closing words in their official report. Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States. You can see that report online these days. Now a question to ask is the public reacted with hate mail and death threats to the charge of dereliction of duty. How do you think the public responded to their exoneration of these two officers, to the news that Washington had known about the attack? And the answer is, the public didn’t respond because the public didn’t know. President Roosevelt ordered that the results be quashed and held top secret in the interest of securing the war effort.
However, after World War two, a number of forthright authors attempted to bring the truth to the public’s attention. For example, in the 1950s, this book came out, the final secret of Pearl harbor, subtitled the Washington contribution by Rear Admiral Robert Theobald, who was in Pearl harbor on the day of the attack, commanding destroyers. There were several books like this. You know what? They didn’t get media attention. They didn’t get reviews in Time magazine or the New York Times and were generally ignored. Most people didn’t know these books were even out there. But a real breakthrough came in 1982, when John Toland, the dean of World War two historians, Pulitzer Prize winner, undisputed historian, published this book called Infamy, Pearl harbor and its aftermath, because at this point, a great many witnesses had come forward, would not come forward at the time of the court martial.
Now, following the publication of Toland’s book, I was asked to do a cover story. This is back in 1986 for the new American on Pearl harbor, summarizing what Poland and other writers had said. And then in 1989, the BBC produced this documentary, Sacrifice at Pearl harbor, which you can buy online. And the BBC’s documentary repeated everything we’d said in the new american, and that’s now been aired on the History Channel. Now, at this point you might be wondering, wait a minute, Mister Koroloff. You’re saying that Washington knew about the attack. Now, isn’t that just sensationalism? What is the evidence for that? Well, Washington knew about the attack from several sources.
One was the purple code, which is the name given to the code that Japan used to communicate with its embassies and major consulates around the world. It’s a very complicated code. So complicated it had to be enciphered and deciphered by machine. The Japanese were convinced no one could break it. But in 1940, a talented group of american crypto analysts did break that code. So in 1941, when our relations with Japan were tense, we were reading Japan’s messages on a same day basis. Every message was translated within 24 hours. And every day those messages went to President Roosevelt, the secretary of state, Cordell Hull, the secretary of war, Henry Stimson, the Army chief of staff, George Marshall, and Harold Stark of the US Navy, the chief of naval operations.
Now, what did these messages reveal? They revealed that the Japanese had ordered their spies in Hawaii to start sending Tokyo the exact locations of our ships in dock in Pearl harbor. Now, there’s nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements, but when they want to know the exact location of your ships in dock, the only implication is that your ships have been targeted. This Pearl Harbor Day approached, Tokyo requested that the frequency of these reports be stepped up. The purple colored transcripts also revealed that the Japanese in Germany had told the Germans that war with the United States is about to break out.
They revealed that the Japanese had told their consulates and their embassy here in the United States to start burning all of their secret documents in their code books. Why? As soon as the war started, the Japanese knew they were going to lose their diplomatic immunity. Now, I don’t know if any of you saw a movie called Tora. Tora Torah. In that movie, they show the american secretary of state, Cordell Hole, and that’s the real Cordell hole there. In the movie, the japanese ambassador is given a declaration of war following the attack, and he reacts with utter shock and surprise.
But in real life, Cordell Hull had already read the japanese declaration of war the day before in his own office. He read his transcript of it that had been given to him by the crypto analysts. 13 parts of that 14 part message, as had President Roosevelt. Now Rochna also knew from a number of other sources. Joseph Grew, our ambassador to Japan, had told Roosevelt, based on information received from the peruvian embassy in Tokyo, that if relations got worse with the US, Japan planned to attack Pearl harbor with all its strength and with all its might. Jedgar Hoover, according to eyewitness testimony, also informed the president, based on information received from a yugoslavian double agent named Dusko Popov, who you can see interviewed on the BBC documentary I mentioned before.
Popov was working for both us and the Germans, but his true loyalty was to us. It seems the Japanese had gone to the Germans to ask their advice on how to approach the attack on Pearl Harbor. Popov got that information to Hoover, who gave it to FDR. The president, Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, was the us military observer in Java, which was at that time under the control of the Dutch. The Dutch had also broken Japan’s diplomatic codes, had learned of the Pearl harbor attack, and warned General Thorpe. General Thorpe thought this was so serious he sent a total of four warnings to Washington, until finally General Marshall’s office told him, send no further warnings concerning Pearl harbor.
You can see General Thorpe interviewed on the BBC documentary sacrifice at Pearl Harbor. Colonel Fgl Weigerman was a dutch military attache in Washington. He has testified that he personally warned General Marshall of the attack. Senator Guy Gillette and Congressman Martin dies both independently received warnings of the attack. Both men later stated they had told President Roosevelt about the warnings they’d received. In both cases, he told them to just leave the information in his hands, the president’s hands, and not to share it with anyone else. Now, in 2001, Disney released this movie, Pearl harbor, starring Ben Affleck.
The very standard rendering of the attack. FDR portrayed as a great hero. He’s totally surprised. And the producer of that movie, Jerry Buckenheimer, used very impolite language to describe anyone who would suggest otherwise. So in response to that, the new american magazine asked me to do a new cover story on Pearl harbor because at this point we had more information, in particular from this book, Day of Deceit. The Truth about FDR and Pearl harbor by Robert Stannette. Stanette really broke new ground in the investigation of Pearl harbor. Through the Freedom of Information act. He was able to prove we’d not only broken the diplomatic code, we had also broken Japan’s naval codes before Pearl harbor.
This is something no one had known before. Outside of official circles, we had always assumed that the Japanese maintained complete radio silence as they approached Pearl harbor. They did not. They maintained discretion, but not silence. They broke silence on a number of occasions, and the most important message was certainly this one. Admiral Yamamoto, the Japanese First Air Fleet, November 26, 1941. The task force keep its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, he’ll advance into hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities, he’ll attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow.
The first air raid is planned for the dawn of X Day. Exact date to be given by later order. Now, no one can read that and not understand its implications. I’d like to mention that following publication of our articles in the new American, I received a note of thanks from Colonel Walter C. Short, US army, retired, son of the late Pearl harbor commander. We were also contacted by the attorney for the Kimmel family, who requested permission to use one of our new american articles in their own efforts to exonerate Admiral Kimmel. I’d also like to mention that by a resolution of the United States Congress, Kimmel, in short, been exonerated of any wrongdoing in the matter of Pearl harbor.
But how many people know that? How many people even know there’s any controversy about Pearl harbor? Because you know what? You don’t read about this stuff in the New York Times. You don’t read about it in public school history books. Well, as we’re going to find out tonight, there’s a lot of things you don’t find in those types of sources. Let’s go back to World War one. Now, what got us into World War one? If you asked an historian, they’d give a number of different provocations. The Zimmerman note, but probably the incident that was most inflammatory to the public was the sinking of the Lusitania.
Now, the Lusitania was a british passenger ship on its way from New York to England in 1915. At that time, England was at war with Germany, but we had not yet joined World War one. The ship went down, and the Americans were told that the Germans simply sank this ship to be ruthless. They saw an innocent passenger ship, wanted to kill a lot of women and children, and so down it went. But that’s not why the Germans sank it. They sank it because the Lusitania was loaded from one end to the other with munitions, millions of rounds of ammunition and many other munitions.
Everyone who survived that disaster said there were two explosions, smaller one and then a huge one. The small one was a torpedo hitting the large one was the munitions detonating the ship went down in just 18 minutes after a single torpedo hit. By the way, that’s confirmed also by the logbook of the sub that sank Lusitania. The U twenty’s logbook said one torpedo followed by massive explosion. Equally significant. Before the tragedy, Winston Churchill was then head of the british admiralty, had ordered a study to be done to determine what the political impact would be if a british passenger ship was sunk with Americans on board.
And there were almost 200 Americans on board the Lusitania. And prior to the sinking of Lusitania, an exchange took place between Sir Edward Gray, the british foreign minister, and Edward Mandel House, who was President Woodrow Wilson’s top advisor. Here’s the exchange of communications. Greg. What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with american passengers on board? Houses reply, I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war. Joseph Kenworthy, who was then in british naval intelligence, Commander Kenworthy, said this.
The Lusitania was deliberately sent at a considerably reduced speed into an area where a U boat was known to be waiting with their escorts withdrawn. Why does he say, how can they say a U boat was known to be waiting? Well, the British in 1915 had cracked Germany’s naval codes and they knew the approximate location of every U boat at that time, the British Isles. They also knew the location of the U boat, the U 20, by reports of its recent activities. Now in the United States, an official hearing investigation was carried into looking into the sinking of Lusitania.
But at that hearing, officials were only allowed to see a dummy manifest that admitted the ship’s munitions. The original manifest that listed the munitions was ordered by President Woodrow Wilson to be hidden in the archives of the US treasury. Now, hearing this, some of you might think, well, Mister Perlif, isn’t that just sort of a conspiracy theory? Is that pretty wild stuff? Actually, almost everything I just said has already been on the History Channel in the documentary in search of the Lusitanium. You can read about it in the book the Lusitanium by a british historian, Colin Simpson, or in room 40, which came out more recently by Patrick Beasley.
Now, Beasley is a former officer and british naval intelligence, and he’s considered the world’s leading authority on the history of british naval intelligence. Here’s what he writes in his book. I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy. His words, to put the Lusitania at risk in the hopes that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. All right, let’s kick it back in history one more time now to the spanish american war. Now, what was the event that brought us into the spanish american war of 1898? Sticking to the main.
That’s right. Here’s the main. The beautiful new battleship sailed into Havana harbor in 1898. A few days later, an enormous explosion forced with the ship. That’s what it looked like. Afterwards, 266 crewmen, that’s most of the crew, lost their lives. Soon thereafter, headlines like this began to appear. Crisis at hand. Cabinet in session. Growing belief in spanish treachery. McKinley suspicious of spanish plot. And so America went to war. It was said that the Spanish had ordered the Maine to be sunk to intimidate us, and that they sunk it either with a mine or a torpedo. And the battle cry was, remember the Maine? But after that war, american historians continued to ponder the question, what really did sink the Maine? Well, the Discovery Channel has done a pretty good job of answering that.
In 2020, they released this documentary, unsolved death of the USS Maine. Now, what they did was they asked naval engineers and other scientists from various fields to recreate the sinking of the Maine. Now, they didn’t do a computer model, believe it or not, they actually reconstructed part of the whole of the main in the exact same kind of steel, exact same kind of rivets. They consulted the original blueprints for the main, and they visited a sister ship, identical ship that’s still afloat today, before they did this, then they took this hole and they applied explosive pressure under different conditions and compared the results they got to the photographed wreckage of the main.
Now, the main no longer exists today, but at one point it had been raised and extensively photographed. Well, they were able to demonstrate from the results they got that there’s no question that the main sank from an internal explosion. An external device, like a torpedo or a mine, creates a totally different effect on the whole. What does that mean? If correct, it means that in 1898, the United States went to war on a wrong pretext. Now, we started with Pearl harbor in 1941. Let’s start moving towards present time. Let’s stop at the Korean War. 1950. Korean war began in June of 1950 when Kim Il sung, the dictator of North Korea, ordered his troops to invade South Korea.
But here’s a question I know very few people can answer this. How did Kim Il sung and the communists come to power in North Korea? Very few people have an answer to that. Some people think, well, did Mao Zedong put him there? The Mao Zedong came to power in 49. In China. This guy was already in power in 45. The answer is that we pretty much put him there in a roundabout way. And here’s how it happened. During World War two, Joseph Stalin was our ally against the Germans. Now, he’s a bad guy to have for an ally.
Remember when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939? So did he. And like the Germans, he had put to death innumerable of his own people. But nonetheless, he was our ally against Germany, but not against Japan. He had a non aggression pact with Japan. But at the big three conference of Yalta, President Roosevelt asked Stalin if he’d break his non aggression pact with Japan. He said, sure, I’ll do it on one condition. United States has to supply everything. My far eastern army will need, all the planes, tanks, jeeps, trucks, weapons and food. You do that, and I’ll send my army to fight the Japanese in the far east.
And Roosevelt agreed, and 100 american ships were supposed to deliver supplies to Usgis in the Pacific, were diverted to the Soviet Union. Now, this has to go down as one of the worst foreign policy moves of all time. When does Stalin move into China to, unquote, fight the Japanese? After we’ve already dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima. The japanese surrender less than a week away. There’s no need to have Stalin come into that theater of the war. But there he goes, and he captures the japanese surrendered munitions without having to fight for them. And he turns those, as well as american lend lease supplies over to Mao Zedong for the overthrow of the nationalist government.
But what about Korea? We’re talking about Korea. Well, Korea until now has been a protectorate of Japan, a colony of Japan. What to do with it after the war? Well, as we’ll see tonight, America’s most influential journal of foreign policy is called Foreign affairs. In 1944, foreign affairs ran an article called Korea in the post war world. What they proposed was that after the war, Korea should be divided into a trusteeship. The same deal, you recall, was given to Germany after the war. Germany was divided into east and west. Right. We and the Allies got the west and the Russians got the east of foreign affairs proposed the same deal for Korea.
They said that after the war, we should take over the south and our noble co victors in the Pacific, the Soviets, to get control of the north. Well, that proposal was put to Stalin by Harry Truman at the Potsdam conference, and naturally he accepted. But I want to stress, this is an american idea. This is an american idea. Now, some people might. I like to become my own critic once in a while, I might say something like this. Now, Mister Perloff, you have to understand. The guys who make our foreign policy are just good joes like you and me.
But sometimes they make mistakes, like all good jokes. Mister Proloff, have you ever made a mistake? You have? What a surprise. So are the guys who make our foreign policy. Look, we’ll score your point on the fact that it wasn’t a good idea to let Stalin take charge of North Korea, okay? But you don’t have to get all paranoid about it. But it’s easy for you to pass judgment on this stuff 60 years after the fact. But those guys were working with the information they had at that time. The fact of the matter is, Mister Brooke, there’s no sinister conspiracy here, okay? The fact of the matter is, what happened in Korea can be very simply explained by the fact that accidents do happen.
The guys made a boo boo. That’s all. Well, before we dismiss this as a boo boo, I want to point out that this little boo boo cost over 50,000 american soldiers their lives in the korean war and over 1.1 million Koreans. That’s how many died in the korean war, to say nothing of the untold suffering. I knew this was going to come up and hit me in the face. I told you that duct tape wouldn’t hold. Say nothing of the untold suffering of the north korean people. Now, before we dismiss this as a blunder, I want to quote somebody who did not think it was a blunder, and that’s James Forrestal, who’s Truman’s secretary of defense.
Forstall noted that there were certain diplomats who were making decision after decision after decision that harmed the United States and benefited the Soviet Union. And he said, you know what? That can’t be a mistake. Here’s his actual quote. He said, consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor. By the way, some of you guys know how did James forstall die? Yeah. May 22, 1949. He fell to his death from a window on the 16th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Now, there’s some people who have an explanation for that, too. Accidents do happen. Haters probably just slipped on a banana peel and took a header out the window. Happens every day. No, if you want to do an interesting study, go on the Internet and start looking into the death of James Forrestal, which was no accident. But let’s go on now to the Vietnam War. Now, what was the name of the resolution that authorized the congressional resolution that authorized President Johnson to intervene. That’s right. The Tonkin Gulf resolution, 1964, which was supposed to be a response to an alleged attack on the US Navy by north vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 4, 1964.
Personally, I’m in a torpedo boat. I don’t think I’m going to try and attack the US Navy. But one man who was there was this man. James Stockdale. Admiral Stockdale, recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, was a Navy pilot stationed in the Hong Kong Gulf and flew to the scene at the time of the alleged attack. Eventually, he was shot down and he spent several years in a communist concentration camp, returned to America, and eventually wrote his memoirs called Unloving War. I’m going to quote from his book on what he witnessed on the day of the alleged Tonkin Gulf attack.
This quote is a little too long to put up on the screen, so bear with me. I’m going to pick it up from Stockdale’s return to the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga. Wheeling into the ready room, I had heard the left 3 hours before. I came face to face with about ten assorted ships. Company, air group, and staff intelligence officers, all with sheepish grins on their faces. The mood of the group was informal and mirthful. Obviously they had some big joke to tell me. What in the hell’s been going on out there? They laughingly asked. Damned if I know, I said.
It’s really a flap. The guy on the maddox, that’s one of the destroyers, air controlled radio was giving blow bike, blow accounts just like he did on Sunday. Turning left, turning right. Torpedoes to the right of us, torpedoes to the left of us. Boom, boom, boom. I got right down there, shot whatever they were shooting at, came around toward the destroyers. Once right on the deck, chasing some imaginary pt boat they said was running up behind them. Did you see any boats? Not a one. No boats. No boat wakes, no ricochets off boats, no boat gunfire, no torpedo wakes.
Nothing but black sea and american firepower. For goodness sakes, I must be going crazy. How could all that commotion have been built up out there without something being behind it? Now, the next morning, Stockdale was woken by a young officer. Who are you? I asked. I’m the junior officer of the dexter. The captain sent me down to wake you. We got a message from Washington telling us to prepare to launch strikes against the beach, sir. What’s the idea of the strikes? I asked. Reprisal, sir. Reprisal for what? For last night’s attack on the destroyers. Sir, I slipped on my bed lamp and the young officer left.
I felt like I’d been doused with ice water. How do I get in touch with the president? He’s going off half cocked. The fact that a war was being conceived out here in the humid muck of the Tonkin Gulf didn’t bother me so much over the long pole. It seemed to me important that the grounds for entering war be legitimate. Ethel, it was a bad portent that we seem to be under the control of a mindless Washington bureaucracy big enough to pick their own legitimacies regardless of evidence. Now let’s bring it up to. Oh, one more thing I want to mention about Tongan Gulf.
As some of you may know, the Tongan Gulf resolution was written before the Tonka Gulf incident took place. All right, war in Iraq. I just want to mention something here that I have friends who are in Iraq or have fought there. And Ed, who opened us tonight up here, has a son who’s serving as an officer right now in Iraq. And I know this is a controversial war. I just want to assure you that none of us here are speaking critically out of unpatriotic motives who regard patriotism as a virtue. I just want to say one thing about the war in Iraq, which is today we’re being told we’re in Iraq.
Bring freedom and democracy to the iraqi people. That’s not what we were told before the war began. We were told it was all about weapons of mass destruction. You recall that Colin Powell went before the UN and stated absolute proof of these weapons of mass destruction. And here’s what he said. He said, my colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. We were giving you our facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. And President Bush told the american people, Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this people, to this country, to our people and to all free people.
I will not leave the american people at the mercy of the iraqi dictator and his weapons. And Tony Blair in Britain conjured up a picture of the english people of mushrooms shaped cloud going up over London. He said this could happen on 45 minutes notice. But as many of you know, David K. The chief us weapons inspector, publicly stated that after long searching, no weapons of mass destruction could be found and that it was his opinion that these weapons had not existed since the first Gulf war of 91. And Colin Powell has acknowledged the statements he made before the UN were based upon faulty intelligence.
Now there are people who say that those weapons must have been moved to Iran, and perhaps we should have a war and try to find them there. But here’s what I want to point out. If you take a look at these six wars now, the Spanish American World War one, World War two, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, a pretty good case could be made. Their involvement in each one of these wars was based on some act of deception or some kind of false pretext, or to put it most charitably, a mistaken pretext. Now I’m going to suggest there’s another common denominator to these six wars, which is the same group of men were behind all six.
Now, if I was a critic, I was hearing this for the first time, I would say, news flash for you, Mister Prolof, the guys behind the spanish american war will be kind of dead now, don’t you think? So how could they be behind the war in Iraq? Well, the organization I’m talking about is an organization that lasts the generations. There’s many like that, right? For example, Marx and Engels fund the Communist Party in 1848. Yet more than 100 years later, long after Marx and Engels were dead, Mao Zedong took power with the communists in China. There’s millions of Republicans in America today, but the founders, who go back to the days of Lincoln, are all dead.
The christian church goes back to millennia. The mafia, they say, goes back for centuries. I’m talking about an organization like that. As older members are dying off, younger ones are coming in. Well, what organization am I talking about? Well, back in 1970, when I was a hippie, and this is not me, but I used to hang out with guys just like that. It was very common back then to hear other hippies spoken on marijuana cigarette, and they’d say, hey, man, you know, it’s really the establishment that’s running this country. They used to talk about the establishment, and hippies like to call themselves anti establishment.
And what did they mean by that? Well, what they meant was that there’s a wealthy elite in this country that really calls the shots. You know what? I do agree with that, but I disagree with the hippies on their characterization of the establishment. They thought the establishment was conservative, anti communist, patriotic, and mostly christian. In other words, it’s basically like the John Birch society, only a lot richer. Now, I think a pretty good definition of the establishment was written by Edith Kermit Roosevelt. He was the granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt and a syndicated columnist. I think this description is kind of restrained, but it is a pretty good one coming from the source.
She said the word establishment is a general term for the power elite. In international finance, business and government wield most of the power regardless of who’s in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this legitimate mafia. Yet the power of the establishment makes itself felt to the professor who seeks a foundation grant to the candidate for a cabinet, post or state Department job that affects the nation’s policies in almost every area. I want to underscore two things that Roosevelt said. One is international finance. As we’ll see today, the establishment is linked to Wall street and the banking community.
And also regardless of who’s in the White House, in other words, to these guys, it doesn’t matter whether a Democrat or Republican sitting there, they still have the power. Now some people might say this, Mister Parallel, you obviously don’t know anything about american government because if you did, we have government of the people, by the people, and for the people. You know what, Mister Perloff? We the voters, we’ve got all the power. Look, we’re the ones who put these guys in office, right? So we get the government that we deserve. And obviously any policy our government undertakes must be mandated by us because we are the ones who elect these leaders.
And you know what, Mister Pulloff? If we don’t like the job that our leaders are doing, all we’ve got to do is vote the rascals out at the next election to see Mister Proloff. There’s no sinister power behind the throne, okay? We the people, the sovereign voters of America, we are the power behind the throne. You know, I agree that in principle the people are supposed to have the power in this country, but I disagree. They were holding that power. In fact, now the establishment knows we’ve got an electoral system and they’ve figured ways around it.
For one thing, they figured that through their influence within the major mass media, the two major parties, they can pretty much predetermine who will get nominated for president. Now elections are not my focus tonight, but I just want to take one example of that just to back it up a little bit. 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected president. Here’s a trivia question for you. Seven months before the Democratic National Convention, what percentage of registered democrats favored Jimmy Carter for president? Anybody want to guess? Yeah, you’re all very close. Yeah, less than 4%. Most people didn’t even know who Jimmy Carter was.
So what happened? Well, Carter was invited to the Tarrytown, New York estate of David Rockefeller, who many considered the kingmaker of the american establishment. Also there was the big New Brzezinski, who Carter later made his national security advisor. And Barry Goldwater. Many of you know, a former republican presidential candidate, former senator from Arizona, wrote about this meeting between Carter and these two men. And here’s what he said. David Rockefeller and his big new Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination and the presidency. To accomplish his purpose, they mobilized the power of the Wall street bankers and the media controllers.
Let me flesh that in a little bit. Media controllers. By the time the nomination convention rolled around that summer, Carter’s picture appeared on the COVID of Time magazine three times, and Times cover artists were told to make him look as much like John F. Kennedy as possible. His picture appeared on Newsweek’s cover twice. By the time of the convention, the New York Times ran a number of puff pieces on Jimmy Carter, including a piece in the New York Times Magazine. The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial saying the best possible democratic candidate making the best president for America would be Jimmy Carter.
And of course, that swung the businessman vote. And every night the three networks at that time, NBC, ABC and CB’s, invaded people with pictures of Jimmy Carter. And guess what? When the convention came around, Jimmy Carter got the nomination. Do you think that he got that nomination because all across America, the sovereign voters of America spontaneously decided that they wanted Jimmy Carter for president? Or was it because he was picked in a high place, then packaged and sold to the american public? I respectfully suggest that it was the latter. And I also respectfully suggest it’s been the latter for most of our major party candidates over the last century.
But it’s not just about elections. The establishment has established bridges of influence to the sitting president, the most important of which is the council on Foreign Relations, CFR for short, headquartered in New York City with a branch in Washington. And of course, it’s the subject of my book, the Shadows of power, subtitled the Council on Foreign Relations in the American Decline. Now, how does the council influence the president? We’re going to talk about that, but first I’d like to establish this. What is the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations? The goal is world government. And I’m going to quote Admiral Chester Ward.
He was former judge advocate of the US Navy. He was invited into membership in the council on Foreign Relations. He spent 16 years there, was shocked by what he found. Here’s what he wrote. He said, the main purpose of the council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of us sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful one world government. From Boston, we have the Boston Herald. Up there. They even were bold enough to do an editorial against the council on Foreign Relations, which they call them foreign policy, fuzzy thinkers who worship world government.
And in my book, the shadows of power, many quotes, both from the critics and for the council itself, demonstrating that they advocate the establishment of a world government. By the way, what do we mean by that? What do we mean by world government? Brazil is run by the brazilian government, right? Japan runs japanese, government runs Japan. A world government would be a single government ruling the entire globe. Now, simply with they got command, that’s never going to happen in a million years. We know what’s happening right now in Europe, European Union. You know, at one time, countries like Spain and England were mighty empires.
Now they’re becoming little more than provinces in the European Union. Their legislatures each year increasingly served just to ratify decisions made by the european commission in Brussels. And as you know, they’re consolidating their currencies into the euro. They’re consolidating their militaries. They say they’re going to have a european Pentagon. They have european constitution. Europe right now is a model of global government on a regional scale, as we’ll see tonight. The same thing is planned for North America. Now, the, the journal of foreign policy for the Council of foreign relations called foreign affairs. And I read every issue.
Well, I went through every issue before running the shadows of power, going back to its original publication date of 1922, and I found many calls for world government. For example, in the first year of publication, 1922, we read this. Obviously, there’s going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states. The real problem today is that of world government. Let me underscore something that was said here. I found that these guys constantly use the words peace and prosperity to describe what world government will bring us.
Let me say this. There’s nothing worse than war, right? The only reason we have war is that we have different countries. These countries make war on each other. Now, if we just live under a world government, we’d all live in peace, brotherhood and happiness. Well, contradicting that is this man, Professor Rudolph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, did an interesting study on death in the 20th century. What he found, he found that in that century, four times more people died at the hands of their own government than died in war. So it seems that there is something worse than war, which is totalitarian government.
Question you got to ask is, if we have a world government, who’s going to run it now, globalists will say, well, international coalitions are great. Look at how they stopped Saddam Hussein. What happens if Saddam Hussein runs your world government? You got only one government on earth. Where are you going to run to hide? There’s no government now you can run to, to protect you. The founding fathers of America knew that it’s very dangerous to put all power in one place. That’s why they didn’t just give us a president and the executive branch, but they also gave us a legislative branch.
And even with that, there’s a check and a balance right between the House and the Senate, plus the judicial branch to keep an eye on the other two. And I know that there’s been corruption in all those branches of government, but nonetheless, that system has served to protect us from being taken over by a dictatorship. And by the way, in the original view of the framers, the states were supposed to counterbalance the power of the federal government, an issue that was sort of settled by the war between the states. James Madison, our fourth president, said this, the accumulation of all power in the same hands may be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
You can be sure if you accumulate all power in the world government, it would be the worst tyranny this planet has ever seen. What about this council on foreign relations? How did it get started? It traces its roots back to the Paris peace conference of 1919, which was settling the aftermath of World War one. And President Woodard Wilson, who’s on the right there, went to that conference, and always at his side was his top advisor, Edward Mandel. House. Colonel House. Not a real colonel. That was an honorary title given to him. Was known as a frontman for Wall street and the banking community.
He had an office right in the White House. It could well accurately be said he was Wilson’s controller. Houses official biographer Charles Seymour called him the unseen guardian angel of the Federal Reserve act. Now, I’m going to be talking to you folks for a little while about banking and financial institutions. It might seem like I’ve pulled a switch on you. You may say, Mister Perlav, you started talking about foreign policy and war, and now you’re talking about banking. Why the switch? Well, as we’re going to see, the financial establishment is inextricably tied to the foreign policy establishment.
You can’t understand one without understanding the other. So bear with me, and the relationship will soon become apparent. By the way, it’s not surprising that a plan for world control will be tied to financial centers. What do we say buys the most influence in this world, humanly speaking? We say money makes the world go round, right? And we want to know who’s behind something. What do we say? We say follow the money. Well, that’s what we’re going to do now is follow the money and see who’s behind the council on Foreign Relations. Speaking of money, I’m sure you’ve noticed we’ve got inflation in this country.
I was looking at price levels in 1962. The other day, 1962, a postage stamp was four cents, a candy bar was a nickel and the movie theater ticket was fifty cents. I went to Colby College, Freshman in 1969, the tuition was 2600. Now up to about $40,000. My father brought a brand new Toyota Corolla in 1969 for $2,400. The dollar has lost within 95% of its value since 1913. And it looks like an inevitable we’re going to have inflation. We’re told it’s inevitable as death in taxes. It does look that way. Every year for the last 50 years we’ve had inflation, not deflation.
That’s true. If you look at the consumer price index, the CPI, every year we’ve had inflation, not deflation. So it looks inevitable, but it’s not. By the way, how does the establishment try to explain inflation? They explain it kind of like this. You know, it’s the fault of the american worker. Some guy has a baby and he goes to his boss, he says, boss, I just had a baby. Can I have a raise of $20 a week? The boss says, well, joe, I’d like to give you a raise of $20 a week. The only way I can afford to do that by raising our prices $20 a week, I’ll have to pass that cost on to our customers.
So the guy is doing business with Joe’s company, say, well, you guys are raising your prices $20 a week. We’ll have to do the same thing. So all across America, prices go up because greedy Joe had a baby. And as for raise and guys like him, right? That’s one of the explanations we give. Well, that’s not the case. Inflation is not inevitable. Let me show you a very interesting graph. These are price levels in America going back to 1665. And I want you to notice that for the first 250 years of our history we had no net inflation.
It’s only over the last century we’ve had this skyrocketing inflation. Now some people might object and say, hey, Mister Perlip, there’s some blips in there. Yeah, what are those blips? Those blips are wars. The first one is the Revolutionary War, second one is the war of 1812. The third one is the Civil War. In wartime, our government, like many governments, has printed money to pay the cost of the war. You know what happens when you print money? You get inflation. Right? But notice that after the wars, money returned to its normal value. Did you know that 1900 a dollar was worth exactly what it was worth in 1770? The days of George Washington.
No net inflation for 130 years. But look at this war, World War one. All of a sudden, we inflate again and it starts to go back down. And that’s mostly the Great Depression when we had some deflation. Then it just takes off. What happens? Something’s obviously changed. There’s no effect without a cause. What’s the cause of that change in America? And the change was caused by the introduction of the Federal Reserve. Now, I know that Ben Bernanke has taken over at the Fed, but I still have Greenspan’s picture up. There is still, I think, a more familiar face to most Americans.
Now, the Fed chairman has been called the economic czar of America. Why? Because he sets interest rates in this country. By doing that in the board, I should say set the interest rates. By doing that, they also set the tenor of the stock market. Interest rates are really high. Cds start to look attractive, money starts flowing out of the stock market. Or conversely, if interest rates are low, money tends to move into the stock market, pushing stock prices higher. And mutual fund managers are always listening when the Fed chairman speaks very nervously with their, their thumbs on the buy and sell buttons, hoping to get some hint of the direction that interest rates are going to take.
Now, how did the Federal Reserve get started? Most people would say, I have no clue. Must have been some act of our government, right? Yes, it was the Federal Reserve Act, 1913. But who introduced the original legislation for the central bank was this man, Senator Nelson Aldrich. Now, you might not have heard of Senator Aldrich, but I bet you’ve heard of this man, Nelson Rockefeller, who was vice president under Ford governor of New York for a long time, a billionaire, one of the richest men in the world. His full name was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. He was named for his grandfather, Nelson Aldrich.
The Rockefellers and the Aldriches intermarried. Aldrich’s son, Winston Aldrich, became president of the national Citibank owned by the Rockefellers. And when Aldrich spoke on Capitol Hill, when Senator Aldous spoke, people understood this, speaking for the Rockefellers and their allies. Now, something I want to point out to you that’s important, the legislation that he brought forward in the Senate was not written by him. He didn’t write a word of it. It was written at a secret meeting of the world’s most powerful bankers at JP Morgan’s hunting club on Jekyll island off the coast of Georgia. Now some people would say, come on, Mister Perloff, don’t expect us to believe that.
Okay? What evidence is there that this conspiracy took place? Okay, well, it’s well documented. Now actually the first man to write it up was actually BC Forbes, the founder of Forbes magazine. And one of the men who was there later wrote about it in his memoirs. That’s Frank Vandelep, was a president of National Citibank. You’ve all heard of Citibank, used to be called National Citibank, owned by the Rockefellers. And Vandeloup was his president. And here’s what he said in his memoirs. There was an occasion near the close of 1910 when I was as secretive, indeed as furtive as any conspirator.
I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition that Jekyll island is the occasion of the actual conception of the Federal Reserve system. We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible, to the terminal of the New Jersey littoral of the Hudson, where Senator Algiers private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of the train to the south. Once aboard the private car, we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names.
Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen. Who would be discovered? That our particular group had got together and written a banking bill. That bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress. Okay, who’s at this meeting? Representatives of the three most powerful banking houses in the world. Kind of like a meeting of the mafia don. Representing the House of Rockefeller are Vandalip and Aldrich, representing the house of JP Morgan. From left to right are Benjamin Strong, head of JPMorgan’s bankers trust company. In the middle is Henry Davison, senior partner in JPMorgan and company. On the right is Charles Norton of the first National bank, also owned by Morgan.
But the most powerful figure at this meeting was the man representing Europe’s Rothschild family, Paul Warburg. Now you might not have heard of Warburg, but if you’ve ever seen the musical Annie or the old comic strip little orphan Annie, you’ve seen him caricaturize. You might recall that Annie had a rich benefactor, the richest man in the world named Daddy Warbucks. Well, the cartoonist simply took the name Warburg and changed it to war bucks. Actually, myself, I think that this fictional banker is a better representation of Warburg. But who was Warburg? Paul Warburg was a german banker, a partner with the Rothschilds, who had grown rich in Europe by establishing central banks to loan money to the governments of Europe.
And in 1902, the Rothschilds sentence Warburg to America with instructions to found a similar bank here in the United States. As soon as he came here, he became a partner in Kuhn Loeb and company, which was the Rothschild banking satellite in New York city. And he quickly formed an alliance with John D. Rockefeller and JP Morgan. Now, this alliance was nothing new. It went way back. The Rothschilds had actually provided the original seed money for the Standard Oil fortune of Rockefeller. They had also bailed out JP Morgan when his firm was in trouble in the 19th century.
Now, in 1907, JP Morgan, who owned a large number of newspapers, started a rumor about the insolvency of a couple of rival banks, namely the Knickerbocker bank of New York, the Trust Company of America. This led to runs on these banks. You’ve seen that movie, it’s a wonderful life. You’ve seen an example of a run on the bank. Banks loan out the money that’s on deposit. That’s how they make their profits. But if all the depositors were to panic and run to the bank and ask for their money, and the bank had loaned out too much of it, the bank could collapse.
That’s what happened to these two banks. This spread to other banks and became known as the panic of 1907. Immediately following that, Morgan’s newspapers and Rockefeller’s newspapers and Senator Aldrich began clamoring, America must have a central bank, prevent any repetition of such a crisis. And that became the Federal Reserve. Now, why do they want a central bank? Well, who do you suppose, Woodrow Wilson points, vice chairman of the original Federal Reserve, will set America’s interest rates? Paul Warburg, the very guy who ran the meeting on Jekyll island, is now put in charge of the system. Who’s put in charge of the New York Federal Reserve? These systems, nucleus, Benjamin Strong, the very guys who devised the Federal Reserve act, are now given control.
In other words, the coyotes are now in charge of the henhouse. But why do they want a central bank? Well, Paul Warburg at Kuhn Loeb was making an annual salary of $500,000 a year. That’s a lot of money back then. That’s equivalent, more than 10 million a year. Now, Paul Warburg gave up that position to accept a job on the Federal Reserve board, a position that paid only 12,000 a year. Now, why did he do that? Some people might say, well, Jim, I’m sure that when Warburg came to this country, he must have gotten caught up in a frenzy of patriotism.
And in this mad frenzy of patriotism, he altruistically gave up his job at Kuhn Loeb to get joined the Federal Reserve Board and stabilize the american economy. I don’t think that was it. I think Paul Warburg said to himself, why should I make a fiddling, fiddling $500,000 at Kuunelb when I can make countless billions for myself and my friends in high finance by setting interest rates in this country on the Federal Reserve board? Snap my fingers once, stock market’s going to go up. Snap them twice, stock market’s going to go down. Now I feel a critic coming on.
ChArles Lindbergh Sr. Was one of the most eminent men in Congress and helped lead the fight against the Federal Reserve. That’s right. There was a fight against the Federal Reserve. There are many who I could quote on this, but I’m going to quote Congressman Lindbergh because his name has recognition value. Here’s what he said when the bill was being debated. Here’s what he said on the floor of the House. This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the president signs this act, the invisible government by the money power proven to exist by the money trust investigation will be legalized.
Let’s stop right there. What does he mean by the money power? He’s talking about the alliance between the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan and Rothschild. The money power overaws the legislative and executive forces of the nation. I have seen these forces exerted during the different stages of this bill. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created. The new law will create inflation. Whenever the trust wants inflation, the trust can get a period of inflation. They figure they can unload stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement, then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices.
The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. Now, these words by Lindbergh were pure political prophecy. Was there inflation like he said? Yeah. Take a look. So as you get the Federal Reserve, that’s when your inflation starts occurring. Was there a stock market excitement, like you said, with the people entering into a panic stage where the rich could buy them back at low prices? Yes, that was the stock market crash of 1929. Now, see these guys? Here we have Warburg, John D. Rockefeller, the younger JP Morgan is now taking over for his father.
Bernard Baruch, another banker operated within this cartel. Joseph B. Kennedy sort of operated at the fringes of the establishment. These guys were all out of the stock market in 1929. Now, if you consult our biographies, it says that it was because of their wisdom, their financial wisdom. They weren’t foolish like the millions of small investors who were wiped out in 1929. But I suggest there’s another reason, which is control. If you knew in 1929 that the Federal Reserve was about to jack up interest rates, you could be out of the market. Louis McFadden, Congressman McFadden was head of the chairman of the House banking committee.
He said this of the stock market crash of 1929, it was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all. When the Federal Reserve act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here, a superstate controlled by international bankers, acting together for their own pleasure. A quote you didn’t find in the New York Times. Curtis Dahl was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s son in law. He was a broker for Lehman Brothers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Black Friday in 1929.
He said, this was the crash. It was a calculated shearing of the public by the world money powers. But the Fed was not just about controlling the stock market. What if number two was creation of money from nothing? Now, there’s a book that really details this. Well, I recommend it to you very strongly. It’s called the Creature from Jekyll island by G. Edward Griffin. Best book that’s out there on the Fed. It’s about sold out now. Right, Ed? We do have, I think, one copy back there for that. We’ll be taking orders for more. This is a fabulous book.
I consider it one of the ten most important political books that you can read. Now, we have a very expensive government, as you know. In fact, over the last five years, the average federal deficit has been over $300 billion a year, which means that on a given day, our government spends about a billion more than it takes in. Now, how does the government take in money? Through taxes. Right. Collecting taxes and also through sale of bonds. Actually, bonds are kind of a lousy way to fund the government, because it’s just money that the government borrows and has to repay later, plus interest.
Nonetheless, if you take all the money from taxes and bonds. It still isn’t enough to meet the federal budget. So how does the government get away with that? I mean, how can they keep paying defense contractors and Medicare recipients and welfare recipients when they’re not taking in the money? Where do they get the money from? They get it from the Fed. I’m going to loosely borrow an illustration given by Mister Griffin in his book. Let’s say that the federal government is short a billion dollars. It needs to pay the salaries of the employees of the federal government.
Here’s what they do. Congress sends a representative of the treasury over to the Fed building, which is on the right, and at the Fed an officer literally writes out a check for $1 billion to the US treasury. Now what we want to point out here is this is not based on any assets that the Fed holds. No assets are being withdrawn from the Fed. It’s fiat money. It’s money created from nothing. Now if you or I did that, we wrote a check with nothing to back it up, we’d go to jail. But the Fed can do it.
It’s legal. They call it monetizing the debt. Now some people would say, well, Mister Prolof, that helps our government meet its obligations. How did that ever help the bankers? Well, for one thing, by creating money from nothing, they gave the us government a license to spend money on wars and other policies that the establishment wanted them to undertake without limit. And of course, corporations like your modern Bechtel and Halliburton could now become the recipients of great government largesse when the government could create money from nothing. But it also benefited the bankers directly. These guys who sat at Jekyll island were no stooges.
They understood what they were doing, they knew this. What are the employees of the federal government going to do with that billion dollars in salary that’s just been created for nothing? They’re going to go deposit it in their banks. You just created a billion dollars in bank deposits for nothing. How does a banker make his money? By loaning out the money on deposit. The more that’s on deposit, the more he can loan out and the richer get. By the way, that 1 billion actually becomes 10 billion. Because under the Federal Reserve’s rules, a bank needs to have only $1 on deposit for every ten that it loans out.
What did that mean for the bankers? It meant big time profits. What did it mean for us? It meant inflation. No inflation prior to the Fed. Now this is a woman in Germany in the 1920s. She’s using money in her stove as fuel you probably heard the great german inflation of the 1920s. To pay off their war debt, the Germans printed massive amounts of money. It was so bad, the inflation, that it took 200 million marks just to buy a loaf of bread. And people used to walk down the street with their money in a wheelbarrow.
Well, when the Fed creates money from nothing, it’s doing the same thing. Now that’s not as bad as in Germany in the 1920s, but they’re doing the same thing. And they don’t even have to print the money nowadays. They just create it electronically. How can you fight a war in Iraq? Not raise taxes? You inflate the currency. Now, I should mention that politicians love this system. You know why? They know if you raise taxes, that’s a kiss of death at election time. But if you fund the government by simply creating more money, who do we blame? Do we blame the government or the fed? No, we blame the grocery store.
Why are you raising prices? Again, we blame the, you know, college tuition is going up. We blame the college. We never look at the actual source, which the government. But the bankers had a problem, okay? We’re creating billions of dollars from nothing. But to be profitable, those deposits have to be loaned to somebody. Now who do you suppose they wanted to loan that money to? They’re creating for nothing. Think they wanted to loan it to a guy like me? No. One thing, I don’t borrow that much. Also, my business might go belly up. They wanted to loan it to one particular individual.
You know who it was? This man right here. That’s right. They wanted to take the money they created from nothing by the Fed and loaned it right back to Uncle Sam. Which brings us to reason number three, for the Fed interest on loans to the american government. The Fed was empowered to buy and sell bonds for the federal government and to have a voice in setting the rates on those bonds. And who was going to buy up those bonds? Naturally, they would. Of course, you and I can buy a bond too. But the bankers knew very well that they were going to buy most of them.
But they still had a problem. How’s the american government going to pay back all the interest in all this debt? Because in 1913, the american government had very few sources of revenue. Its biggest source of revenue at that time was tariffs. You know what they came up with? They came up with the income tax. Some people don’t know there was no income tax in this country before 1913. In fact, in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that an income tax was unconstitutional. The only way to get an income tax enacted was to pass an amendment or try to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
Now who introduced the income tax amendment? You only get one guess on this. What legislator? Nelson aldrich. Nelson aldrich, the same man introduced the original legislation for our central bank. Now why did the american people accept the income tax? Yeah, that. And also originally it was only 1% of your income. And naturally, Senator Aldrich and all the other co sponsors promised, don’t worry, it’ll never go above 1%. So Americans said, hey, I’m a patriotic joe. If uncle Sam needs 1% of my income and I always can keep the other 99%, no problem. But you know what happened a few years later? Congress raised it a smidge and another smidge, until after a few smidges, we’re all paying 18, right, 28 33% of our income in federal income tax.
Because the bankers understood this principle. If you want to boil a frog, you can’t just drop him in boiling water, he’ll jump out. If you want to boil a frog, put him in lukewarm water and gradually turn up to a boil and he’ll never even know he’s been cooked. And that’s what they did with the income tax. The intention all along was to raise it from the 1%. Now some people would say this, Jim, that’s foolish. The rich wouldn’t want an income tax. The income tax soaks the rich. Well, it’s true. If you know a guy who’s making a hundred or $200,000 a year, that guy probably pays a lot of tax, but not these guys.
Now in 1970, when I was 18, I worked for Kelley labor in downtown Boston at minimum wage, $1.80 an hour. I paid more income tax that year than the billionaire Nelson Rockefeller, who didn’t pay $0.01 in income tax. How do we know that? Because when he became vice president of the Ford, he had to reveal his income tax returns back in the 1930s. The Bakora hearings revealed that JP Morgan had not paid any income tax at all in 1931 and 1932. How do these guys get away with it? Well, the main way is they put their assets into tax free foundations, which is a whole other subject we’re not going intonight.
But those foundations serve to further the power and influence of the establishment, for example, by providing funds for colleges to force them to teach a certain agenda to their students. Now look at these dates with me. 19 13, 19, 13, 19 14. Now in 1913, the bankers have established the Federal Reserve, which enables them to make billions of dollars out of nothing which they can loan to the federal government and interest rates they themselves will set. Also in 1913, they’ve established the income tax by which they can extract repayment from the american people. Only one thing is missing.
America needs a reason to borrow. Now if only something would happen that would cause the american people to borrow money. If only something would happen that would cause a lot of borrowing. What happened in 1914, six months after the Federal Reserve act was passed, Archduke Ferdinand is assassinated. America later goes to war, and as a result of that, our federal deficit, which was 1 billion, pretty manageable sum, 1 billion before the war, became 25 billion by the end of the war. And we’ve never looked back on debt since. Now some people have another explanation for these dates, which is, hey, stuff happens, you know, it’s all a coincidence.
Now, as you heard in the introduction, I’ve written a couple of books on creation versus evolution. I give PowerPoints on that. And what I talk about there is the evidence that God designed the world, that the world has far too much complexity and design in it, I think with the fact that the goodness in the world is design. And people ask me, what’s the relationship between your two talks? The relationship between that and tonight’s talk is I’m also saying that evil also occurs by design. Do I believe accidents happen? I sure do, but not in politics.
Now some people might say this, Mister Perloff, you know, the Federal Reserve and income tax, those are underpinnings of our free enterprise system. Here there is America’s mom, apple pie, baseball and the american flag. Mister perloff, to criticize these things, you sound like a darn communist. Well, if you think that, you need to read the communist manifesto. Because in that book, Karl Marx laid out ten steps necessary to create a communist totalitarian state. Step two was a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. And step five was centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
So in 1913, we actually enacted two of Marx’s precepts for the establishment of a communist state. This is not part of free enterprise. The founding fathers never intended for you to have an income tax. It was not in the constitution. As far as the creation of money goes, the constitution says Congress, our elected representatives, shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, not private bankers. Now young people today are really struggling, you know, money troubles, fights over money. And you know, a young man today will say sometimes, well, you know, my great grandfather came to this country in 1900.
He had ten kids, his own house his wife never worked a job. How did he do it? You know, me and Mindy, we got one kid, two jobs, who can barely make the rent. Well, my great grandpa came here. There was no income tax. Now, people today spending about half their income, workers, that is, on tax. It’s true. When you take your income tax, federal income tax, state income tax, Social Security tax, real estate tax, sales tax, excise tax, all the other taxes, you spend about half your earnings on taxes. Now, does it make sense that if you lose half your money to taxes, you’ll need two jobs now to make up the difference? Plus, when great grandpa came here in 1900, he had a stable dollar, is worth the same next year as last year.
So we have a problem on our hands. But the bankers, I want you to know, they’re really sorry about all this trouble they’ve caused, and they’ve come up with a solution. Say, we’re really sorry about all this inflation and tax. We know you can’t make ends meet, so that’s why we send you three credit card offers in the mail every day. We feel really bad. Of course, we’ll have to charge you 12% interest on that. You know how that works, though. They create the situation. We don’t have enough money and then what do we do? We have to go right back to them to get the money.
Good voice, that greenspan. Well, when the Federal Reserve was being planned on Jekyll island in 1910, the president at that time was William Howard Taft, and Taft was opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. For that reason, the bankers decided to get rid of him. And the man they chose to replace him was Woodrow Wilson. Now, Wilson, prior to running, met with Bernard Baruch, who was part of the cartel. And he promised Baruch he would do four things if he was made president. He would lend an ear to advice on who should occupy his cabinet.
He would support a central bank, he would support an income tax and lend an ear to advice if a war broke out in Europe. Now, the problem was how to get this stiff looking professor from Princeton elected over the very popular incumbent, William Howard Taft. The strategy they used was to split the republican vote. JP Morgan and company put money on the former republican president Teddy Roosevelt, who ran what was called the bull Moose, the short lived bull Moose ticket. And Republicans split their votes between Taft and Roosevelt. And Wilson got elected with only 42% of the vote.
Watch the career of Woodrow Wilson take off after the establishment gets behind him in 1910. He’s a political unknown. President of Princeton, no political experience. 1911 with establishment behind him, he’s elected governor of New Jersey. You have to give this guy a little political experience before he can run him for president. 1912, with the full power of the media, which in those days meant newspapers behind him, Wilson’s elected president. In 1913, the Federal Reserve and income tax become reality. His first year in office. 1914, World War one begins to 1915, the Lusitania goes down. Wilson hides the manifest, if you remember that.
1916, Wilson is reelected on the campaign slogan, he kept us out of war. But as soon as he’s reelected, he moves to get a congressional declaration of war, which he achieves in 1917. In 1918, the Germans surrender, America’s entry into the war having turned the balance of power against them. And in 1919, the Paris Peace conference. Convenience to settle the aftermath of the war. Who does Wilson appoint to head the us delegation to the Paris Peace conference? Paul Warburg. Wilson. Only Warburg is qualified to run the Fed or to represent America at the Paris Peace conference.
Who does Wilson appoint to be his economic advisor at the conference? Bernard Baruch. The same man he made those pledges to before running, and always at his side. Edward Mendelhaus, the banker’s front man. Now, Wilson’s chief proposal, of course, at the Paris Peace conference, the one he’s most famous for was the League of Nations. Many people think he originated that concept. He did not. It originated with House, who we see here at the Paris Peace conference, and the bankers. Ray Stanhope Banker, Washington Woodard Wilson’s official biography said this, practically nothing, not a single idea in the covenant of the league was original with the president.
Charles Seymour, who was house’s official biographer, said Wilson approved the House draft almost in its entirety, and his own rewriting of it was practically confined to phraseology. Now what were the bankers after? They were after a world government. Now, some people might say Mister Perloff, he said at the outset, these establishment guys wanted an all powerful world government. I got news for you that the League of Nations was not all powerful man. It was very weak. That’s right, because the bankers understood our principle. If you want to boil a frog, you got to put him in lukewarm water and he’ll never know he’s been boiled.
You start with a weak world government, because in 1919, there’s no way the sovereign nations of the world would have put up with an all powerful world government. But how did America react to the Versailles treaty that created the League of Nations? Well, defining fathers in their wisdom had said that no president can make a treaty on his own. It has to be ratified by the Senate. The Senate did not approve of Wilson’s idea of the League of Nations and they refused to ratify the Versailles treaty, so he didn’t enter the league. How do the bankers respond? They’re still in Paris.
They are ripped when they find out that America is not going to join the league. So they held a series of meetings hosted by Edward Mendelhaus, culminating with a dinner at the majestic Hotel in Paris. And at this last dinner, they resolved to form a new organization in the United States to change the climate of opinion here that would enter the realm of world government. And that organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, incorporated in New York City two years later. Now then, if you look at the original membership roster of the council, you’ll find something interesting.
Almost every man on it was either a banker or an attorney for JP Morgan and company. For example, the founding president was John W. Davis, who was Morgan’s personal attorney. The founding vice president was Paul Cravath, attorney for JP Morgan and company. The founding chairman was Russell Leffingwell, partner in JP Morgan and company. Now don’t you think it’s kind of odd that a foreign policy association should comprise solely bankers and lawyers working for JP Morgan? Well, they thought it looked a little funny too, so they decided to add a few college professors to the ranks. But guess what? The professors all came from universities indebted to JP Morgan and company for large endowments.
They’re all screened and they’re all men that they knew they could count upon to attend meetings at the council, then return to their campuses and tell their students that if America were truly civilized, she would join the League of Nations. Now, eventually, the Rockefeller, bless you. Eventually the Rockefellers brought in their people, and David Rockefeller was the chairman for many, many years, is still the honorary chairman of the council. Now how does the council influence american foreign policy? One way is through its books, its many books on foreign policy, which are generally, you can count on them getting good reviews in the New York Times Book Review section through its journal Foreign affairs.
Now a lot of people, most people have never heard of foreign affairs, but you know what Time magazine calls this? The most influential journal in print. It’s like the Bible of the State Department. It said that if you want to know what american foreign policy will be doing tomorrow, just read foreign affairs today. But the most important way I’m sure that the council influences american foreign policy is by directly supplying cabinet level personnel for Washington. At the time I wrote the shadows of power, that was 20 years ago. At that time when Reagan was president. Even at that time, 14 secretaries of state, 14 secretaries of the treasury and eleven defense secretaries had been recruited from the ranks of the council.
You’re not talking about a huge organization. In the days of Kennedy, only about 1000 members. It is up to about 6000 now. Bill Clinton picked twelve cabinet members from the council. Virtually every CIA director and Fed chairman has come from the council. If you want to know how the current candidates stack up, the Washington Post this year published a list of their top security and foreign policy advisors. For McLean, 18 out of 34 belong to the council. For Obama, ten out of 23, and for Hillary, 14 out of 21. So if any one of them gets elected, you can expect you’re not going to see too much change.
Now what foreign policy programs has the council actually created? Let me take three examples from right after World War Two. What was the successor organization of the League of Nations? United nations? Now what I was told in public school was this. My teacher said, well, boys and girls, here’s how the UN got started. After World War Two. All the nations of the world were really sick of war, so they decided to get together and form an organization that would stop war. That’s not how it happened. It was started with a group called the Informal Agenda Group.
It’s a group of council on foreign relations members. If that title sounds bland and innocuous, it’s designed to be that way because they didn’t want any Snoopy congressmen prying into what they were doing. But they drew up the original plans for the UN. They called on three attorneys, all members of the CFR, who approved of it and said it would be constitutional. Then they had an audience with President Roosevelt, who also approved the plan and announced it to the public the very same day and then made that the central priority of his post war planning, establishment of the UN.
When the UN was founded in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the american delegates were members of the council. It was a CFR show all the way. How about the Marshall plan, the postwar plan to help Europe? People will say, well, that was thought up by General George Marshall. Announced it at a Harvard commencement speech. That’s what it says in your history book. And he did announce it at a commencement speech at Harvard. But it had nothing to do with planning. It actually was all laid out at a study group at the council on foreign Relations with David Rockefeller as his secretary.
Originally they were going to call it the Truman plan and have President Truman announce it. But after some deliberation they said, you know, if Truman announces it, the Republicans might not go for it, you know, they might call this a new deal for Europe. So General Marshall was selected because they felt that as a general, he would appear to be a political neutral. And that plan worked. The plan got bipartisan support. Well, what were they trying to do with the Marshall plan? We were told it was charity for Europe. Well, for one thing, corporations linked to the CFR were given tax dollars to send these goods to Europe.
But more significant was this. The man on the left is John J. McCloy of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was in charge of Marshall plan funds in Europe. And the man on the right is Jean Manethe, the founder of the common Market. Time magazine called him the father of Europe. In 1947, Monet sent his people to McCloy and said they needed money to start a European Union movement. McCloy turned over unlimited Marshall plan funds, what were called counterpart funds, to monetize people to start the European Union movement. Those funds were used to host the first Council of Europe meeting in 1949.
Nine to found universities would advocate European Union, to fund the European Union youth movement and to fund the political campaigns of politicians who would advocate a European Union. European Union didn’t just happen recently. It started back in those days. And Americans never knew their tax dollars were being used for this purpose. By the way, John J. McCloy, a true insiders insider. When he returned to the United States, he became chairman of the Chase Manhattan bank, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was also one of the first presidents of the World bank. Now, you’ve heard of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund.
How did they get started? Your history books say they were started at the Bretton woods conference. Well, that’s true. Officially, they were started at the Bretton woods conference. But all the groundwork was first laid by the Council on Foreign Relations at what they called their economic and finance group. In other words, the Council on Foreign Relations is a factory of american foreign policy. But how many people even know it exists? By the way, what was the purpose behind the World bank and the IMF? We’re told these are essentially charitable organizations, touched the UN to help out poor countries with their debt problems.
Well, actually, it’s a loan guarantee scheme. Here’s what happened after World War two. The banks down in New York, like National City and Chase, wanted to continue loaning money to the governments of nations. They said to themselves, you know, after the war, some of these countries are kind of on shaky financial ground. What if one of them missed an interest payment? Wouldn’t that be tragic for us? We’ve got to find a sucker, a dope stupid enough to pick up the tab for us. So every time we miss an interest payment, they’ll pay it. Well, who is the sucker? American.
It’s an american taxpayer. That’s right. Here’s how it works. Chase would loan money to save Poland. Poland’s going along making payments, and Poland says, look, we just can’t make this month’s payment. What happens where a bank or IMF comes in with our tax dollars, gives it to Poland, Poland gives it to bankers. Bankers never miss a payment. Now, if you think I’m making this up, I’m going to quote Jesse Helms. Senator Helms, former chairman of the Senate foreign relations Committee, said this. The New York banks have found important profit centers in lending to countries plunged into debt.
This has been an essentially riskless game for the banks because the IMF and World bank have stood ready to bail the banks out with our taxpayers money. AK Chesterton, the noted british political observer, said this. The World bank and International Monetary Fund were not incubated by hard pressed governments, but by a supranational money power which could afford to look ahead to the shaping of a postwar world to serve its interests. By the way, it’s not just about profit. You look at the Marshall plan and all these other plans, and the Fed, it’s never just about profit.
They’re trying to move money into that machine, into that establishment structure. There’s always a political purpose as well. And in the case of the World bank and the IMF, they don’t just give out this money for nothing. They demand a say in government. They may say to an african country, sure, we’ll give you money to help you out with your debt problems. We want you to change your leadership. We want you to change your, put your national resources under the control of Portland American multinational Corporation. A few years ago, Boris Yeltsin was in trouble in Russia, election trouble.
And the establishment liked Boris Yeltsin. So the World bank came through with a $5 billion loan for Russia. It’s amazing what $5 billion will do for your popularity. And Yeltsin got reelected. So there’s a political purpose behind these banks as well as a profit motive. Now, I’m going to bring it up to present time to close us tonight. But before I do, I want to touch on the Vietnam war, because I don’t think anything did more to change the cultural landscape of America in the 20th century more than the Vietnam War. Now, if you ask the establishment, you consult their resources, they’ll say it was all a quagmire.
I did a word search once on Yahoo. And I used the terms quagmire in Vietnam. I found there were more than 1 million websites that match those two words. What they say is just a quagmire, which means a bog or a swamp. They say, well, all the fault of the West Point guys. The military gave our civilian government a lot of bad advice, and they thought it would be a piece of cake to beat the communist in Vietnam. But they underestimated the love of the vietnamese people for the communist leader Ho Chi Minh. So we sent 100,000 troops that did the work.
200,000, 500,000 troops didn’t work. The war was unwinnable. But those patriotic right wing hawks were too patriotic to pull out. So the war dragged on for 14 years until finally we left in ignoble defeat. And that’s it. It’s just a big quagmire, a big mess. Well, that’s how they explain it. Now let’s look at what really happened. First. Key to understanding Vietnam, I think, is to give it some context. Now, world War two, we fought a two front war in Europe and Asia. Let’s give credit. We’re not up against any wimps. The Germans and the Japanese had tough armies, tough air forces and tough navies.
Yet we defeated those two empires in three and a half years with the help of our allies. But in Vietnam, we fought a tiny country for 14 years and couldn’t win. Why was that? Well, in 1968, a group of retired military officers published an article in which they pointed out the Vietnam war could be won in a few months. How to do it? Well, first of all, they pointed out that 90% of North Vietnam’s supplies were coming through the port of Haiphong. They said, why aren’t we blockading this portion if we’re serious about winning the war? Now, the supplies were coming down the Ho Chi Minh trail to the south, and President Johnson was periodically bombing the trail.
But the Vietnamese just pulled off the trail and waited until the bombs had been dropped and went back on. These officers pointed out that the trail needed to be blocked with troops. Furthermore, the american secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was only allowing the air force to bomb 6% of the strategic targets it wanted to hit. 94% were denied by him. By the way, when he left the defense department, became president of the World bank. Nice club these guys are in. But the worst thing was probably the rules of engagement, which were not declassified until 1985, when they took up 26 pages of fine print in the congressional record.
According to the rules of engagement, you could not bomb an enemy fighter plane on the ground. You had to wait until toes up in the air and join hostile intent. You couldn’t shoot at the enemy first. You had to let him shoot at you first. You couldn’t bomb a missile to air surface launch site. You had to wait until it was fully operational. Now, suppose we fought like that in World War two. Let’s go back for a moment to the jaunty days of the Royal Air Force. Let’s say the RAF is flying over Germany and one of the pilots says, a wing commander, there appear to be about 50 Messerschmitt fighters on the airfield below us, sir.
Shall we commit a strike, sir? And the wing commander says, I know chaps, wouldn’t be cricket, you know. Got to give those Jerrys a fair warning first. Let them get up in the air first. I say, let them take the first shot at us. I say, you know, Mister Churchill has given us the strictest orders we are to fight this war in a more sporting manner. What? To let these german chaps know they’re dealing with real gentlemen from Oxford, Cambridge. Do we fight World War two like that? No. If we had fought World War two under the same regulations that we fought in Vietnam, we would have lost World War two.
So question is, who was responsible for this mess? Establishment wants you to think it’s the West Point guys. Not true. When did President Kennedy first commit to sending combat troops to Vietnam? It was October of 1961, and the advice of this man, Walt Rostow, an older picture of him, Rostow of the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations had just returned from Vietnam on a fact finding mission. It was on his advice that Kennedy sent those 10,000 troops. So you might think, well, Jim, obviously this guy Rostow was a great anti communist or he never would have given Kennedy that advice.
To the contrary, two of his aunts were members of the US Communist Party. His father had been a marxist revolutionary in Russia. His brother, Eugene Debs Rostow was named for the Socialist Party worker leader Eugene Debs. During the Eisenhower administration in the fifties, he tried three times to get into the State Department. Each time was rejected as a security risk. The only way the Kennedy administration was able to get Rostow into the State Department was by firing the head of security for the State Department. An entire book has been written on that subject, the Ordeal of Ottawa Tepka by a friend of mine, the late, great William J.
Gill. Okay, Jim. He wasn’t such a big anti communist. Maybe, but I bet he was a great nationalist patriot. To the contrary, here’s what he wrote one year before giving Kennedy this advice. It is a legitimate american national objective to see removed from all nations, including the United States, the right to use substantial military force to pursue their own interests. Since its right is the root of national sovereignty. It is therefore an american interest to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined. An end to nationhood. That’s a classic council on Foreign Relations prescription for american policy.
Now remember before we said the Tonga Gulf resolution was written before the Tonga Gulf incident? Who wrote it? It was the assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern Affairs, William P. Bundyeh, member of the Council on Foreign Relations. You might think, well, this Bundy guy must have been a great anti communist if he wrote the Tongan Gulf resolution. Hey, you know what Bundy was doing back in the fifties? He was head of the Alger Hiss defense fund, the notorious soviet spy. I know that hiss denied the charges, but now the recently released FBI’s Venona tapes have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was in fact a soviet agent.
Those self respecting anti communists we become habit defense fund for a communist spy. You might think, well, maybe he wasn’t such an anti communist, but I bet he was a patriot. I bet he went skipping down the street singing Yankee Doodle dandy. Not quite. When he left the State Department, David Rockefeller appointed him editor of foreign affairs, this nation’s number one journal calling for an end to american sovereignty. One more thing about Vietnam, though. What caused President Johnson to escalate the war? Whitey suddenly starts sending hundreds of thousands of troops in 1965. The reason is he had a secret meeting with a secret clique of advisors called the wise men.
14 senior policy advisors, twelve of whom were members of the council on Foreign Relations. Now Mister Perloff, I think we just heard some more conspiracy gobbledygook. I don’t believe there was any such meeting. If you don’t believe it, you need to read the book the Wise Men by Isaacson and Thomas, members of the CFR. And this book is by the way not condemning them, it’s glorifying them. Who is the leader of the wise men? It was Dean Acheson. It was Acheson who was most vocal in insisting to Johnson that he must escalate the war in Vietnam.
So you think, well, Jim, obviously then he must have been motivated by anti communism. To the contrary, you know what he was doing back in the 1920s? Joseph Stalin. This is before we even recognized the bolshevik regime. Joseph Stalin picked a young New York attorney to represent bolshevik interest in America. He picked Dean Acheson. Now, some people would say, well, Jim, I’m sure there’s an easy explanation for that. You know, probably Stalin didn’t know who to get for an attorney, so he just flipped over the Manhattan Yellow pages and he closed his eyes and he put his finger down.
And this happened to come down on Dean Acheson’s name. After World War two, the communist regime, the new communist regime in Poland was having trouble getting us recognition. Whose law firm did they recruit to get us recognition? The law firm that every communist knew he could trust. The law firm of Dean Acheson. Acheson’s law partner was Donald Hiss, the brother of the soviet spy. When Acheson was in the State Department, he surrounded himself with 14 members of the US Communist Party. That’s not imagination. That is a fact. John Stewart, service. John Carter. Vincent Lachlan Curry. When John Stewart service was caught passing secrets to the Soviet Union by the FBI, I just didn’t fire him.
He promoted him. This man was no anti communist. And by the way, want to know who his son in law was? See, it’s a very small clique of men who actually got us into Vietnam. And when you realize that the CFR clique that got us into Vietnam wrote the rules of engagement that made it impossible to win in Vietnam, you realize that what happened in Vietnam was not a quagmire or an accident. But what’s the establishment agenda today? They’re still promising us peace and prosperity. How are we going to get that? Well, the prosperity, they say, will come through multinational trade agreements, and the peace will come through their war on terror.
Now, let’s do these individually. Now, as far as the trade goes, I’m sure most of you are familiar with these acronyms. North American Free Trade Agreement, general agreement on trade and tariffs. World Trade Organization, free trade area of the Americas, which is a plan to expand NAFTA to the entire western hemisphere. And security and Prosperity Partnership, which is a plan for a north american union in the style of the European Union. Now, you probably know something else, which is that jobs are disappearing in America are still industry wiped out, textile industry wiped out, electronics industry wiped out.
Where are all the jobs going? Not hard to figure out. They’re going overseas, right? Why is that? I’ll make it very simple. It used to be that a woman would go to Walmart. See, two items. One made in America, one made in China, the one made in America. Would cost $5.01 from China, which had a tariff on it, would cost 450, and she’d say, well, the one from China is a little cheaper, but the one in America, that’s a lot nicer made. I’m going to buy the one made in America. But then we got into NAFTA, we got into the World Trade Organization, and what these did was to destroy, eradicate our tariff structure, being that now the same chinese item comes in without a tariff on it.
Now, it costs only $1.50, but the american items still cost $5. What these trade agreements did was to flood us with cheap slave labor imports. The woman now goes to Walmart. She says, well, like the one made in America, but I can’t resist a bargain. I have to buy that one made in China. What happens? The american manufacturer now goes out of business or has to move his shop over to China. That has happened across every sector of industry here in America. Now, I taped the original hearings on the GATT treaty in 1994, and at that time, senators swore up and down, no, we’re not going to increase the trade deficit as a result of this treaty.
We’re just going to export import. It’s going to flow both ways when we pass the bill. We ratified the treaty the very next year, 1995, our trade deficit reached a new all time high of 103 billion, and last year, 711 billion. The biggest item we’re exporting these days is our jobs. Now, how many votes does America have in the World Trade Organization? Well, when the gat treaty was passed, Europe got 30 votes, Africa got 35, and America got one vote. Our voting power is the same as the Maldives, population 200,000. What that means is these other countries can make the rules, keep our goods out of their countries while forcing us to accept theirs.
But who pays for the World Trade Organization? That’s right. American taxpayers paid the lion’s share. They thought that was only fair. Well, America’s founding fathers, you know what they would have called that? Taxation without representation. Who created the World Trade Organization now? Do you think it was average joes like you and me? Hey, Bob, you know, I think we out of our union with the Canadians and the Mexicans. Ralph, that’s a swell idea. Let’s tell our congressmen about that. Do you think that’s how our foreign policy originates? Do you think that we originated. No, it’s forced on us from above.
Again, I taped the original hearings, and at the time of the GATT treaty hearings in Congress, a member of the council, foreign relations, Wall street, banking, Felix Rohatin, came down to testify on behalf of the treaty. He said that if America failed to ratify the treaty, he said the markets might react adversely. I remember Senator James Exon of Nebraska was there, and he said, well, now, Mister Rohatin, we hear these dire economic predictions from you economists all the time. Nothing ever comes of them. Nothing ever comes of them, huh? That very same day, Alan Greenspan raised short term interest rates 0.75%, a whopping increase which no one was expecting.
As a result, the stock market started to plunge, and it tumbled for four straight days, until finally, with everybody getting nervous, Bob Dole raced over to the White House, stood shoulder to shoulder with President Clinton, and said that the Congress would provide bipartisan support for the GATT treaty. And it was passed. And the very next day, the stock market went back up. Senator Ernest Hollings, who chaired those hearings on the GATT treaty, was very outspoken. Here’s what he said on the floor of the Senate. They, referring to multinational corporations and banks, have got the Council on Foreign Relations up there in New York.
If you ever run for president, they’ll invite you. You can get out, you can get their contributions, you can get their support. I’ve been there. I know what I’m talking about. That is what our friend David Rockefeller and all that got that steam together. It’s not about jobs, it’s about money. While they’re getting rich and we’re losing jobs, they’re debilitating and destroying us. Well, I would take it even a step further than what Senator Hollings said. It’s about more than money. It’s about restructuring North America. What is the purpose of these international trade accords? Henry Kissinger, believe it.
He’s one of the big shots of the Council of Foreign Relations, said NAFTA will represent the most creative step towards a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War. And David Rockefeller, speaking of NAFTA, said, everything is in place after 500 years to build a true new world in the western hemisphere. Now, this next man, Andrew Redding, you probably hadn’t heard of, but the way he says this does much to elucidate what their plan is. NaFtA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit, North America.
With economic integration will come political integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament. See what he’s saying there? How economic consolidation will lead to political. Same thing happened in Europe. They started out with a common market, right? And they told Europeans, all we want to do is create prosperity. We just want to knock down the tariffs and have free trade. But guess what? Then they said, look, with all this trade going on, we need some common laws to regulate it.
So they came up with the european parliament. Now they got the European Union, now you got your euro, now your sovereignty is going down the drain. Same thing is planned for America. Now. How about the war on terror? We’re all against terrorism, but many of us are concerned that the war on terror has given our government unprecedented powers to spy on its own citizens. And where did the department of Homeland Security come? A lot of people think it was invented after 911. It actually came before 911. It was recommended by the US Commission on National Security, a twelve person task force, nine of whose members were members of the Council on Foreign relations.
And what they recommended was what they called a national Homeland security Agency. The exact words used by President Bush after 911, one question we really have is, who’s going to be ultimately defined as a terrorist? Now, one answer to that comes from Anna Quindlin. She’s a columnist for Newsweek. After 911, she published a column called the Terrorist here at home. And who do you think she was talking about when she said the terrorist here at home? Pro life movement. Here’s what she wrote. She said, there’s no real ideological difference between these people, the pro life movement, and the people who flew planes into the World Trade center.
One of the leaders of Operation Rescue once sent his followers a letter that concluded, return to the training so that God may use. You sound familiar. What’s Quinlan saying here? The pro life people should be classified as terrorists. Now, if that happened under homeland security, they could lose their websites, have their assets frozen, be prosecuted without due process. Right. There’s a connection between the trade agreements and the war on terror. Yes. They’re both being used to advocate consolidating the north american countries into one union. Robert Pastor of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote this in foreign affairs about security.
He said security fears serve as a catalyst for deeper integration that require new structures to assure mutual security. The Department of Homeland Security should expand its mission to include continental security, a shift best achieved by incorporating mexican and canadian perspectives and personnel into its design and operation. And so it’s coming now. The security and prosperity partnership of North America. Most people don’t know it, but President Bush has already signed the agreement with President Foxenheid, Mexico and Prime Minister Martin of Canada to begin the process of unionizing. Creative union with Canada and Mexico. And this was missed completely by the mass media, except for Lou Dobbs of CNN, who said this about the new agreement.
He said, President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it. They took the step without approval from either the US Congress or the people of the United States. We are not writing our own foreign policy now, by the way. Are these regional blocs like the European Union and Security and Prosperity partnership? Are they ends in themselves? No, they’re just stepping stones towards world government, which is world tyranny. Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union, understood this principle. Here’s what he wrote. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority.
Later, the regionals can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship. To hear it from the Council on Foreign Relations, Zbigniew Brzezinski said this. We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization. And that pretty much completes my talk. Except I want to touch on one more thing. I’m going to become my own critic again. I’m Mister Pilaf. I’ve been listening to talk here all night and some of the things a little bit interesting. You know what, Mister Piriloff? There’s an easy litmus test by which we disprove everything you’ve said tonight.
Sir Prolof. Our founding fathers gave us freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. So you can be sure there are no big secrets in America. Now here in America, we have a lot of choices. You live up there in Boston with Perloff. You can read the Boston Globe. But if you don’t like it, read the Times or the Post or any other of many major daily newspapers. If you don’t like your news in a daily format, Mister Perilofthe, you get it in a weekly format from one of these fine news resources. Or if you don’t like to read, Mister Perloff, and I suspect you don’t, you can get it from television news.
Now, Mister Perloff, this is a small sampling of our media marketplace. It’s a marketplace of ideas. Now are you seriously trying to suggest that all the reporters for all these media outlets missed all these stories been missing about. I don’t think so much to promise. You know what I think you have no credibility. Why should we believe a goofball like you when we can turn to a respected source of news and information like the New York Times? Hmm? That’s all right, Mister Perloff. I’ll believe the stuff you’ve been saying the day the New York Times prints it.
Until then, don’t waste your breath on me, huh? All right, what about that? Well, you better believe that an establishment that’s powerful enough to control our government and our banks is also powerful enough to run the media. And they better be sure they’re also smart enough to figure out a long time ago that if they want their agenda passed, they’re going to have to control the media that shapes public opinion. Just to take the New York Times as an example, because it’s not a talk on the media tonight. In the 19th century, the Rothschilds sent their agent, August Belmont, who was in the upper left there.
That was not his real name. They thought August Belmont would sound pretty classy. And he and JP Morgan offered money to Alfred Ochs if you would buy a newspaper that would represent establishment interest in America. And ox took that money and he bought a small newspaper called the New York Times, which at that time had a circulation of just 9000. But with the power of Rothschild and Morgan behind him, ox turned the New York Times into the world’s most powerful newspaper. He merely moved it to new headquarters, plush new headquarters at what is now called Times Square.
He was able to buy famous writers, bring them into the fold, buy up chainless distribution. But I just want to point out, the New York Times was not built on integrity. It was built on money. And from ox, the ownership passed on to Sulzberger, Dreyfus and Sulzberger, all members of the Council on Foreign Relations. If you look at the Times editorial history, you’ll find they’ve consistently supported the policies advocated by the CFR. For example, when Paul Warburg was up for vice chairman of the Fed and congressmen were making noises about this guy. The New York Times published an editorial saying what a great patriot he was.
The guy next to Fidel Castro there is New York Times reporter Herbert L. Matthews. It was his articles in the New York Times that persuaded Americans that Castro was not a communist, but was actually the George Washington of Cuba. Matthews, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the men in the lower left. Leslie Gelb, New York Times editor. One of the key figures behind the Pentagon papers, which demoralized America so much during the Vietnam War. So you might think, well, maybe Gelb will expose the CFR. Not likely. He was its president for ten years, still its president emeritus.
When you talk about the New York Times and the Council Foreign Relations, you’re talking about two faces of the same institution. They are not going to expose each other. What looks at first like great diversity actually is not. Our Boston globe up in Boston is owned by the New York Times, just as the Washington Post owns post company owns Newsweek, just as Disney owns ABC News, just as CB’s owns the big publisher Simon and Schister. Or take a look at one corporation. AOL Time Warner owns America Online, Time magazine, Warner Brothers, CNN, Tinder Broadcasting, HBO, Sports Illustrated.
130 magazines not even listed here. If you take all the movie chains and major radio networks, tv networks, major magazines, newspapers and publishing houses, most of them are owned by about a dozen corporate entities which interlock at the top with membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. My final quote confirming this comes from David Rockefeller himself, who said this at a dinner in 1991. We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications directors who have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world for being subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years.
But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government who shall never again know war. But only what? Well, that does conclude my presentation. I do want to encourage you, if you’re not already subscribing to the new American American, if you’re dependent on the Times and Time magazine to step outside the box, see what else is out there, it’s already been mentioned in my book shadows of power. We do have a few copies in stock tonight. These guys already mentioned very kindly my books tornado in a junkyard and the Kskin star one.
I do give PowerPoint if any of you are interested ever having a bigger church or organization on that subject, the evidence for the world being designed. We’re not here by chance.
[tr:tra].
Author
