Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

28 June 2014

Jews conspired to destroy the White South African government and murder the Boer / Afrikaaner people.

In the 19th century the British fought wars to subject the Boer states to British Rule. In 1948, the Boers took power democratically, with the election of the National Party.

In the 1960s the government of Hendrik Verwoerd took power and implemented the formal separate but equal policies in South Africa. These policies made South Africa the economically strongest nation in Africa, and gave the blacks in South Africa (and the whites) the highest standards of living of any African nation.

Verwoerd's policies had two main opponents. One was a Jew named Harry Oppenheimer, the other a Jew named Anton Ruppert. Both controlled banking monopolies in the country, and wanted "rights" extended to black South Africans for the purpose of extending their money lending business. Oppenheimer had ties to the Rothschild banking family and to the US CIA, which throughout the 1970s through 1990s supported the overthrow of white South African rule, at the direction of the Jew Henry Kissinger.

Oppenheimer lobbied the Rothschilds to overthrow Verwoerd, who had publicly denounced the Jewish banking monopolies in Parliament. The Rothschilds secured the support of the Rockefeller, Carnegie and other "Anglo" families in the United States, and had those institutions lobby against the white government. Rockfeller influenced the Council on Foreign Relations and its members in the US government in particular to oppose white rule.

In 1963 a group of Jews founded the "African" National Congress. The ANC was founded by Lionel Bernstein, Bob Hepple, Dennis Goldberg, Arthur Goldreich, Hazel Goldreich and James Kantor, with a few African front men -- Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki (father of Thabo Mbeki), Raymond Mhlaba, and Ahmed Kathrada. In this, the ANC followed the model the Jews established when they founded the NAACP in the United States, with the exception that the ANC was a much more violent and openly communist organization. These Jews and their African National Congress received funding and support from both the Soviet Union and the US CIA.

In particular, Ruth First, the Jewish wife of Jewish Soviet KGB Colonel Joe Slovo, a leader of the South African Communist Party, was primarily responsible for funneling funds to this "African" National Congress.

In 1966 the CIA financed the assassination of President Verwoerd, through their "lone nut" operative Demetrio Tsafendas, a Greek immigrant to South Africa. In particular, Oppenheimer's South African Foundation funneled CIA money to Hendrik Van Den Bergh of the South African Security Police and John Vorster, the Minister of Justice, who were the men who recruited Tsafendas to assassinate Verwoerd.

By the 1970s the Jewish campaign to subvert South Africa was having no effect. The economy was unaffected by sanctions and communist unrest was minimal -- though much was made of it in the Jewish owned elements of the US press.

In 1978 the CIA recruited Pik Botha, the South African foreign minister, as a spy and used him to subvert the South African government, working with Samuel Huntington and Chester Crocker, Botha was assigned to undermine and alter the attitudes of the South African government regarding black rule.

Botha recruited Minister of Sports Piet Koornhof **and Head of Military Intelligence General Tienie Groenewald to the CIA-Jew operation. Groenewald in particular passed on the names of Afrikanner nationalist and white rights activists to MI6 and the CIA, and arranged for acts of violence and harassment, COINTELPRO style, against Boer activists in the country.

In the late 1970s and the early 1980s the banking families, Oppenheimer in particular, began to speculate in the Rand for the purpose of devaluing the currency. Inflation rose to 7 percent and growth fell to 3 percent, with inflation reaching 16 percent in the early 1980s.

In 1989 a Freemason with ties to B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Masonic fraternity which controls the ADL, was elected President of South Africa. Presient Frederik De Klerk was a Jewish-backed candidate with ties to the international Zionist establishment. De Klerk worked for, and eventually achieved, the Jewish goal of black rule in South Africa.

Today, South Africa's central bank is run by a Jew named Gill Marcus, with the black frontman named Tito Mboweni taking instructions. Trevor Manuel, a Jew, is the Minister of Finance. Alec Erwin, a Jew, is the Minister of Trade and Industry. Helena Dolny, the Jewish ex-wife of KGB Colonel Joe Slovo, runs the Land Bank. Ronnie Kasrils, a Jew, is the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. Louise Tager, a Jew, is chairman of the railway system, Spoornet. Michael Katz, a Jew,is the chief consultant on taxation. Meyer Kahn, a Jew, is the managing director of the police service. Three Jews -- Richard Goldstone, Arthur Chaskalson, and Albert Sachs -- sit on the South African Supreme Court

What has happened in South Africa under the name of "democracy" and "diversity" has been the Jewish takeover of their country. As with all Jewish governments, South Africa is now a failed nation. It is poor, it is crime ridden, and it is not safe to walk the streets.

The Jews wage war on anyone who opposes their total domination of the world's economy. They also work to make sure they control the governments of every single developed country in the world. Jews use whatever tools they can -- phony allegations of "racism" or pleas for "democracy", for instance -- to win stupid, thoughtless non-Jews to their cause, but all celebrated communist, socialist, "democratic" and/or anti-racist groups in the world are Jewish run and Jewish financed.


* * * * * * *
One might say that the bankers use the jews to advance their own agenda, but saddly jews themselves (or the majority of them) pretty much allow this to happen.  Either way, this is good information.

22 June 2014

Who Controls the Federal Reserve System?

The Federal Reserve System is divided into two parts: the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, located in Washington DC, and the Federal Reserve District Banks, located throughout the United States. Here is the official website of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: 

If you examine this page, you will see that there are five members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. You will also see that all five(5) of the board members are Jewish. This is a numerical representation of 100%. Why is this important? 

It’s important because Jews only constitute about 2% of the United States population*. So the odds that all five members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would be Jewish are infinitesimally small. Here are the five members of the Federal Reserve 

Board of Governors: 

Benjamin S. Bernanke - Jewish 
Donald L. Kohn - Jewish 
Kevin M. Warsh - Jewish 
Randall S. Kroszner - Jewish 
Frederic S. Mishkin - Jewish 

Now, if you examine the presidents of the twelve Federal Reserve District Banks, you will discover a similar pattern of Jewish over-representation. Here is the section of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ website that lists the twelve Federal Reserve District Banks and their respective presidents: 

If you examine this section, you will see that there are twelve Federal Reserve Bank presidents. You will also see that nine(9) of the twelve presidents are Jewish. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Again, this is important because Jews only comprise about 2% of the United States population*, so the chances that nine of the twelve Federal Reserve Bank presidents would be Jewish are incredibly miniscule. Here are the twelve presidents of the Federal Reserve District Banks: 

FRB of Boston: Eric S. Rosengren - Jewish 
FRB of New York: Timothy F. Geithner - Jewish 
FRB of Philadelphia: Charles I. Plosser - Jewish 
FRB of Richmond: Jeffrey M. Lacker - Jewish 
FRB of St. Louis: James B. Bullard - Jewish 
FRB of Minneapolis: Gary H. Stern - Jewish 
FRB of Kansas City: Thomas M. Hoenig - Jewish 
FRB of Dallas: Richard W. Fisher - Jewish 
FRB of San Francisco: Janet L. Yellen - Jewish 
FRB of Cleveland: Sandra Pianalto - gentile 
FRB of Atlanta: Dennis P. Lockhart - gentile 
FRB of Chicago: Charles L. Evans - gentile 

This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents about 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the highest levels of the United States Federal Reserve System?

08 June 2014

Racism

video

06 June 2014

Isaiah 53: What Did the Rabbis Say?

Source

Maybe you weren't told, but many ancient rabbinic sources understood Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah. Here are quotations from some of them: 

Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b) 

Midrash Ruth Rabbah: "Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): -- He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,' draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities'"

Targum Jonathan: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong..."

Zohar: "`He was wounded for our transgressions,' etc....There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.'" 

Rabbi Moses Maimonides: "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived." (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted inThe Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)

Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so."

 (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)

Many more rabbinic citations can be found in books listed in the resource link.

To learn about how you can develop a relationship with the Suffering Servant.

31 May 2014

Edward Snowden

video

06 May 2014

Boko Haram: "I Will Sell Your Daughters"

video

30 April 2014

Ex-Scoutmaster Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison for Homosexual Child Abuse


An ex-scoutmaster has been sentenced to 30 years behind bars after pleading guilty to sexually abusing three boys while serving as a Keswick Boy Scout troop leader.

David Brian Watkins, 50, accepted a plea deal earlier this year after originally being indicted on 70 charges surrounding inappropriate contact with scouts. He plead guilty to 36 counts in January, avoiding a jury trial, which could have resulted in multiple life sentences.

Watkins, who led Keswick Troop 1028 from 2002 to 2008, admitted to abusing male scouts from 2006-2009. He was arrested in November 2012 after a scout, who was 13 at the time of the incident and is now an adult, reported him to the police.

On Thursday, Judge Cheryl Higgins sentenced Watkins to ten years in prison for each of three counts of carnal knowledge of a child between the ages of 13 and 15. She suspended the remaining 33 charges, which would have placed him behind bars for another 165 years.

Prior to his sentencing, Watkins asked the court for mercy, but prosecutor Darby Lowe read segments of a report to the court where Watkins had told police that it was instead the boy who initiated the sexual contact. According to the Charlottesville Daily Progress, Watkins stated that it was he who felt that he had been raped.

Watkins’ defense attorney Andre Hakes also told that court that the boys involved consented to having sexual activity with the Scoutmaster.

“These were continuing sexual relationships, and though they were with children under 18, they were consensual,” she stated. “David Watkins is not just these crimes. He is responsible for them, but they are not all of who he was.”

Before issuing her sentence, Higgins expressed a concern that Watkins and his defense failed to have contrition over his behavior.

“What is especially concerning to the court in this case is the lack of acknowledgement by the defendant,”she stated.

Following his arrest two years ago, a Portland attorney who won a lawsuit in 2010 lodged by a former Boy Scout who claimed that he was molested by an assistant scout leader told reporters that Watkin’s case reinforces her concerns about the organization.

“This says two things about Boy Scouts,” attorney Kelly Clark said. “First, there is a serious problem with child abuse in Scouting. Second, a lot of organizations [like Boy Scouts] put their own interests ahead of the interests of the kids.”

As previously reported, thousands of documents were released in October 2012 outlining evidence of longstanding and widespread sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts of America. The documents, which the Boy Scouts had fought to keep secret, contained information collected since shortly after its inception in 1910, including letters from victims and their parents, as well as memos and handwritten notes. Some allegations had been substantiated, while others were yet undetermined.

In all, there were 14,500 pages of evidence released.

12 April 2014

They tried to kill him

video
video

08 April 2014

Gay Conversion: I Slept With Over 200 Men, Now I'm a Happily Married Heterosexual Dad

I guess I became straight by accident. It was never a grand plan; the therapy was an attempt to resolve commitment issues, rather than sexual identity. I never had any desire to change my sexuality. But that's what happened – in fact I changed everything.

Having had hundreds of homosexual partners, I eventually married a woman and had a child. And my whole outlook on life changed. I grew from a loud and arrogant person, trying desperately to mask my deep insecurities in group situations, into a strong, assertive guy who loved sports and war films. At the age of 46, I've never felt better in my own skin.

But before we get into the details of my conversion, let's go back to the beginning.

I knew I was gay at about 10 or 11. My cousin himself had come out and I realised my own attractions were the same. At the age of 10 or 11 boys start getting interested in girls, but I was only interested in boys. I was definitely a number six on the Kinsey Scale – an exclusively homosexual male with no heterosexual desires whatsoever.

Teenage years were hell. I often thought of suicide, occasionally self-harmed and had a growing problem with alcohol and gay porn. I came out to my parents when I was 17, in floods of tears. But mum and dad were amazing; they said they had known I was gay and then affirmed their unconditional love for me. My mates at school also told me they had known for some time and supported me. The 'coming out' process wasn't tortuous or traumatic.

At 18 I moved to London from the north of England and fully embraced my gay identity. I became the first person to live openly as a gay man in the section of the university I attended, and even established an LGBT group for other students, actively preaching against those who suggested that being gay was somehow a choice, or even wrong.

I never felt the need to change. I was born gay, it was all I'd ever known – end of. Even though I'd been raised a Christian and attended an LGBT Christian Movement in London, I reveled in the capital's gay scene and led a very promiscuous lifestyle. In fact, I reckon I had 200 sexual partners.

Eventually I settled down with a long-term boyfriend, an ex-soldier and Falklands vet, and we considered going abroad to marry – or at least have a civil-partnership. But around this time I made the decision to enter a relationship with Christ, which allowed me to examine my life more deeply.

I realised I had some issues, centring on commitment. I discovered I had a deep-rooted fear of rejection, I was too anxious, and I used people. I had an innate fear of men – not of their homophobia, but the real thing: a chasm between me and the normal heterosexual male (Kinsey's so-called number ones).

I terminated my relationship with my long-term partner to get a clean slate, and, acting on a friend's advice, I went into therapy to address my commitment issues. There was nothing brutal or harrowing about the help I received; the horror stories you hear from some of those gay-straight 'conversion' documentaries don't apply here. It was simply a mixture of cognitive therapy, to challenge my core beliefs and root out one-sided thinking; behavioural therapy, to change problematic actions trained through years of reinforcement; and EMDR, which uses rhythmic eye movements to dampen the power of traumatic memories.

My therapist and I never focused solely on my being sexually attracted to men, but my "being gay" had to be part of the dialogue, otherwise I'd have been leaving a part of my life at the door. Much of my journey was about forgiving those I needed to forgive, and recognising where I had built walls against significant others in my life, especially my parents and siblings.

I eventually came to realise that as a boy I had failed to interact with other men on any significant level. I had perceived myself to be rejected by men even as a small boy and had made an inner vow never to deeply trust them. People had reached out to me and I had spurned them, including my father and two older brothers. No wonder men had become a mystery to me and even an obsession by my teens, when I began erotically craving men and feeding this through porn.

I also realised I had thrown myself wholeheartedly into a world of the feminine, with no masculine counter-balance, yet I despised women for having the natural ability to woo every aspect of a heterosexual man, which I could not do. I discovered that my natural place was not among women.

A lot of core behaviours were challenged - my looks, my body, my walk – and my therapist challenged me to look at where I wasn't like other men, and where I was. The therapist began to work on things like my voice and my gait - he was giving me permission to think in a different way, to do things differently.

Feeling of acceptance

My fears and anxiety gradually subsided, and I began to feel more accepted around both men and women. I moved from constantly rejecting masculine identity to embracing it; my posture changed, I began to walk straighter and lost my old mincing walk. My voice gained a whole new resonance, such that people would regularly comment on it to me.

I began to see that maybe, just maybe, I was never truly gay and that there was a man as real and as noble as the men I had often admired, worshipped and yearned for hidden deep within me, waiting to be freed and released.

Physical contact with women, even touching a woman's hair, became more enjoyable. I began to enjoy being a man, and enjoy women's company more. This doesn't mean I went out and was attracted to every woman I met; I wasn't an on-heat teenager. But it was a gradual process, eventually leading to dates and relationships.

Today I've been married to a woman for eight years, and we have a five-year-old daughter. I love art and theatre, but I enjoy team sports in a way that frightened me as a child. One of my favourite movies is Saving Private Ryan, because it's about brotherhood and deep male friendships, something I'd never enjoyed before.

Am I now exclusively heterosexual, some people ask? Most of the time, yes. But for most people there are periods where sexuality can be quite fluid. At times this is true for me too. I don't miss the gay lifestyle I left behind –when I visited my ex-boyfriend, five years after therapy, it brought to home to me the drawbacks of that life. His voice had become camp and weak, and he had even contracted HIV.

I know more than ever that my decision to entertain therapy, and at a later stage the therapy which concentrates on repairing malformed sexual orientation, saved my life in the long run. It also saved a lot of taxpayers' money too. I now believe I would have ended up considering, and no doubt requesting, gender reassignment at the expense of the public purse.

But the changes in my life (and my ex-boyfriend's) don't make me want to preach or convert anyone. Therapy can be dangerous, and there's no reason why anyone should feel compelled to 'convert'.

But I now believe people aren't born gay, and anyone can develop the sort of hidden identity I've found.

20 March 2014

Homosexual Hijackers: The Hypersexualization of Cultural Hostages

When the celebration of a godly Catholic Saint becomes a flashpoint for the homosexual agenda, it’s just another sure sign that things have really spiraled out of control in America. How is it that the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York have become the latest pawn in the homosexual hijacking of this country?

In the current cultural clash between morality and decadence, apparently nothing is considered sacred or beyond the tainting touch of the “gay lobby.”

As the militant homosexual activists aggressively sweep through our society in their hostage-taking enterprise, they trample on religious rights — and numerous other freedoms — leaving only debauchery in their wake. Through their shameless “gay” gangland style thuggery, they defile and hypersexualize everything that they come into contact with. And the “Big Beer” brouhaha is just their latest attempt to distort a holiday observance, which is supposed to be about commemorating a heroic, holy man, into more perversity on parade. The homosexual wrecking ball has “come out” in full vengeance mode with corporate sponsors, professional sports organizations, elected officials, mainstream media outlets, Hollywood celebrities, and universities all drooling and panting to be the first to ride the “gay” bandwagon on its path to perdition.  

Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church doesn’t want to sully their Saint with the raunchy displays that are typically seen in the annual “gay pride” parades held across America? Why would the organizers want to see homosexuals prancing around in drag, genitalia-revealing clothing, or nearly naked?

And what’s the likelihood that “gay pride” organizers would ever allow Christians to march in their parades and pass out biblical literature about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or what’s the chance that they would welcome groups such as NOM (National Organization for Marriage), NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) or JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) to march right alongside the transvestites? Or what about an ex-gay marching band or Mark Regnerus as the grand marshal? Not on your life! The simple fact is that homosexual events are not “open” to everyone. Certain individuals and organizations, that don’t conform to their ideology, are absolutely barred from participating in their parades. Of course, they wouldn’t want any religious or moral principles “raining on their parade.” Homosexual extremists march along a one-way street when it comes to so-called “tolerance.”

At “gay pride” events and parades in places such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Charlotte, and New Orleans, it is not uncommon to see drag queens, phalluses, public nudity, actual and simulated sex acts, offensive signs/music, pornographic images, NAMBLA (pedophilia) representatives, S&M paraphernalia, and public spankings to raise money for AIDS efforts. So, why would the Catholic Church – and any morally sane individual – want to associate St. Patrick with those kinds of debauched displays?

In some places, the homosexual hijackers’ reign of terror is basically complete. For instance, in San Francisco, public decency ordinances are consistently and systematically overlooked during their homosexual, perversity-promoting events. Nudity and public sex acts are the norm during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” parades and festivals held in the city. Police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregate nearby and observe, making no attempt to enforce the law for fear of being labeled homophobic or worse.

And where is the mainstream media while all of this crude and vulgar behavior is so blatantly on display? They’re engaged in a homosexual-friendly, collaborative cover-up via a media blackout because they know that these sex-crazed, pornified sin-fests don’t fit the nice, neat little narrative of the happy, “normal gay family” that’s just minding their own business in relative suburban obscurity. Although not all homosexuals are militantly involved in the hostile takeover of the American culture, we can’t ignore the intimidating and morally corrosive efforts of the aggressive “gay” activists.

In advance of the September 15, 2013 “gay pride” parade in Dallas, Texas, the city officials made it clear that they had had enough of this type of outrageous behavior. They pledged to crack down on the lewdness and nudity that had become widespread at their annual gay pride parade. While past marches had featured bare-breasted women and men in tight, wet underwear with visible genitalia, Dallas law enforcement said the city would no longer turn a blind eye to such violations of city and state law. The rules now state: “In accordance with the city of Dallas public nudity ordinance, parade participants must not expose genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts.” Additionally, the new parade restrictions prohibit other vile exhibitions: “In accordance with state of Texas obscenity law, sexual paraphernalia, real or simulated sex acts and genital or phallic representations are prohibited from the parade.” City officials, along with the event’s organizers, said they wanted the pride event to be more “family friendly.”

The reaction, however, from the “gay” community and activists to this policy change was quite eye-opening. It shockingly revealed the true darkness that lurks at the heart of America’s homosexual movement. They expressed great outraged at the newly-implemented common sense changes. On the social media website Twitter, incensed homosexuals vowed to wear  – or not wear – whatever they wanted to the pride parade. Activist Daniel Cates wrote on his Facebook page, “The ‘queer’ is effectively being erased from our Pride celebration in favor of the most polished, heteronormative representation of our community as possible. It should be noted that the rioters at the Stonewall Inn fought to break OUT of the d*mn closet! Our movement was built of sex positivity and our desire to BE WHO WE ARE! I urge you ALL to openly DEFY the Tavern Guild!” (Evidently, the word “restraint” is nowhere to be found in the homosexual dictionary.)

Based on Mr. Cates’ own words, here are a just a few thoughts:

If they “can’t be themselves” without being mostly naked, raunchy, and highly sexualized, doesn’t that contradict the whole “It’s not about sex, it’s about love” mantra? It sounds much more to me like a crotch-centric fixation than anything to do with love. 

If they’re so adamantly against “heteronormative” behavior, then why are homosexual activists also fighting so hard to get “married?” Marriage, after all, is the most heteronormative institution there is! There is obviously no method to their madness.

And homosexuals claim that they want equal treatment under the law, but as soon as they are told that they will be treated like any other citizen who breaks public decency laws, they throw a hissy fit. Apparently, they don’t really want equal treatment; what they demand is special treatment. They think that they are entitled to some sort of “protected class,” above-the-law status that allows them to brazenly break the law with impunity, and sadly, in most places and in many ways, that’s exactly what were witnessing as public officials cower in fear and cave to their every terrorist-like tactic!

Therefore, the “coexist” meme is a falsehood of epic proportions; it’s really “Leftist code” for the legal authorization of the anti-Christian forces – of which the virulent homosexual hijackers have become the worst offenders – to run roughshod over anyone with whom they disagree. In their twisted idea of coexistence, Christians and conservatives must live under the heel of the homofascists.

What the St. Patrick’s Day Parade organizers and every other religious group, cultural edifice or icon of morality need to do is implement a “we don’t negotiate with ‘queer’ terrorists” policy. Or else all will be lost to the homosexual hijackers.

18 March 2014

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children


Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

###

©2009 Dr. Trayce Hansen. All rights reserved.


15 March 2014

Drag Queens in the Military

Since the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, U.S. military bases have hosted a gay marriage ceremonies and a potluck gatherings. But on Saturday, servicemembers here may have been the first to take to the stage and perform as drag queens on a military installation in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender troops.

Drag queens and drag kings, to be precise.

Six servicemembers — gay, lesbian and straight — donned heavy makeup to dance and lip sync songs such as “I Wanna Dance with Somebody” for a raucous capacity crowd at the Rocker NCO Club at Kadena Air Base. The event was a fundraiser for the recently formed Okinawa chapter of OutServe-SLDN, which is the largest nonprofit advocate for the military’s LGBT community.

“We didn’t think there was much of a desire for an event like this on the island but it has actually blown up,” said Navy Lt. Marissa Greene, co-chapter leader of OutServe Okinawa.

Greene said she had hoped to sell about 75 tickets to fund some future support activities for the group, which was formed last summer and still “starting from scratch.” The event was approved as a “variety show” by Kadena’s 18th Wing through the same process as other on-base fundraisers.

But an initial 200 tickets were plucked up almost immediately, so they issued another 200.

“We ended up selling 400 tickets in 10 days,” she said.

Amid the unexpected success, OutServe carefully avoided any mention of politics, but its variety show comes at a pivotal time for gay civil rights in the United States, with many states passing laws dealing with marriage or debating individual liberties.

It is also a sign of the times within the military; just a few years ago, gay and lesbian drag performances on a military base would have been unthinkable and potentially a cause for dismissal from the service.

The repeals of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act — the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — have allowed gays and lesbians in the military to be open with their sexuality for the first time.

The historic shift appears to be mostly accepted and embraced throughout the ranks despite warnings the DADT repeal could harm order and good discipline.

On Saturday night, the Rocker club was packed for performances by servicemembers using stage names such as Chocolate Sunrise – a crowd favorite — and Artemis Faux. The event’s sole lesbian performer took the drag king name Manny Nuff.

The advocacy group agreed to avoid using the term “drag show” as part of its on-base fundraiser effort.

Tech. Sgt. Kristen Baker, who was among the crowd, said the show got a warm reception and would leave a mark for civil rights.

“Everything is just accepted. It makes me really proud to watch it,” Baker said. In the military, “we are all brothers and sisters no matter what.”

06 March 2014

British Jewry Tried To Stop Zionism

When the British Cabinet issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, it was over the strenuous objections of its only Jewish member, Edwin Montagu. But non-Jews, including many anti-Semites, tipped the scales. They saw Zionism as a way to advance British imperialism and the Masonic “New World Order.”Montagu, who was the Secretary of State for India, told Prime Minister Lloyd George. “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there.”

An assimilated Jew, Montagu regarded Judaism as only a religion, and viewed Zionism as a “mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom.”

His story suggests that the New World Order is an elite conspiracy led by specific members of certain Jewish and non-Jewish dynastic families who often intermarried. It is not “Jewish” in terms of the Jewish people as a whole, who historically prefer assimilation.

In May 1917, a committee representing the leading Jewish organizations published a statement in the “London Times” saying: “Emancipated Jews… have no separate political aspirations…the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine founded on [the] theory of a Jewish homelessness, must have the effect of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands.” (“Cousinhood”, p.260)

The Balfour Declaration promised Jews a “national home” in Palestine. Partly, it was payment to Zionists for getting the USA into WWI on Britain’s side. Zionist president Chaim Weismann fumed that Jewish opposition was the main stumbling block to consummating the deal.

The Jewish community was split. The Samuels and the Rothschilds favored the Balfour Declaration; Cohen, Magnus, Mountefiore and Montagu were against it.

“If it had been merely an issue between Zionist and non-Zionist factions within the community, there is little question that the latter would have won,” writes Chaim Bermant in “The Cousinhood.” “But there were the gentile Zionists to consider and they carried the day.” (262)

These gentiles included Arthur Balfour, Lord Milner, Lord Lothian (Phillip Kerr) and Lord Robert Cecil. Chaim Weismann recognized that Zionism is part of a much larger game: “To [Cecil], the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and the organization of the world in a great federation were complementary features in the next step in the management of human affairs…” (Reed, “Controversy of Zion,” p. 249.)

Georgetown University professor Caroll Quigley lists about 100 participants in the world government conspiracy in the Appendix of “The Anglo American Establishment” (1981). They include the above names and Cecil Rhodes, Lionel Curtis, William T. Stead, Geoffrey Dawson and Earl Grey. I recognized only three Jews: Nathan Rothschild, Leopold Amery and Alfred Beit.

Quigley relates how a group of aristocratic families centered on the Cecils has dominated British politics for centuries. They spawned the secret society organized by Cecil Rhodes and Nathan Rothschild in 1891, which Rhodes called “a church for the extension of the British Empire.” (34) Known as “The Round Table” and the “Milner group,” its goal was world domination by the British elite and the re-colonization of the US.

The “church” was Freemasonry. The politicians that backed Zionism were all high-ranking Masons. Some were probably Illuminati. “World government” is dedicated to enthroning Lucifer as God of this world. Zionism and Communism are Masonic organizations dedicated to this agenda.

A HERO FOR ASSIMILATED JEWS

Edwin Montagu, the second son of the silver bullion dealer Samuel Montagu, was caught between his father’s Orthodox Judaism and desire to be an Englishman. He rejected Judaism but was not about to abandon his Jewish identity. “I will always be a good Jew according to my lights,” he wrote his father, “my definition differing from yours.”

As a youth he chafed at having to observe the rituals and marry a Jewish girl. As an adult, he embraced the lifestyle of a highborn Englishman. On his country estate, he hunted and was a naturalist and ornithologist. “There was something… alien in the very depth of his affection for England,” Bermant remarks. (259)

A tall nerdy-looking man who wore a monocle, Montagu suffered the gibes of friends and enemies in silence. His “ugliness was obliterated by his charms,” wrote his friend Duff Cooper.” He had a huge ungainly body, a deep soft voice and dark eyes that sparkled with kindliness.” (253)

An able debater at Cambridge, Montagu caught the attention of H.H. Asquith, the President of the rival Oxford Union. He followed Asquith into politics and after the Liberal landslide of 1906 became his private secretary. An intelligent and persuasive speaker, Montagu seemed destined for great things.

Asquith became Prime Minister in 1908. He and Montagu were both infatuated with Venetia Stanley a friend of Asquith’s daughter, and 35 years Asquith’s junior. When the Prime Minister’s attentions became too much, Venetia married Montagu, eight years her senior.

Like Montagu’s love for England, his love for Venetia was unrequited. She had many affairs and burned through his fortune. But he ignored this and, on the eve of his premature death at age 45, wrote to her, “I am miserable at going. You have made me very happy and I hope you will be happy always.” (267)

ON ZIONISM

In 1917, Montagu fought the Balfour Declaration in cabinet and circulated a document accusing the government of anti-Semitism for making all British Jews “aliens and foreigners.” He said he would “willingly disenfranchise every Zionist [and was tempted to] proscribe the Zionist organization as illegal and against the national interest.”

(“document” http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/ article0005337.html)

Of course he was right. But despite being a banker’s son, he wasn’t aware of the Masonic/Zionist plan for world government. They dedicated 1.2 million troops to securing Palestine, almost losing the European War as a consequence. They had to replace Asquith and the Army Chief-of-Staff Gen. William Robertson to get it done.

Montagu was one of those rare Jews who tried to understand the reasons for anti- Semitism instead of blaming “irrational hate.”

“I have always recognized the unpopularity…of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this country’s goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us.

But just as there is no community of thought and mode of life among Christian Englishmen, so there is not among Jewish Englishmen. More and more we are educated in public schools and at the Universities, and take our part in the politics, in the Army, in the Civil Service, of our country. And I am glad to think that the prejudices against inter-marriage are breaking down. But when the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must be enormously increased. Palestine will become the world’s Ghetto.”

Montagu was probably responsible for inserting the provision in the Balfour Declaration that said: “Nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

FINALLY

Jews are taught that they are scapegoats but they don’t learn it is the world government cabal that is using them. Using Zionist, Communist, Liberal, Feminist or Neo Con fronts, it dupes many Jews into advancing policies and beliefs that undermine society which is based on race, religion, nation and family. This gives the appearance Jews in general are responsible for the New World Order.

It doesn’t help that many Jews ignorantly deny this conspiracy exists and cry “anti-Semitism” every time a banker is criticized. It doesn’t help that many have been conned into thinking they need Israel. In fact Israelis are being used to secure the Middle East for the Masonic British elite. The new Israeli Supreme Court building, funded and designed by Rothschilds, is replete with Masonic symbolism. (http://www.thegoldenreport.com/asp/jerrysnewsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=817&z=2)

Some of the Rothschilds and their Jewish allies are part of this satanic conspiracy. But most Jews put their countries first, and would want no part of world government. Edwin Montagu, a gentle, sincere civilized man, is an example of such a Jew and an inspiration to us all.


04 March 2014

How Hitler defied the bankers

[NOTE: This is presented as a historical post, not as a defense of National Socialism) 
--------------------------

Many people take joy in saying Wall Street and Jewish bankers "financed Hitler." There is plenty of documented evidence that Wall Street and Jewish bankers did indeed help finance Hitler at first, partly because it allowed the bankers to get rich (as I will describe below) and partly in order to control Stalin. However, when Germany broke free from the bankers, the bankers declared a world war against Germany.

When we look at all the facts, the charge that "Jews financed Hitler" becomes irrelevant. Los Angeles Attorney Ellen Brown discusses this topic in her book Web Of Debt

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany.

Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private (Jewish controlled) banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.

Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and businesses.  On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international (mainly Jewish) bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany.

Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.

The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates.

Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn't backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work.  Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest.

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)

Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive superhighway.

Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented, "Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We've lots of money and that's real banking." Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don't have money. That's real banking."

(Schact, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.)

This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with the German people.  Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive banking cartel -- such as the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank of Europe -- rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people.

Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow (who is Jewish himself) says the main reason why the bankers arranged for a world war against Germany was that Hitler sidestepped the bankers by creating his own money, thereby freeing the German people. Worse, this freedom and prosperity threatened to spread to other nations. Hitler had to be stopped!

Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolsevism and a Trotsky intimate. Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler was at first funded by the international bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Hitler in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. Then Hitler became an even bigger threat than Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money.
(Stalin came to power in 1922, which was eleven years before Hitler came to power.)

Rakovsky said:
“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” (Henry Makow, "Hitler Did Not Want War," www.savethemales.com March 21, 2004).
Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:

“The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through anindependent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C. K. Liu, "Nazism and the German Economic Miracle," Asia Times (May 24, 2005).

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”
These facts do not appear in any textbooks today, since Jews own most publishing companies. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels. 

In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht – the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic -- opposed letting the German government print its own money…

“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany.  Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”

Schact echoes the textbook lie  that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money.  However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schact let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK caused the Weimar hyper-inflation.

Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who sold the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don't own, sell it, and then "cover" by buying it back at the lower price.

Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the PRIVATELY OWNED Reichsbank (not yet under Nazi control) made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing. This currency, like U.S. currency today, was created with accounting entries on the bank's books. Then the funny-money was lent at compound interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create marks out of nothing, and to lend them at interest. The result was runaway debt and inflation.

Thus, according to Schacht himself, the German government did not cause the Weimar hyperinflation. On the contrary, the government (under the National Socialists) got hyperinflation under control. The National Socialists put the Reichsbank under strict government regulation, and took prompt corrective measures to eliminate foreign speculation. One of those measures was to eliminate easy access to funny-money loans from private banks. Then Hitler got Germany back on its feet by having the public government issue Treasury Certificates.

Schacht , the Rotchschild agent, disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the Reichsbank when he refused to issue it. Nonetheless, he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed did not produce the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory, which says that currency must be borrowed from private cartels.

What causes hyper-inflation is uncontrolled speculation. When speculation is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues currency in carefully measured ways, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income taxes.

Naturally this terrifies the bankers, since it eliminates their powers. It also terrifies Jews, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government, and everything else.

Therefore, to those who delight in saying “Jews financed Hitler,” I ask that they please look at all the facts.

10 February 2014

Four Prominent Bankers Found Dead Within Six Days, All Ruled ‘Suicides’

What’s going on? Top officials from JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and the Federal Reserve have all turned up dead over the course of six days. Each was ruled by coroners to have taken their own lives.

Former Federal Reserve economist Mike Dueker has made the fourth in a growing and bizarre list of dead international bankers. Dueker was just found dead at his home near Tacoma, Washington.

Dueker, 50, was a chief economist at Russell Investments. He had been missing since January 29th. Anonymous sources said that he had been having troubles at work, but no further details, nor sources were disclosed.

A week ago, on Sunday, William Broeksmit, 58, a former senior manager for Deutsche Bank, was found dead in his home as well. He was hanging from a rope, in what was ruled a suicide as well.

The very next day, on January 27th, Tata Motors managing director Karl Slym, 51, was also found dead on the fourth floor of the Shangri-La hotel in Bangkok, Thailand. Police there are ruling it a suicide, but have not explained why. Slym was staying on the 22nd floor with his wife, and had not shown any signs of being suicidal.

On Tuesday, Gabriel Magee, 39, the vice president at JPMorgan Chase & Co’s (JPM) London headquarters, was said to have killed himself as well, in the Canary Wharf area. He apparently jumped off a building, in what was also ruled a suicide.

What do you think? Is there something strange going on here, or are these deaths simply the result of the stresses of a struggling economy?

08 February 2014

Transcript of Norman Dodd Interview


“Transcript of Norman Dodd Interview”

1982 A.D.

with

G. Edward Griffin


Alan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation.  Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did.  On arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves."

Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on to say, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is, that we use our grant-making power so as to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."


Warning!  You are about to enter the Reality Zone -- a place were truth is stranger than fiction -- where knowledge is king -- where myths are shattered and deception exposed.  It is a place where the lessons of history are found, and where true-life adventures reveal the hidden nature of man.

If you proceed, you will not be able to return to the twilight zone from which you came.

You have five seconds remaining to escape.

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5.

Welcome to the Reality Zone.  I am Ed Griffin.  The story we are about to hear represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history.  We are about to hear a man tell us that the major tax-exempt foundations of America, since at least 1945, have been operating to promote a hidden agenda.  That agenda has nothing to do with the surface appearance of charity, good works or philanthropy.

This man will tell you that the real objective has been to influence American educational institutions and to control foreign policy agencies of the Federal government.  The purpose of the control has been to condition Americans to accept the creation of world government.  That government is to be based on the principle of collectivism, which is another way of saying socialism;  and, it is to be ruled from behind the scenes by those same interests which control the tax-exempt foundations.

Is this a believable scenario?

Well, the man who tells this story is none other than Mr. Norman Dodd who, in the year 1954, was the staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations -- sometimes referred to as the Reece committee, in recognition of its chairman, Congressman Carroll Reece.  I conducted the interview we are about to hear, in 1982.  I had no immediate use for the material at that time, but I realized that Mr. Dodd's story was of great importance.

Since he was advanced in age and not in good health, I wanted to capture his recollections on videotape while he was still with us.  It was a wise decision, because Mr. Dodd did pass away just a short time afterwards.

In later years there was a resurgence of interest in Mr. Dodd's story, and we released the videotape to the public in 1991.  And so, what now follows is the sound track taken from the full, unedited interview, broken occasionally only for a tape change, or to omit the sound of a passing airplane.  It stands on its own as an important piece in the puzzle of modern history.


[begin interview]

Griffin:  Mr. Dodd, let's begin this interview by a brief statement, for the record, telling us who you are, what your background is, and your qualifications to speak on the subject.

Dodd:  Well, Mr. Griffin, as for who I am, I am just as the name implies -- an individual born in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a school called Andover, Massachusetts, and then Yale University.

And, running through my whole period of being brought up, growing up, I have been an emphaticable [sic] reader, and I have had one major interest and that was this country, as I was led to believe that it was originally founded.

I entered the world of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world operated.  And, I realized that the only way to find out what that world was, and consisted of, would be to become part of it.  And I then acquired some experience in the manufacturing world, and in the world of international communications, and finally chose banking as the field I wished to devote my life to.

I was fortunate enough, to secure a position in one of the important banks in New York.  I lived there.  I lived through the conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929.  I witnessed what is tantamount to a collapse of the structure of the United States as a whole.

Much to my surprise, my superiors, in the middle of the panic in which they were immersed, confronted me.  I was confronted with the question, "Norm, what do we do now?"

I was thirty at the time, and I had no more right to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon.  However, I did manage to say to my superiors, "Gentlemen, you take this experience as proof of something that you do not know about banking."  And you better go find out what that something is, and act accordingly.

Four days later, I was confronted by these same superiors, with a statement to the effect that, “Norm, you go find out.”  And I really was fool enough to accept that assignment, because it meant that you were going out to search for something, and nobody could tell you what you were looking for.  I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented to it.

I was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank and, two and a half years later, I felt that it was possible to report back to those who had given me this assignment.  So, I rendered such a report and, as a result of the report I rendered, I was told the following:  "Norm, what you are saying is, we should return to sound banking."  And I said, “Yes, in essence, that's exactly what it is that I am saying.”

Whereupon, I got my first shock, which was a statement from them to this effect:  "We will never see sound banking in the United States again."  And they cited chapter and verse, to support that statement.

What they cited was as follows:  since the end of WWI, we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests.  And they are so prevalent inside this country, that they can never be resolved.

This came to me as an extraordinary shock because the men who made this statement were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the country.  The bank of which I was a part was spoken of a Morgan bank.  Coming from men of that caliber, a statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me.

The type of impression that it made on me was this:  I wondered if I, as an individual, as what they call a junior officer of the bank, could with the same enthusiasm foster the progress and the policies of the bank.  I spent about a year trying to think this out, and came to the conclusion that I would have to resign.

I did resign.  As a consequence of that, I had this experience.  When my letter of resignation reached the desk of the president of the bank, he sent for me.  I came to visit with him and he stated to me, "Norm, I have your letter, but I do not believe you understand what has happened in the last ten days."  I said, “No, Mr. Cochran, I have no idea what's happened.”

“Well,” he says, "the directors have never been able to get your report to them out of their minds and, as a result, they have decided that you, as an individual, must begin at once, and you must re-organize this bank in keeping with your own ideas."  He then said, "Now, can I tear up your letter?”

And inasmuch as what had been said to me, what he was offering me, at the age of (by then) thirty-three, was about as fine an opportunity for service to the country as I could imagine.  I said, “Yes.”  And they said they wished me to begin at once, and I did.

Suddenly, in a span of about six weeks, I was not permitted to do another piece of work.  And, every time I brought the subject up, I was kind of patted on the back and told, "Stop worrying about it, Norm.  Pretty soon you will be a vice-president and you will have quite a handsome salary, and ultimately be able to retire on a very worthwhile pension and, in the meantime, you can play golf and tennis to your hearts content on weekends."

Well, Mr. Griffin, I found I could not do it.  I spent a year, figuratively, with my feet on the desk, doing nothing.  I just couldn't adjust to it.  So I did resign.  This time my resignation stuck.

Then, I got my second shock, which was the discovery that the doors of every bank in the United States were closed to me and I never could get a job, as it were, in the bank.  So I found myself for the first time since I graduated from college, out of a job.

From then on, I followed various branches of the financial world, ranging from investment counsel, to membership in the stock exchange.  I finally ended up as an advisor to a few individuals who had capital funds to look after.

In the meantime, my major interest became very specific, which was to endeavor, by some means, to get the educational world to actually, you might say, teach the subject of economics realistically, and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterized our country.

I have had that interest and you know how it is, if you generate a specific interest, you find yourself gravitating toward persons with similar interests.  Ultimately, I found myself kind of at the center of the world of dissatisfaction with the direction in which this country was headed.  And, I found myself in contact with many individuals who, on their own, had done a vast amount of studying and research in areas which were part of the problem. 

Griffin:  What point in your career did you become connected with the Reece Committee?

Dodd:  Nineteen hundred and fifty-three (1953).

Griffin:  1953.  And what was that capacity, Sir?

Dodd:  That was in the capacity of what they called “Director of Research.”

Griffin:  Can you tell us what the Reece Committee was attempting to do?

Dodd:  Yes, I can tell you.  It was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a Resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or not these activities could justifiably be labeled “un-American” -- without, I might add, defining what they meant by “un-American.”  That was the Resolution and the committee had, then, the task of selecting a counsel, and the counsel, in turn, had the task of selecting a staff;  and, he had to have somebody who would direct the work of that staff, and that was what they meant by the “Director of Research. “

Griffin:  What were some of the details, the specifics, of what you told the committee at that time?

Dodd:  Well, Mr. Griffin, in that report, I specifically -- number one -- defined what was, to us, meant by the phrase “un-American.”  And, we defined that, in our way, as being a determination to effect changes in the country by un-Constitutional means.

We have plenty of Constitutional procedures, assuming that we wished to effect a change in the form of government, and that sort of thing.  And therefore, any effort in that direction, which did not avail itself of the procedures authorized by the Constitution, could be justifiably called “un-American.”  That was the start of educating them, up to that particular point.  The next thing was to educate them as to the effect on the country, as a whole, of the activities of large, endowed foundations over the then past forty years.

Griffin:  What was that effect, Sir?

Dodd:  That affect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution;  and to educate them over to the idea that the task now was to effect an orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths.

And, that’s what had been the effect of the wealth which constituted the endowments of those foundations -– foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of the span of fifty years -- and holding them responsible for this change.  What we were able to bring forward was -- what we had uncovered was -- the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, actually to get control over the content of American education.

Griffin:  There is quite a bit of publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither.  Will you please tell us who he was, and what was that conversation you had with him?

Dodd:  Rowan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation.  Mr. Gaither had sent for me, when I found it convenient to be in New York.  He asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did.

Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today, because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves."

And, before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on, and voluntarily stated, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience either with the OSS during the war, or with European economic administration after the war.  We have had experience operating under directives.  The directives emanate, and did emanate, from the White House.  Now, we still operate under just such directives.  Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?"

I said, “Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.”  Whereupon, he made this statement to me, "Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

Well, parenthetically, Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair.  I, of course, didn't, but my response to Mr. Gaither then was, “Oh, Mr. Gaither, I can now answer your first question.  You've forced the Congress of the United States to spend a hundred and fifty thousand dollars to find our what you have just told me.”  I said, “Of course, legally, you're entitled to make grants for this purpose.  But, I don't think you're entitled to withhold that information from the People of this country, to whom you're indebted for your tax exemption.  So why don't you tell the People of the country just what you told me?”  And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such thing."  So, then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously, you forced the Congress to spend this money, in order to find out what you just told me.”

Griffin:  Mr. Dodd, you have spoken, before, about some interesting things that were discovered by Kathryn Casey at the Carnegie Endowment.  Would you tell us that story, please?

Dodd:  Sure, glad to, Mr. Griffin.  This experience you just referred to, came about in response to a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment Center, National Peace, asking certain questions and gathering certain information.

On the arrival of that letter, Dr. Johnson, who was then President of the Carnegie Endowment, telephoned me and said, "Did you ever come up to New York?"  I said, “Yes, I did, more or less each weekend.”  And he said, "When you are next here, will you drop in and see us?”  Which I did.

And again, on arrival, at the office of the Endowment, I found myself in the presence of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the President, who was the successor to Alger Hiss, two vice-presidents and their own counsel, a partner in the firm -- a fellow by the name of Cromwell.  And Dr. Johnson said (again after amenities), "Mr. Dodd, we have your letter.  We can answer all those questions, but it would be a great deal of trouble.  We have a counter-suggestion.  Our counter-suggestion is that, if you can spare a member of your staff for two weeks, and send that member up to New York, we will give to that member a room in the library, and the minute books of this Foundation since its inception. And we think that, whatever you want to find out or that the Congress wants to find out, will be obvious from those minutes."

Well, my first reaction was they had lost their minds.  I had a pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain, but I realized that Dr. Johnson had only been in office two years, and the vice-presidents were relatively young men, and counsel also seemed to be a young man.  I guessed that, probably, they had never read the minutes themselves.

And so, I said that I had somebody and I would accept their offer.  I went back to Washington, and I selected the member of my staff who had been a practicing attorney in Washington.  She was on my staff to ensure I did not break any Congressional procedures or rules.  In addition to that, she was unsympathetic to the purpose of the investigation.  She was a level-headed and very reasonably brilliant, capable lady, and her attitude toward the investigation was this:  “What could possibly be wrong with foundations?  They do so much good.”

[Start of side 2]

Well, in the face of that sincere conviction of Kathryn's, I went out of my way not to prejudice her in any way, but I did explain to her that she couldn't possibly cover fifty years of handwritten minutes in two weeks.  So, she would have to do what we call “spot reading.”  I blocked out certain periods of time to concentrate on.  Off she went -- to New York.  She came back at the end of two weeks, with the following recorded on dictaphone belts.

We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?

Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the People of this country, than its involvement in a war.  There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were.  And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that?  They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out.  At that point, they come to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States.  And they realize that is a pretty big task.  To them it is too big for them alone.

So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion:  that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment.

They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History.  So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country -- people like Charles and Mary Byrd.  Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject””  And, they get turned down, flatly.

So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians."  Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say”  “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so?  And the answer is, “Yes.”

So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty (20), and they take these twenty potential teachers of American History to London.  There, they are briefed in what is expected of them -- when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.

That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association.  And then, toward the end of the 1920's, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future.

That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six.  The essence of the last volume is this:  the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.

That is the story that ultimately grew out of, and of course, was what could have been presented by the members of, this Congressional Committee, and the Congress as a whole, for just exactly what it said.  But, they never got to that point!

Griffin:  This is the story that emerged from the minutes at the Carnegie Foundation?

Dodd:  That's right.

Griffin:  And so?

Dodd:  It was official to that extent.

Griffin:  And Kathryn Casey brought all of these back, in the form of dictated notes, or verbatim readings, of the minutes?

Dodd:  On dictaphone belts.

Griffin:  Are those in existence today?

Dodd:  I don't know.  If they are, they're somewhere in the archives, under the control of the Congress, the House of Representatives.

Griffin:  How many people actually heard those?  Or, were they typed up, transcripts made?

Dodd:  No.

Griffin:   How many people actually heard those recordings?

Dodd:  Three maybe.  Myself, my top assistant, and Kathryn.  Yeah, I might tell you this experience, as far as its impact on Kathryn Casey is concerned.  Well, she was never able to return to her law practice.  If it hadn't been for Carroll Reece's ability to tuck her away in a job with the Federal Trade Commission, I don't know what would have happened to Kathryn.  Ultimately, she lost her mind as a result of it.  It was a terrible shock to her.  It is a very rough experience for her to encounter proof of this kind.

Griffin:  Mr. Dodd, can you summarize the opposition to the Committee, the Reece Committee, and particularly the efforts to sabotage the Committee?

Dodd:  Well, it began right at the start of the week of the operating staff, Mr. Griffin.  It began on the day on which the Committee met for the purpose of consenting to, or confirming, my appointment to the position of Director of Research.  Thanks to the abstention by the minority members of the Committee from voting, that is, the two Democratic members – that is why, technically, I was unanimously appointed.

Griffin:  Wasn't the White House involved in opposition?

Dodd:  Not at this particular point, Sir.  Mr. Reece ordered Counsel and myself to visit Wayne Hayes.  Wayne Hayes was the ranking minority member of the Committee, as a Democrat.  So, we -- Kathryn and I -- had to go down to Mr. Hayes’ office, which we did.  Mr. Hayes greeted us with the flat statement, directed primarily to me,  “I am opposed to this investigation.  I regard it as nothing but an effort on the part of Carroll Reece to gain a little prominence.  So, I'll do everything I can to see that it fails.”  Well, I have a strange personality, in the sense that a challenge of that nature interests me.

Our Counsel withdrew.  He went over and sat on the couch in Mr. Reece's office, and pouted.  I, sort of, took up this statement by Mr. Hayes as a challenge, and set myself a goal of winning him over to our point of view.

I started by noticing that, on his desk, there was a book.  The book was of the type – and there were many in those days -- that would be complaining about the spread of communism, and Hungary.  That type of book.

This meant to me that, at least Hayes had read the book.  So, I brought up the subject of the spread of the influence of the Soviet World.  For two hours, I discussed this with Hayes and, finally, he ended up by rising from his desk and saying, "Norm, if you will carry this investigation toward the goal that you have outlined to me, I will be your biggest supporter."

I said, “Mr. Hayes, I can assure you.  I will not double-cross you.  Subsequently, Mr. Hayes sent word to me that he was in Bethesda Naval Hospital, with an attack of ulcers.  He asked if would I come and see him.  Which I did.  He then said, "Norm, the only reason I've asked you to come out here is that I just want to hear you say, again you will not double-cross me."  I gave him that assurance, and that was the basis of our relationship.

Meanwhile, Counsel took the attitude expressed in these words, “Norm, if you want to waste your time with 'this guy' (as he called him), then you can go ahead and do it, but don't ever ask me to say anything to him, under any conditions, on any subject.”

So, in a sense, that created a deck for me to operate in relation to Hayes, on my own.

As time passed, Hayes offered friendship, which I hesitated to accept because of his vulgarity.  I didn't want to get mixed up with him socially, under any conditions.

Well, that was our relationship for about three months.  Eventually, I had occasion to add to my staff.  As a result of adding to my staff a top-flight intelligence officer, both the Republican National Committee and the White House resorted to stopping me from continuing this investigation in the direction Carroll Reece had personally asked me to go.

Mr. Griffin, that direction was to utilize this investigation to uncover the fact that this country had been the victim of a conspiracy.  That was Mr. Reece's conviction.  I eventually agreed to carry out that direction.

I explained to Mr. Reece that his own Counsel wouldn't go in that direction.  He gave me permission to disregard our own Counsel and to set up an aspect of the investigation outside of our office -- more or less secretly.  The Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing, and they did everything they could to stop me.  They appealed to Counsel to stop me.  Finally, they resorted to the White House.

Griffin:  Was their objection because of what you were doing, or because of the fact that you were doing it outside of the official auspices of the Committee?

Dodd:  No.  The objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they called "anti-Semitism."  That was a cooked-up idea.  In other words, it wasn't true at all.  But, any way, that's the way they expressed it.

Griffin:  Excuse me.  Why?

Dodd:  Then they made it stick.

Griffin:  Why did they do that?  How could they say that?

Dodd:  Well, they could say it, Mr. Griffin.  But, they had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop completion of this investigation, given the direction that it was moving.  That direction would have been exposure of this Carnegie Endowment story, and the Ford Foundation, and the Guggenheim, and the Rockefeller Foundation -- all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States.

Well, to secure the help of the White House in the picture, they got the White House to cause the liaison between the White and the Hill -- a major person -- to go up to Hayes and try to get him, as it were, actively to oppose what the investigation was engaged in.

Hayes, then, very kindly, would listen to this visit from this major person.  Then he would call me and say, “Norm, come up to my office.  I have a good deal to tell you.”

I would go up.  He would tell me he just had a visit from this major person, and he wants me to break up this investigation.  So then I said, “Wayne, what did you do?  What did you say to him?”  He said, “I just told him to get the hell out.”  And he did that three times.  I got pretty proud of him, in the sense that he was, as it were, backing me up.  We finally embarked upon hearings at Hayes’ request.  Hayes wanted to get them out of the way, before he went abroad in the summer.

Griffin:  Why were the hearings finally terminated?  What happened to the Committee?

Dodd:  What happened to the Committee, or to the hearings?

Griffin:  The hearings.

Dodd:  The hearings were terminated.  Carroll Reece was up against such a furor in Hayes, through the activity of our own Counsel.  Hayes became convinced that he was being double-crossed;  and he put on a show in the public hearing room, Mr. Griffin, that was an absolute disgrace.  He called Carroll Reece publicly every name in the book.

Mr. Reece took this as proof that he couldn't continue the hearings.  He actually invited me to accompany him when he went down to Hayes’ office and, in my presence, with the tears rolling down his face, Hayes apologized to Carroll Reece for all he'd done, and his conduct.  He apologized to me.  I thought that would be enough, and Carroll would resume.  He never did.

Griffin:  This charge of anti-Semitism is kind of intriguing to me.  What was the basis of that charge?  Was there any basis for it at all?

Dodd:  The basis used by the Republican National Committee was that the intelligence officer I had taken on my staff -- when I oriented this investigation to the exposure of, and proof of, a conspiracy -- was known to have a book, and that book was deemed to be anti-Semitic.  It was childish, but it's what the second-in-command at the Republican National Committee said, and he told me I'd have to dismiss this person from my staff.

Griffin:  Who was that person?

Dodd:  A Colonel Lee Loraine.

Griffin:  Lee Loraine.  And what was his book?  Do you recall?

Dodd:  The book they referred to was called Waters Flowing Eastward.  It was a very strong castigation of the Jewish influence in the world.

Griffin:  What were some of the other charges made by Mr. Hayes, against Mr. Reece?

Dodd:  Just that Mr. Reece was utilizing this investigation for his own prominence inside the House of Representatives.  That was the only charge Hayes could think up.

Griffin:  How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations -- the big foundations -- in the very beginning?  What was their motivation?

Dodd:  Their motivation was, well, let's take Mr. Carnegie, as an example.  His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain.  He was devoted just to putting the pieces back together again.

Griffin:  Would that have required the collectivism to which they were dedicated?

Dodd:  No.  No.  No.  These policies are the foundations' allegiance to these un-American concepts;  these policies are all traceable to the transfer of the funds over into the hands of Trustees, Mr. Griffin.  Those Trustees were not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment, or the use of that wealth for what we would call public purposes.

Griffin:  It was a subversion of the original intent, then?

Dodd:  Oh, yes!  Completely so.  We got into the worlds, traditionally, of bankers and lawyers.

Griffin:  How have the purpose and direction of the major foundations changed, over the years, up to the present?  What are their purposes and directions today?

Dodd:  100% behind meeting the cost of education, such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of this United States, on the subject of our history -– to prove that our original ideas are no longer practical.  The future belongs to collectivistic concepts.  There is just no disagreement on this.

Griffin:  Why do the foundations generously support communist causes in the United States?

Dodd:  Well, because, to them, communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly -- as the organization, we'll say, of large-scale industry into an administrable unit.

Griffin:  Do they think that they will?

Dodd:  They will be the beneficiary of it, yes.


[end interview]


#  #  #


This is an edited transcript of a program from the Audio Archives of the Reality Zone.

If you are a subscriber to the Audio Archives, you are entitled to make as many duplicate copies as you wish -- to share with your friends.

There is no additional charge for this, as long as you are a subscriber, and the copies are given freely and not sold.

If you would like to become a subscriber, please ask for our free introductory tape, which provides the details.

“Zone” dwellers receive three cassettes each month in an attractive binder, suitable for book shelves.

For more information, please visit our website at URL:


or call our toll free number:

1-800-595-6596.


The Reality Zone is a subsidiary of American Media.

If you wish to obtain a copy of the videotape on which this program is based, call the Reality Zone at our toll-free number and ask for product information.  That number again is:

1-800-595-6596

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More