POST93?

3:32 P.M.
November 04, 2008
UP CAMPUS

Just finished enrolling for my residency... P1000 STILL CHEAP IN UP!!!
I have given myself this LAST SEMESTER to put in black & white my M.A. thesis... Actually I have produced around 50 pages but these are topsy-turvy with no underlying theme... I lost my momentum some three years ago... One should have written something before one goes to graduate school... I can talk about everything but I have to put it all in writing & here something is giving me a problem... I would like to believe I am under control by witchcraft or remote mind-control preventing me from thinking clearly... I have only my AGAMA to rely on... Sometimes I get so frustrated a nasty thought comes into my mind - why not drop the whole thing?! After spending 5 years on it! I get the urge to drop everything (like what I did to my computer career)... To disprove the saying "NICE GUYS FINISH LAST." My point: REALLY NICE GUYS NEVER FINISH." Academia like the job place is for COMPETITIVE people... Which do you prefer, a lazy self-centered person who has no time to nose on the lives of others or a very hardworking workaholic who is good at exploiting & fooling others?... If I cannot produce within these three months I shall give up everything as lost!

Wanted to post so many things but these three articles taken from some websites would suffice for the moment: (JUST SEARCH INTERNET FOR ORIGINAL)

=======
ARTICLE 1 BIRDFLU
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
– Benjamin Franklin


The Bird Flu “Pandemic” HOAX:
How One Wicked Nation Can Kill Billions with One Lie!

Lorraine Day, M.D., January 24, 2006


When the wicked leaders of a wicked nation want to:

-Create FEAR and CHAOS and TERROR throughout the world

-Take away the rights of citizens in every nation in the world

-Create a world-wide pandemic and annihilation of a large segment of a nation’s population
by forced vaccinations that secretly contain live bacteria and viruses for AIDS, herpes, hepatitis,
and small pox, as well as preservatives made from mercury that cause brain damage and autism

-Control every country in the world by allowing the World Health Organization (WHO)
to enter and take over their emergency medico-political apparatus and place embargos
or quarantines on the entire country

-Eliminate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bans the military from participating
in police-type activity on U.S. soil.
This act specifically prohibits the government from using the military against its own citizens.
(This Posse Comitatus Act was severely violated at Waco,
when U.S. military troops were used against the Branch Davidians.)

-Help create famines in order to annihilate a large portion of the world’s population
by killing off the food supply of any and every nation, by killing their chickens,
turkeys and other birds used for food.

-Declare martial Law and suspend the Constitution

All they need to do is create - out of thin air – the Bird Flu “Pandemic” HOAX!
Almost daily, the newspapers, radio stations and television programs pummel us
with news of the coming Avian Flu “pandemic” and the necessity of developing vaccines
and instituting mandatory vaccination programs - - - for EVERYBODY!

President George W. Bush has spoken repeatedly of a “Military Takeover In Case Of A Flu Outbreak.”
(CNN October 4 & 5, 2005) and possible quarantine of the victims of bird flu!
“I’m concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world,”
the President told reporters during a Rose Garden news conference.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bans the military from participating in police-type activity on U.S. soil.
It was enacted to prohibit the government from using the military to control or attack the citizens
of its own country. Bush began discussing the possibility of changing or eliminating this law
in the aftermath of the government’s sluggish response to civil unrest following Hurricane Katrina.
If this is done, it would allow the government of the United States to use military troops
against its own people (as was already done in the Waco tragedy).

Symptoms of Bird Flu

Let’s examine the widely heralded (supposedly) coming Avian Flu Pandemic
and what impact it could possibly have on the U.S.and the World!

1. What are the symptoms of bird flu in humans?

According to the web site of the (WHO) World Health Organization (www.who.int/csr/don/2004_01_15/en ),
the symptoms of avian influenza (Type H5N1) are:

-Fever
-Sore throat
-Cough
-And possibly, viral pneumonia

The web site of the (CDC) Centers for Disease Control ( www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/facts.htm )
gives the following symptoms for avian flu:

-Fever
-Cough
-Sore throat and muscle aches
-And possibly, pneumonia

Another area of the web site of the CDC at www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/professional/han020405.htm
gives the following symptoms for Avian Flu:

-documented temperature of >38 degrees C
-(>100.4 degrees F ), AND one or more of the following:

---cough,
---sore throat,
---shortness of breath, AND
---History of contact with poultry (e.g. visited a poultry farm,
a household raising poultry, or a bird market)
or a known or suspected human case of influenza A (H5N1)
in an H5N1-affected country within 10 days of symptom onset.

Please note: A temperature of 100.4 degrees Farenheit can be generated on a hot day
in a totally healthy person who has NO disease whatsoever! This is a medical fact.

A cough can occur from a cold, allergies, asthma, air pollution,
certain medications, from smoking, or many other causes.

All these symptoms are non-specific, meaning they can occur in any combination
with a host of medical conditions totally unrelated to bird flu OR regular flu.

So it’s possible for the government to quarantine a person for an indeterminate period of time,
jeopardizing the person’s job and income, if he or she has a cough on a hot day!
(Remember, the symptoms are: a temperature of >100.4 F AND one or more of the following:
cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, OR contact with any type of bird.

2. What are the symptoms of REGULAR flu (NOT avian flu)?
These are also given on the CDC’s web site atwww.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm.
They are the following:

-Fever of 100.4 degrees F or higher
-Headache
-Extreme tiredness
-Dry cough
-Sore throat
-Runny or stuffy nose
-Muscle aches
-Stomach symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, also can occur
but are more common in children than adults.

3. Question: How does anyone differentiate the symptoms of AVIAN FLU (bird flu) from the symptoms of REGULAR FLU?

Answer: As a physician, I can tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell the difference!

“How many people die each year from REGULAR FLU (NOT bird flu)?

“The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states,
“Every year in the United States, on average, 36,000 people die from flu.”
(http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm)

But this is a deliberate deception by the CDC!

“Below are the actual number of flu associated deaths from 1999 to 2002
from the CDC National Vital Statistic Reports:

-753 deaths in 2002 (page 16 of report)
-257 deaths in 2001 (page 16 of report)
-1,765 deaths in 2000
-1,665 deaths in 1999
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52_13.pdf)

“How does the CDC get from 753 flu deaths to its statement that 36,000 flu deaths occur annually?

“By combining flu deaths with pneumonia deaths. The CDC National Vital Statistic Report for 2002
lists Influenza and Pneumonia as the 7th leading cause of death in 2002.
You probably already guessed it – only 753 of those deaths were flu-associated and the rest
of the 36,000 were pneumonia-associated. If all flu-associated deaths are removed,
pneumonia associated deaths still ranks number 7 by itself.
The media used the false 36,000 deaths number in its coverage – 50 times the actual 2002/2003 number.

“Are the 257 to 1,765 reported annual flu deaths from 1999 to 2002 even accurate?

“No. It is not possible to determine the actual number of deaths caused by the flu
because the CDC has no death certificate category for deaths caused only by the flu.
The CDC has three basic categories of flu deaths:

-influenza plus pneumonia
-influenza plus other respiratory manifestations/symptoms
-influenza plus other manifestations/symptoms (non-respiratory)”

“Health professionals may try to justify the legitimacy of combining flu deaths with pneumonia deaths
with the statement that “influenza leads to pneumonia.” But the facts do not support this frequent,
broad misstatement by health professionals.

“The American Lung Association (ALA) describes pneumonia as having over 30 different causes
(one being the influenza virus). Neither the CDC nor ALA know the specific causes of the pneumonias
that resulted in death. However, we do know that influenza is not the major cause.

“Keep in mind that the influenza vaccine provides no protection from bacterial infections.
The National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease as well as other health agencies
estimate that the single bacteria – streptococcus pneumoniae – is responsible for 15% to 50%
of ALL cases of pneumonia in the US, including up to 40,000 deaths annually
( http://www.nlaid.nih.gov/factsheets/pneumonia.htm )

“Pneumonia is also caused by other bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus (staph),
Pertussis (whooping cough), Streptococci, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae (a common cause of “walking” pneumonia).
There are also many non-infectious causes of pneumonia such as asthma, aspiration of fluids, immunodeficiency, etc.

“So, it stretches credibility to assert that the flu causes pneumonia when, in fact,
the data shows that it only causes a small minority of cases of pneumonia.”

CDC,Media Hype The Flu – Facts Show Different Picture Health Supreme by Sepp Hasslberger.
Statistics compiled by Frank Hartman.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/11/06/cdc_media_hype_the_flu_facts_show_different_picture.htm

My Talk With The CDC

Several months ago, I called the CDC and spoke with one of the doctors in the “Flu Division.”
I identified myself by name and as a physician, and he gave me his name and position.
I asked him how a physician like myself could possibly differentiate “Bird flu” from “regular flu.”
He answered, “You really can’t.”

I asked him if we physicians were asked to go house to house to check for people with bird flu
with the possibility of quarantine of the patient (for how long?) and the potential for the quarantine
to cause the person to lose income or even to lose his job, how could we distinguish “Bird flu”
from the “regular flu”? He agreed it would be virtually impossible.

Then I asked him why President George W. Bush was publicly contemplating QUARANTINE for these patients?
His response was, “He didn’t get that from us here at the CDC. That’s ALL politics!”

But now the CDC IS talking about quarantine (I guess they got the message!)

Recently, Julie Gerberding, M.D., Director of the CDC, publicly discussed the possibility of quarantine
as a method of controlling the “Bird flu” even though, by their own admission,
it’s impossible to tell “Bird flu” from “regular flu.”

Remember SARS? How Does SARS fit into all this? What Are the Similarities Between “Bird Flu” and “SARS”?
(according to the CDC’s own website) They have IDENTICAL symptoms:

-Fever of 100.4 degrees F or higher
-Headache
-General discomfort and body aches
-Possibly a dry cough with mild respiratory symptoms

NOW, the question here, of course, is: How does one distinguish the symptoms of “Bird Flu” from “SARS”?

Answer: It is IMPOSSIBLE!

“Bird Flu,” “SARS, and Regular Flu ALL have the SAME symptoms!

How Interesting!!

SARS Was “Billed” as a Coming, Frightening Pandemic!

But just how many people have died from SARS?

According to the website of the World Health Organization (WHO), as of January 21, 2005,
the statistics for SARS are as follows:

8439 people – worldwide - have “been affected” – whatever that means!
Does that mean they contracted the disease of “SARS” but didn’t die,
or does that mean that they were “affected” because they or someone in their family
was just exposed to SARS but did not get sick? The World Health Organization doesn’t tell us.
(“Been affected” is NOT a medical term and the WHO doesn’t explain what they mean.
It sounds like the World Health Organization is trying to make the numbers sound bigger than they really are.)

And 812 deaths WORLDWIDE - over a period of the last 3-4 YEARS!
(If, indeed, we can believe ANY of the figures we receive through the commercial media!)
Now Let’s Put This In Perspective!

Are you aware that EVERY DAY in the U.S. ALONE, more than 1,400 Americans die from Heart Disease?

Remember, that’s EVERY DAY! ---- In just ONE country!

It is absolute NONSENSE to classify “SARS” as a potential pandemic!
This is NOTHING more than rank propaganda! 812 deaths from SARS – Worldwide
– over 3-4 years - compared to 1,400 deaths per DAYfrom heart disease in this country alone!

But SARS Did not Spread Fast Enough to Produce a Pandemic

Because “SARS” did not spread fast enough from country to country
to create the Pandemic that was Predicted (and PLANNED for by the New World Order)
– something else had to be done!

They had to develop --- “SARS” With Wings!! --- “Bird Flu”!!

Now they (the WHO – run by the New World Order) can have this disease
flying from one country to another country wherever they want it to land.
In addition, it allows them to destroy a significant portion of the food supply of any country they wish
– the chickens, turkeys and other birds used for food by the population of these various countries.
The New World Order has found that one excellent way to control a country is to control (or eliminate) their food.
(See the United Nations quote at the end of this article!)

Is This Just “Terror Talk”?
How does one discern “Terror Talk”?
How does one differentiate Truth from Propaganda?

Pay careful attention to the words in the title of the articles,
and the (unfounded) assumptions and pure speculations made by the author
both in the title and throughout the article.
Here are a just a few REAL examples from some “Bird Flu” articles
posted on the internet and in the print media in the last few months:

Indonesia – New Suspected Human Bird Flu Case (Web-Posted 1-8-06)

Notice that this is only a “suspected” Human case.
In many, if not most, instances, the “suspected” case turns out not to be Bird Flu.
But the public is never informed, leaving the impression that the case is real.

Mystery – Bird Flu Fails to Migrate As Expected (Posted 12-29-05)

The word “Mystery” is calculated to created fear in the reader,
fear that no one will know what to do or how to stop the supposed “epidemic.”
This article also suggests that “bird flu” is NOT traveling with migratory birds.
(Maybe that’s because it’s NOT “Bird” flu!)

Bird Flu: How Worried Should You Be? USA TODAY , Oct 11, 2005

Notice that the title is assuming you should be worried!
The ONLY question is HOW worried should you be.
This is cleverly crafted to create unwarranted fear in the reader.

Bird Flu Could Pose Enormous Threat To US Economy Posted 12-9-05

Bird Flu “Could” do anything in the world that the author of the article can conjure up in his imagination.
The use of the word “could” defines this article as pure propaganda.
The article contains projections that have no basis in fact, including exaggerated mortality rates,
and a preposterous figure of 30% of the population being affected.
NOWHERE in the world, is this happening.
This type of propaganda is shameful to the author and offensive to any reader who is a thinking person.

Dangerous Unique H5N1 Mutation in Ukraine? Posted 12-10-05

Notice the question mark at the end of the title.
Nothing in the article has been verified.
This should not even be reported until it is verified.
This type of title (particularly beginning with the word “Dangerous!”)
is specifically designed to put the question into the reader’s brain as though it is a fact.
It is not fact. It is irresponsible to headline articles in this way.

Extensive H5N1 Human-To-Human Transmission In Indonesia? Posted 10-22-05

Here again we have the question mark!
The information in the title is designed to be planted into the reader’s brain as fact
– when it is only a question. This is a deliberately inflammatory title.
This is irresponsible journalism. In addition, the article refers to only 7 or 8 cases,
linked to what is termed four familial “clusters.”
The word “cluster” is being used to imply that there are a number of cases of human-to human-transmission.
On closer examination of the article, the reader finds that the author is using the word “cluster”
to describe only TWO people. “TWO” people cannot be referred to as a “cluster.”
Again, this is deliberately misleading, and irresponsible journalism
designed to strike fear into the heart and mind of the reader,
as well as to imply that this (non) disease WILL cause an epidemic.

Is H5N1 Wild Bird Flu In Canada? Posted 11-17-05

Again, watch for the question mark at the end of the title.
The author is deliberately propagandizing the reader
by implanting the question as a “fact” in the reader’s mind.
But it is NOT a fact and should never be reported unless it IS a fact!

Turkey H5N1 Is Recombining With Mammalian Polymorphisms Posted 1-14-06

The average reader would have no idea what this author is writing about
and does not have the background to understand anything in the article.
All the reader will see is the title, and in the title the words “Turkey H5N1” and “Mammalian.”
This is designed to implant in the reader’s mind the idea
that “Bird Flu” is mutating into “Mammalian” or Human “Bird” flu.
The purpose, again, is to create fear in the reader that the epidemic is getting worse,
when, in truth, the article gives NO evidence to support that notion.

Several solid rules for judging whether an article is propaganda, are:

1) Watch for speculative terms. If the title ends with a question mark this is pure speculation.
This allows the author to use his wildest imagination in developing a scenario to cause fear and panic.

2) Again watch for speculative terms. If the title contains the word “could”, this is pure speculation.
This, again, allows the author to fabricate any outcome he chooses.

3) If the title contains inflammatory words such as “Dangerous” “Suspect” “Mystery” “Worried” “Fear”
“Explode”, the chances are extremely high that this is pure propaganda designed to create fear.

Human Deaths From “Bird Flu” How many deaths from Human “Bird Flu’ have been reported to date?

Approximately 65 deaths in Asia (the main area this “disease” supposedly has affected)
from Human cases of “Bird Flu” have been reported by the World Health Organization (WHO).

According to the Internet World Stats (Usage and Population Statistics),
the population of Asia is 3,622,994,130. That’s 56.4% of the World’s population.

If we divide 65 (supposed deaths from “bird flu”) into 3,622,994,130 people in Asia,
the answer is approximately 54 million.
That means that in Asia there has been ONE death for every 54 MILLION people!
--- HARDLY the statistics necessary to predict a frightening “Pandemic!”
OR to call out the military forces!

That would be similar to declaring an epidemic of “Bird Flu” in the United States
with only 5 or 6 deaths in the entire country! That, of course, would be ridiculous!

But why should we be surprised! George W. Bush is talking about declaring martial law
and calling out the military when there has been NOT ONE SINGLE DEATH
--- OR EVEN ONE PERSON INFECTED with “Bird Flu” in the entire country!

This is nothing more than Fear-mongering Propaganda!

And What Are Our Sources of Information? Can We Trust Them?

We know that the commercial media, including television and the newspapers, is owned by a handful of people,
the vast majority of whom are Zionist Jews.
(If you don’t believe it, just search the web for the owners and CEOs of the TV networks and the major newspapers.)
Here are some of their quotes, demonstrating that we cannot expect to hear truth through their news outlets:

Richard M. Cohan, Senior Producer of CBS political news said:
“We are going to impose OUR AGENDA on the coverage
by dealing with issues and subjects that WE choose to deal with.”

Richard Salant, former President of CBS News stated:
“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have.”

John Swinton, Former Chief of Staff for the New York Times,
called by his peers “The Dean of his Profession” said in 1953:
“There is no such thing. . . as an independent press. .
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,
before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth;
to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon,
and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. . .
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance.
Our talents and our lives are all the property of other men.
We are intellectual prostitutes."

Needless to say, Commercial Television and the Newspapers have completely ceased to be repositories of truth.
They are not trustworthy in any way.

How about the Internet?

Information on Bird Flu comes primarily from the web sites of the following organizations:

-The Centers for Disease Control
-The World Health Organization, and
-ProMed/ISID (International Society for Infectious Diseases)

How reliable are these organizations?

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

This is a highly politicized government organization. For example, the AIDS Information Hotline at the CDC,
where one would call to find out how to be safe from AIDS, is run, not by the CDC!
- a group that has the HIGHEST rate of AIDS in the country! Obviously, they have not learned
– or don’t wish to practice – how to prevent AIDS!

If it is true, as it strongly appears to be, that “Bird Flu” is a HOAX,
perpetrated by the government on the public to create fear, take away personal rights,
make money on vaccinations and drugs for “bird flu”,
cause real pandemics of disease and death by placement of other disease-causing organisms
in the supposed “bird flu” vaccines, destroy huge numbers of turkeys, ducks and other birds
to assist in causing massive famine, all of which will help decrease the population of the world,
--- then if a CDC employee, including the Director of the CDC, refused to go along
with the government propaganda, he or she would be fired for insubordination.

So the CDC is not a trustworthy source of information about “Bird Flu.”

The World Health Organization (WHO)

The World Health Organization is the Population Control/Euthanasia/Genocide arm of the United Nations.
The WHO has the same problems of bias and oversight as the CDC.

The United Nations ultimate goals are

-the redistribution of wealth throughout the world,
-a vast and rapid reduction in the population of the world for “sustainable development”, and
-the elimination of nation-states with the implementation of a One World Government.

In conjunction with Illuminati members such as Prince Philip and Prince Charles of the U.K.,
they want to return the world to what they term a “Post-Industrial” or “Feudal Society”
where there are only three main classes of people – The feudal lords (who own ALL the land),
the administrators who work for the feudal lords, and the slaves, who work the land.
(If you have any doubts about these issues, use your search engine to find information about the Illuminati,
”Sustainable Development”, “Feudalism”, the “Georgia Guidestones - America’s Stonehenge”,
One World Government, and Population Control.
Dr. Stan Monteith’s website www.radioliberty.com has excellent information to get you started.)

One efficient way of reducing the population of the world, the Illuminati has found,
is by the deliberate spread of disease. Bertrand Russell, and advisor to several presidents,
wrote in his book, The Impact of Science on Society,

"At present the population of the world is increasing...
War so far has had no great effect on this increase...
I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population
can be kept from increasing. There are others...
If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation,
survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full...
the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it?
Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."

For thousands of years, all the way back to Nero - and probably before,
dictators have controlled their subjects by Fear and Terror!
It is no different now. The phony “War on Terror,” promoted by U.S. President George W. Bush
and his “Neo-Conservative” Zionist-Jewish controllers, such as Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dov Zakheim, Natan Sharansky, and others like them,
is designed to terrorize Americans into giving up their rights
(Read the Patriot Acts – I & II) whereby they will become slaves of the New World Order.

What could possibly be George W. Bush’s reason for doing this?
Don’t he and his controllers like us common Americans?
The answer is a firm “No.” In fact, they refer to us as “Useless Eaters!”
Leaders of countries rarely have the best interest of their citizens at heart.
If you doubt this, please read Death by Government by R. J. Rummel,
a book that exposes genocide and mass murder by government.
This extensively referenced book reveals that many more citizens
have been murdered by their own government leaders than have been killed in war by foreign powers!

Recently, General Leonid Ivashov, the former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces
when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place, said during the Axis for Peace 2005 Conference,
and now explains publicly, that “international terrorism does NOT exist and that the September 11 attacks
were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers;
this terrorism would not exist without them.” (Posted at www.rense.com 1/22/06)

He explains that this “Terrorism” talk is the weapon used in a new type of war in complicity with the media,
which allows modifying international politics and changing existing reality.
In other words, “Terrify the people with incessant talk of “Terrorism”
so they will give up their rights and become malleable slaves in the hands of the New World Order.”

So the World Health Organization of the United Nations,
which is also promoting this myth of the “War on Terror”
is NOT a trustworthy source of information about “Bird Flu.”

What about the Internet News Outlet – ProMed/ISID? Is it trustworthy?

Let’s investigate who funds ProMed/ISID.

On their website (www.promedmail.org - and click on “About ProMed-mail), you will find the following:

“ProMed-mail and ISID are grateful to the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation,
the Oracle Corporation, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and an anonymous donor for financial support.

Who are these Donors?

The Gates Foundation has been set up by Bill Gates, a Zionist Jew,
to promote the Zionist Jewish agenda,
which is the same as the Illuminati’s agenda.
Their agenda includes a vast reduction in the population of the world,
including the United States, by war, pandemic disease and famine.

The Rockefeller Foundation has the SAME agenda as the Illuminati and the Gates Foundation.
David Rockefeller, a member of the Illuminati, is a founder and member
of several organizations such as the Trilateral Commission,
The Bilderbergers and the Club of Rome, whose purpose is to
a) set up a One World Government,
b) control ALL business throughout the world and,
c) dramatically and rapidly reducing the population of the world
from 6 billion to 500 million, by war, disease and famine.
(Verification for this is readily available on the internet and in many fully referenced books.)

The Oracle Corporation

Oracle’s CEO is Lawrence Joseph Ellison who is identified as a Jew on the Oracle Corporation website.
His biography on that web site states that “Larry Ellison was born out of wedlock
to a 19-year-old mother, and raised by her aunt.
Oracle Corporation went public in 1986 and was on the verge of bankruptcy by 1990
when it was revealed that its revenues had been “overstated” for several years. . .
Ellison’s net worth dropped about 3 1/2 BILLION after September 11, as stocks plummeted
and Oracle stock lost almost 50% of its value.”

It certainly is curious how a little boy, born in the Bronx to a 19 year old single girl could,
before the age of 50, amass a fortune large enough to LOSE 3 1/2 BILLION dollars!

The Nuclear Threat Initiative

The Nuclear Threat Initiative is run by Ted Turner who is infamous
for wanting to eliminate a large majority of the world’s population.

So there we have it. If we’re going to evaluate ProMed/ISID,
we must realize that its funding (and therefore its control) comes from groups,
all of which have the goal of depopulating the earth.

How can we believe anything that comes from ProMed/ISID?
Most certainly they would want to promote a Pandemic by propaganda!
Nothing could please them more.

Also, anything that comes from the Zionist Jewish-controlled commercial media must be highly suspect!

Others who regularly Post “Bird Flu” Information on the Internet

Two others who regularly post information on “Bird Flu” on the web are:
Henry Niman, Ph.D., and a woman with the internet name of Patricia Doyle.

In order to assess the veracity of any individual who posts information on the web or who speaks as an expert,
it is necessary to be able to verify their qualifications.

Henry Niman, Ph.D.

Henry Niman received his Ph.D. at the University of Southern California in 1978
and took a post doctoral position at Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation,
according to his website. His qualifications are verifiable.
He is the Founder and President of Recombinomics, Inc., a company that, monitors viral recombination,
a process that can be used to enhance vaccine development and allow vaccines to be prepared before viruses emerge,” according to his web site, www.recombinomics.com.

Since Dr. Niman’s company is heavily involved with the vaccine industry,
and therefore, would significantly benefit financially from a “Bird Flu” pandemic,
he certainly could have a real conflict of interest in the “Bird flu” situation.
Much of the information he posts would be very difficult, if not impossible, to verify,
as the cases of supposed “Bird Flu” come from obscure, tiny towns and villages
- the smallest “nooks and crannies” on the globe.

How does he get this information?

Where does he get this information?

What are his sources?

It has been over two months now since I e-mailed him, asking him those questions,
and to date I have received no response!

Patricia Doyle

Patricia Doyle (she admits that this is not her real name) chooses to remain a mystery.
She uses the initials Ph.D. and D.V.M. after her name but she refuses to state where or when
she received those degrees. I have e-mailed her directly asking for that information
and she has refused to divulge it.

But she has admitted that she has NOT completed her Ph.D.,
yet she continues to use those initials after her name. This is Scientific Fraud!

She will not state WHERE she received her degrees!

She will not state WHEN she received her degrees!

She will not give her real name.!

This is totally unacceptable in the scientific world, and is insulting to the general public.

Why would anyone, especially a “professed” professional person,
withhold this information unless she is deliberately lying about her qualifications
and whether or not she actually holds these degrees.

Apparently she has shared some of this information with one individual who is not in the scientific world.
But again, none of the information can be verified.

Until she comes clean and answers these questions for the entire public,
she has no right to be considered an expert of ANY kind,
nor should she have a forum on which to espouse her comments.

Her belligerence in deliberately withholding this information from the public,
coupled with her promotion of the information on the (Illuminati/Zionist-Jewish-funded)
ProMed/ISID website raises serious questions about the possibility that she is an infiltrator
and a Zionist-backed disinformation agent.

So how can anyone believe anything she says?

So, How DO We Find Truth?

You may ask, “How can we believe anything? How do we make a judgment on what is really going on?”
The answer is, we can learn to evaluate what they are saying about this supposed “pandemic” in the following ways:

1) The media and the New World Order/Zionist Jewish cabal are using all sorts of hyperbole
when discussing this “Bird flu,” exaggerations that are in no way warranted.
(When something is REALLY going on, such as Mad Cow Disease – or AIDS, especially in the 90’s
– the government was/is covering up and down-playing the truth on both issues.)

2. As mentioned above, the incidence of “Bird flu” in Asia (even if we could believe their figures)
is 1 in 54 MILLION – hardly what one would call a “Pandemic”!

3. Even with ALL their efforts, the Illuminati/Zionist Jewish cabal
was not able to propagandize the public enough to get them to believe the lies about SARS!
So they had to create, out of thin air – “Bird” Flu – which is nothing more than SARS “with wings.”

Now they can have this “disease” flying all over the world, wherever they want it to land
(and how convenient to have it land in countries that are the enemies of the Zionist Jews,
such as the Arab/Muslim nations of Indonesia, Bali, Iraq, Iran, and the City of Mecca,
just in time for the Muslim pilgrimage, and in countries like Turkey and Korea
who are both causing political problems for Israel and it’s subsidiary – the United States.

Isn’t it amazing that the birds infected with “Bird Flu” seem to gravitate to the countries
identified by George W. Bush as the “Axis of Evil!”?

SARS (remember, it has exactly the same symptoms as “Bird flu”)
wasn’t able to travel fast enough from country to country to create the “world-wide pandemic”
the Illuminati had planned, so they had to come up with something with wings! Voila!
--- Bird Flu! SARS with wings!

4. The commercial media is pushing the propaganda of “Bird Flu” about as hard as any propaganda
I have ever seen them promote, including the prospect of forced vaccinations.
The greatest Weapon of Mass Destruction they can use on this country or any other country
is mandatory vaccinations, vaccines that will contain the bacteria and viruses of multiple horrific diseases
(a Super Vaccine containing numerous disease-causing live viruses and bacteria
- something the CDC already admits they are developing) to be forced on EVERYONE!

Then the Illuminati will be absolutely sure to produce the “Pandemic” they desire,
when billions succumb to the very diseases contained in the vaccine injection they received!

5. Real and dangerous diseases like AIDS and Mad Cow Disease,
are purposely down-played and covered up by the government,
even though they will eventually kill millions, and possibly billions,
of people in the U.S. as well as many other countries.

But when a government purposely advertises, promotes, and exaggerates a disease, you can be sure that it’s fake!

Why Would the U.S. Government and the U.N. Perpetuate this HOAX on America and the World?

Answer: Look who benefits – and How!

1. Follow the Money: Imagine the profits from forced vaccinations for every person around the globe!
Followed by huge profits for the medical/industrial complex from drugs used for treatment,
hospitalizations, physician costs, laboratory costs, and medical personnel to enforce quarantines!
The pharmaceutical, vaccine-producing, and other medically related corporations are owned
by the very same people (or their close associates) who run the world.

(See
1) Bilderberg Profits from Bird Flu, Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, Nov. 14, 2005,
2) World Bank To Put Up $1 Billion To Fight Bird Fluwww.noticias.info/asp/aspCommunicados.asp?nid=116016&src=0)

I have received numerous e-mails from Stock Market Investment companies,
showing how an investor can make huge profits on the coming “Bird flu” pandemic!

2. Power and Control: Any individual, group, state or nation that, in any way,
resists the formation of a One World Government, can be quarantined, embargoed, or imprisoned.
The Rulers of the world can stifle or annihilate ALL dissent.

3. De-population of the world: So the world can belong solely to the rich few who rule in tyranny.
They have already begun the de-population the earth by:

-War, in almost every country around the globe
-Abortion, and its #1 promoter - Planned Parenthood
-Infanticide – Soon to come
-Euthanasia – physician-assisted suicide, of the elderly and those who are ill
-Terminator seeds – Seeds that produce fruit that does not, in turn, produce seeds
(such as “seedless” watermelons). These initial seeds have been patented by the mega-corporations,
so the farmer must buy new seeds every year rather than being able to save seeds from his own harvest.
In addition, the farmer can only purchase the seeds from the owners of the mega-corporations.
This becomes so prohibitively expensive that the farmer goes bankrupt.
-Patented Genetically engineered food that can be withheld at will – to promote famines
-Weather control to make growing areas into dust bowls to engineer world-wide famines
(Search the web under “Weather Control.”)
-Destruction of the food supply of the world by killing off the turkeys, ducks and other birds
used for food (because of the irrational fear of “Bird Flu”) in addition to the destruction of cows
(because of the REAL threat of Mad Cow Disease – which they are presently down-playing), and sheep
(because of the REAL threat of “Scrapie” which is Mad Sheep Disease).
This is one of the ways they will bring about massive famines that will starve to death millions of people.
-Man-made Diseases, (such as AIDS) bioengineered in government and military laboratories
to cause super-infectious world-wide pandemics.
-Mandatory Vaccinations developed to CAUSE (not prevent) horrible, deadly diseases in those who receive them,
as well as autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and learning disabilities resulting from the mercury
and other highly toxic substances vaccines contain.
(See Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? by Neil Miller, New Atlantean Press at (www.thinktwice.com)

All of these methods are designed to de-populate the earth so the world can be owned and ruled by the “favored few”,
those who say by self-proclamation, that they have the right and obligation to rule the world.

Here is a quote from the United Nations:

“Food is Power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize.”
Catherine Bertini, executive director U.N. World Food Program, Beijing, China.
U.N. 4th World Conference on Women, September, 1995.

In other words, “Do as we say, or we’ll starve you to death!”
The “Bird Flu” HOAX is only one part of an enormous plan to allow a select few to Rule the World
and enslave or annihilate the rest! Kill Billions Around the World - - - With One Lie!

Addendum: If you’re concerned about your health and the ability to resist all types of diseases,
including the REAL emerging diseases (not “Bird Flu”) that will be perpetrated on the world by the Illuminati,
please understand that you CAN be well, in spite of their evil plans.
Visit my website at www.drday.com and learn how to Get Well and Stay Well
– Naturally
– From ALL Disease
- Without Drugs!

A bit about the Author:

Dr. Lorraine Day is an internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon and best selling author
who was for 15 years on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine
as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics.
She was also Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital
and is recognized world-wide as an AIDS expert.

She survived what was diagnosed as terminal breast cancer without radiation, chemotherapy or mutilating surgery.
She got well by using only natural methods and continues to be totally well and cancer-free,
fourteen years after her cancerous tumor first appeared! (Seewww.drday.com)

She has been invited to lecture extensively throughout the U.S. and the world
and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows including 60 minutes,
Nightline, CNN Crossfire, Oprah Winfrey, Larry King Live, The 700 Club,
John Ankerberg Show, USA Radio Network, Art Bell Radio Show,
Three Angels Broadcasting Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network.


This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead.
We have been taught that we can control government by voting.
The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer,
told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago.
He said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."
Get the picture? Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system.
That's why we advocate using the Liberty Dollar, to understand the monetary and banking system.
Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual.
Not only does this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors
to the National Debt ahead of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this.
It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are in A New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles.
You CAN take back your power and stop volunteering to pay taxes to the collection agency for the BEAST.
You can take back that which is yours, always has been yours and use it to pay off your debts.
And you can send others to these pages to discover what you are discovering.

©2004, Allen Aslan Heart/White Eagle Soaring of the Little Shell Pembina Band,
a Treaty Tribe of the Ojibwe Nation.

=============
TRUTH OR LIE?
YOU BE THE JUDGE... USE YOUR COCONUT...

=======
ARTICLE 2 CFR

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

FINAL WARNING
: A HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

by David Allen Rivera

CHAPTER FIVE

In the spring of 1918, a group of people met at the Metropolitan Club in New York City to form the Council on Foreign Relations.
The group was made up of “high-ranking officers of banking, manufacturing, trading, and finance companies,
together with many lawyers ... concerned primarily with the effect that the war and the treaty of peace
might have on post-war business.” The honorary Chairman was Elihu Root, a Wall Street lawyer,
former New York Senator, former Secretary of War under McKinley, former Secretary of State under Theodore Roosevelt,
member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1912),
and the most recognized Republican of his time. From June, 1918 to April, 1919, they held a series of dinner meetings
on a variety of international matters, but soon disbanded.

In the fall of 1917, a group called ‘The Inquiry’ was assembled by Col. Edward M. House to negotiate solutions
for the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles. They worked out of the American Geographical Society doing historical research,
and writing position papers. The Inquiry was formed around the inner circle of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society,
which was a group of American socialist-oriented intellectuals.

House, President Wilson’s most trusted advisor, who was an admirer of Marx, in 1912,
anonymously wrote the book Philip Dru: Administrator (published by Fabian B. W. Huebsch),
which was a novel that detailed the plans for the takeover of America,
by establishing “socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx,” and the creation of a one-world totalitarian government.
This was to be done by electing an American President through “deception regarding his real opinions and intentions.”
The book also discussed the graduated income tax, and tax-free foundations. The novel became fact,
and Philip Dru was actually House himself.

On May 30, 1919, Baron Edmond de Rothschild of France hosted a meeting at the Majestic Hotel in Paris,
between The Inquiry, which was dominated by J. P. Morgan’s people, and included members such as
– historian George Louis Beers (who later became the U.S. representative for the Round Table),
Walter Lippman, Frank Aydelotte, Whitney H. Shepardson, Thomas W. Lamont, Jerome D. Greene, Col. Edward House,
Dr. James T. Shotwell, Professor Archibald Coolidge, Gen. Tasker H. Bliss (the U.S. Army Chief of Staff),
Erwin D. Canham (of the Christian Science Monitor), and Herbert Hoover
(who, when he was elected to the Presidency in 1928, chose CFR member Henry L. Stimson to be
his Secretary of State); and the Round Table, including members– Lord Alfred Milner, Lord Robert Cecil,
Lord Eustace Percy, Lionel Curtis, and Harold Temperley; to discuss a merger.
They met again on June 5, 1919, and decided to have separate organizations, each cooperating with the other.

On July 17, 1919, House formed the Institute of International Affairs in New York City,
and The Inquiry became the American branch of the Round Table.
Their secret aims were “to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of
all the English-speaking world into one ... to work to maintain peace;
to help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance towards stability, law and order, and prosperity,
along the lines somehow similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London...”

The Council on Foreign Relations, and the Institute of International Affairs, both supporters of Wilson,
strongly supported the League of Nations. However, the Round Table wanted to weaken the League
by eliminating the possibility of collective security in order to strengthen Germany,
and isolate England from Europe so an Atlantic power could be established, consisting of England,
the British Dominions, and the United States. In 1921, when it became apparent that the United States
wasn’t going to join the League, the Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated on July 21st,
consisting of members from both groups, and others who had participated in the 1919 Paris Peace Talks.
The name change was made so that the American branch of the Round Table would appear to be a separate entity,
and not connected to the organization in England.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) became the American headquarters for the Illuminati.
Led by House, who wrote the Charter, they were financed by Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff,
William Averell Harriman, Frank Vanderlip, Bernard Baruch, Nelson Aldrich, J. P. Morgan,
Otto Kahn, Albert H. Wiggin, Herbert H. Lehman, and John Rockefeller.

The membership of the CFR was mainly made up from the 150 members of House’s task force
which worked on the Peace Treaty. Many were associates of the J. P. Morgan Bank.
The first Board consisted of the seven who were on the Merger Committee:
Whitney H. Shepardson (Executive Secretary),
George W. Wickersham (Chairman, Wall Street lawyer, Attorney General for President Taft),
Frank L. Polk (Wall Street banker, Under Secretary of State), Paul Warburg,
William R. Shepherd (president of Columbia University),
Edwin F. Gay (Secretary-Treasurer, who later became the editor of the New York Evening Post
which was owned by CFR member Thomas Lamont, who was a senior partner of J. P. Morgan
and a financial advisor to President Wilson),
and Stephen P. Duggan (director of the International Education Board); plus nine others:
John W. Davis (President, former Ambassador to Great Britain, former Democratic Congressman from West Virginia,
who later became chief counsel for J. P. Morgan & Co., Rockefeller Foundation trustee,
and also a Democratic candidate for the Presidency in 1924),
Elihu Root (Honorary President), Paul D. Cravath (Vice President, NY lawyer),
Archibald Cary Coolidge (Harvard historian), Isaiah Bowman (director of the American Geographical Society),
Norman H. Davis (NY banker, former Under Secretary of State),
John H. Finley (associate editor at the New York Times), David F. Houston (former Secretary of Treasury),
and Otto Kahn (NY banker). Other members included: J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Edward M. House,
Christian Herter, Jacob Schiff, Averell Harriman, Nelson Aldrich, Bernard Baruch, Owen D. Young,
Russell C. Leffingwell, John Dulles, Allen Dulles, James T. Shotwell, Professor Charles Seymour,
Joseph Chamberlain, Philip Jessup, Philip Moseley, Grayson Kirk, Henry M. Wriston, Arthur H. Dean,
Philip D. Reed, John J. McCloy, and Walter Lippman (founder of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society).

Where All Souls College at Oxford University was the base for Round Table operations in England;
the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University,
established by Abraham Flexner of the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller’s General Education Board,
was the center of activities for the American branch.

Their membership grew from 97 in 1921, to 210 in 1922. In 1927, they began to receive funding
from the Rockefeller Foundation, and later the Carnegie Endowment and Ford Foundation;
in addition to the financial support they got from J. P. Morgan and the Wall Street banking interests.
By 1936, their membership reached 250, and they already had a lot of influence on five American newspapers:
The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post,
and the Boston Evening Transcript. This gave them the ability to slant the news in a way
which would reflect their views, and thus begin the process of molding America to suit their needs.

In 1937, the CFR came up with the idea for ‘Committees on Foreign Relations,’
which would be established in various major cities around the country,
for the “serious discussion of international affairs by leading citizens in widely separated communities.”
Between 1938 and 1940, Francis P. Miller organized these mini-Councils with funding from the Carnegie Corporation,
to better influence thinking across the country. John W. Davis said after World War II
that these committees had “provided an avenue for extending the Council to every part of the country.”
These CFR subsidiaries were established in 38 cities: Albuquerque, Atlanta, Billings, Birmingham, Boise, Boston,
Casper, Charlottesville, Chicago (the most prominent), Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Houston,
Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Nashville, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland (ME),
Portland (OR), Providence, Rochester, St. Louis, St. Paul-Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, San Francisco,
Santa Barbara, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Tucson, Tulsa, Wichita, and Worcester.

The CFR has always claimed to be a private organization that doesn’t formulate any government policy,
in fact, the following disclaimer appears on their books:
“The Council on Foreign Relations is a non-profit institution devoted to the study
of the international aspects of American political, economic, and strategic problems.
It takes no stand, expressed or implied, on American policy.”
From the beginning, their goal was to infiltrate the government, and that was done.
Actually, they were so successful, that today, the CFR practically controls, and dictates,
both domestic and foreign policy.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had Henry Wallace (Secretary of Agriculture)
and Louis Douglas (Director of the Budget Bureau) work with a CFR study group on national self-sufficiency,
out of which came the Export-Import Bank and the Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

On September 12, 1939, after the start of World War II,
CFR members Hamilton Fish Armstrong (editor of the CFR magazine Foreign Affairs)
and Walter H. Mallory (Executive Director), went to the State Department
and met with Assistant Secretary of State George S. Messersmith (CFR member),
to offer the services of the Council by establishing a CFR study group concerning the war
and a plan for peace, which would make recommendations to the State Department.
They proposed to do research, and make informal recommendations
in areas regarding national security and economics.
Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles (CFR member) liked the idea,
and the War and Peace Studies Project was initiated with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation,
who gave grants totaling $300,000 over a 6 year period.

Under that umbrella, there were 5 study groups, each with 10-15 men and a full-time paid secretary.
All together, between 1940 and 1945, there were 100 people involved, with 362 meetings,
producing 682 documents, and meets regularly with State Department officials.

War and Peace Studies Project

Norman H. Davis (Chairman)

Walter H. Mallory (Secretary)

Peace Aims: Hamilton Fish Armstrong

Territorial: Isaiah Bowman (President of Johns Hopkins University, geography expert)

Armaments: Allen W. Dulles (international corporate lawyer),
Hanson W. Baldwin (military correspondent for New York Times)

Political: Whitney H. Shepardson (corporate executive who was House’s secretary
at the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference)

Economic & Financial: Alvin H. Hansen (professor of political economy at Harvard),
Jacob Viner (professor of economics at University of Chicago)

In December, 1941, at the urging of the CFR,
the State Department created the 14-member Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy,
in which the CFR was represented by eight of its members (2 more became members later).
The core of the group was Cordell Hull, Sumner Welles, Norman H. Davis,
Myron C. Taylor (corporate executive), Isaiah Bowman and Leo Pasvolsky (economist),
all of whom were CFR members, with the exception of Hull,
and were known as the ‘Informal Political Agenda Group’ which Roosevelt called his “post-war advisers.”
They controlled the Committee, and were assisted by a research staff financed and controlled by the CFR.
In order to formulate a closer liaison between the CFR and the Advisory Committee,
the Research Secretaries from the War and Peace Studies were brought into the State Department
as consultants to the corresponding subcommittee of the Advisory Committee.
The Committee had their last general meeting in May, 1942, and all work from then on
occurred at the subcommittee level.

As World War II came to an end, CFR study groups planned the reconstruction of Germany and Japan,
the establishment of the United Nations, the initiation of the International Monetary Fund,
and the World Bank (the UN International Bank for Reconstruction and Development).
In December, 1943, the CFR began to outline their proposal for the United Nations,
which was presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Historian Ruth B. Russell wrote in her 1958 book,
A History of the United Nations Charter: The Role of the United States, 1940-1945,
that “the substance of the provisions finally written into the (UN) Charter in many cases
reflected conclusions reached at much earlier stages by the United States Government.”

In 1945, the CFR moved into their present headquarters, which was largely financed by Rockefeller;
and the study groups disbanded, with the men in those groups taking their place in the forefront
of national affairs. For instance, Allen Dulles, former President of the CFR,
was appointed director of the CIA; and John Foster Dulles, became Eisenhower’s Secretary of State.
Senator Barry Goldwater would later say: “From that day forward the Council on Foreign Relations
had placed its members in policy-making positions with the federal government,
not limited to the State Department.”

In 1945, Sen. Arthur K. Vandenberg, a leading Republican, and a CFR member,
traveled around the country to drum up support for the creation of the United Nations.
He was also instrumental in getting the Republican-controlled Congress to go along
with Truman’s CFR-controlled foreign policy. When the UN Conference met in San Francisco in 1945,
there were 47 CFR members in the U.S. delegation, including Alger Hiss (a State Department official
and communist spy, who in 1950 was convicted of perjury after denying he had passed secret documents
to the Russians, and was sentenced to five years in prison), Harry Dexter White (a communist agent),
Owen Lattimore (who was called by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee,
a “conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy”), Nelson Rockefeller,
John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson, Harold Stassen, Ralph Bunche, John J. McCloy,
Adlai Stevenson, Philip Jessup, John Carter Vincent (identified as a “security risk”),
Edward R. Stettinius (Secretary of State), Leo Pasvolsky, Joseph E. Johnson,
Clark M. Eichelberger, and Thomas K. Finletter.

In 1925, Lionel Curtis, established the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) in 12 countries,
in order to steer America towards Communism.
The Round Table finger organization was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation,
the Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Ford Foundation.
The American branch received funding from Standard Oil, Vacuum Oil, Shell Oil,
International General Electric, Bank of America, National City Bank, Chase National Bank,
International Business Machines (IBM), International Telephone and Telegraph (IT & T),
Time Magazine, and J. P. Morgan.

The IPR was led by Professor Owen Lattimore, head of Johns Hopkins University School of Diplomacy,
who, during a 1951-52 investigation of the IPR, was identified as a Soviet operative.
The Senate found the group to be “a vehicle toward Communist objectives.”
Men from the IPR (who were all communist or pro-communist) were placed in important teaching positions,
and dominated the Asian Affairs section of the State Department. After a four-year battle,
their tax exempt status was revoked from 1955-1960.

Their publications were used by the armed forces, colleges, and close to 1,300 public school systems.
They published a magazine called Amerasia, whose offices had been raided by the FBI,
who found 1,700 secret documents from various government agencies, including the Army and Navy,
that were either stolen, or given to them by traitors within the State Department.
The Senate Internal Subcommittee concluded that the American policy decision
which helped establish Communist control in China
(by threatening to cut-off aid to Chiang Kai-shek unless he went communist),
was made by IPR officials acting on behalf of the Soviet Union.
Besides Lattimore, they also names Laughlin Curry (an Administrative Assistant to the President,
who was identified as a Soviet agent by J. Edgar Hoover), Alger Hiss, Joseph Barnes,
Philip Jessup, and Harry Dexter White, as Communist sympathizers.
While he was Assistant Secretary of Treasury, Harry Dexter White provided Russia
with the means of printing currency. He became Director of the International Monetary Fund in 1946,
but resigned in 1947, when Whittaker Chambers accused him of being pro-communist, which he denied.
In November, 1948, after White’s death, Whittaker produced five rolls of microfilmed documents,
which included eight pages of U.S. military secrets which had been written by White.

After World War II, the CFR was able to expand its study programs with grants of $1.5 million
from the Ford Foundation, $500,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation, and $500,000 from the Carnegie Endowment.

Pro-communist Cyrus Eaton, Sr., a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize,
established the ‘Joint Conferences on Science and World Affairs,’
also known as the ‘Pugwash Conferences,’ in 1945, to gather intellectuals from across the world,
and to exchange information on ways to push America towards disarmament.
The group was financed by the CFR, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
In 1959, a disarmament proposal developed by the CFR, and discussed at the Conference,
became the basis for Kennedy’s disarmament policy in September, 1961.

In Study No. 7 (‘Basic Aim of U.S. Foreign Policy’), published by the CFR in November, 1959,
they revealed their plans for the country: “The U.S. must strive to build a new international order ...
(which) must be responsive to world aspirations for peace ... (and) for social and economic change...
including states labeling themselves as ‘Socialist’ … (and to) gradually increase the authority of the UN.”
They also advocated secret negotiations with Russia concerning disarmament, and increased foreign aid to China.
The foreign policy of the CFR seemed to mirror that of the U.S. Communist Party,
only because a change to a socialistic form of government would bring them that much closer
to a one-world government.

THE CFR ELECTS NIXON

The career of Richard M. Nixon began in 1946, when, backed by Eastern Establishment money,
he came out of obscurity to defeat incumbent Congressman Jerry Voorhis in California, who was anti-Federal Reserve.
Voorhis wrote in a pamphlet called Dollars and Sense:
“...the representatives of the American people in Congress
should speedily proceed to transfer the ownership of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks
from the private ownership of the member banks to the ownership of the nation itself.”

In 1952, Nixon and Earl Warren, then the Governor of California,
helped create an Eisenhower majority within a California delegation that had been leaning towards Robert Taft,
an anti-communist. Nixon was rewarded by being selected as the Vice-President,
while Warren was named to the Supreme Court.

During the 1960 Republican Convention, Nixon, the Republican nominee, left Chicago and flew to New York,
where he secretly met with Nelson Rockefeller.
A subsequent news release indicated that Rockefeller had requested the meeting,
when in fact Nixon had. The result of the meeting was the Fourteen Points of the “Compact of Fifth Avenue,”
which injected Rockefeller’s socialistic plans into the Platform of the Republican Party.

After losing to Kennedy, Nixon ran for Governor in California, but lost to Pat Brown in 1962.
He left his law practice, and moved to New York, where he worked as a partner in the law firm of John Mitchell,
who was Rockefeller’s personal attorney. He lived in an apartment at 810 Fifth Avenue,
a building owned by Rockefeller. He was a CFR member from 1961-65, and it was during this time
that Nixon rebuilt his political career.

On November 22, 1963, the citizens of Dallas, Texas, found in their Dallas Morning News
an unsigned leaflet titled “Wanted for Treason.” At the top appeared John F. Kennedy’s picture,
and a list of reasons for the accusation.
It was later discovered that it had been drafted at a Pepsi-Cola ‘convention’ in Dallas,
by lawyers of the Rockefeller law firm of Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, and Alexander,
to be used as an attack on Kennedy during the 1963 Presidential campaign.
There is more than one Kennedy Assassination researcher who feels
that Nixon had prior knowledge of Kennedy’s shooting, though no hard evidence has ever come to light.

While it is widely accepted that there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy’s death,
as the volumes of evidence prove, there has never been a single group pinpointed
as the mastermind of such a plan. The complexities involved in such a cover-up,
certainly point to the Illuminati, because they are the only group in the world,
operating behind the scenes, able to influence and control all the elements necessary
to pull off something like this. His murder was carried out publicly,
because they wanted the political leaders in this country to know who was in control.

Ten days before he was shot in Dallas, it has been reported that President Kennedy said
in a speech at Columbia University: “The high office of President has been used
to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office
I must inform the citizen of this plight.”

There has been a phenomenal amount of research done on the case of President Kennedy’s murder,
and it almost seems that when he died, the tide changed in this country.
The forces behind the assassination of Kennedy were able to change the course of history at will,
and with the new-found confidence at their success, the power they gained,
literally allowed them to exert complete control over American government.

One fact that linked the Illuminati to the Kennedy conspiracy was the oil connection.
Huge oil fields had been discovered off the coast of Vietnam in 1950,
and Rockefeller was able to use oil as a ploy to ferment a fear
that Vietnam would be lost to Communism, the way Cuba was.
However, Kennedy wanted to end American involvement in the war,
and in October, 1963, he recalled 1,000 so-called advisers.
He planned to bring home all American soldiers by 1965.
After Kennedy was eliminated, the U.S. government escalated the war in Vietnam.
Billions of dollars was being made from the war, because war is good business.
This money source would have ended.

Though the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), an offshoot of the Coordinator of Information,
was initiated in 1942 by President Roosevelt, President Harry Truman was the one responsible
for its evolution into the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947.
He also began to see its growing power. In a column that appeared in the Washington Post on December 21, 1963,
he revealed his feelings about the agency:
“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment.
It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…”
On January 16, 1961, in his ‘Farewell to the Nation,’ President Eisenhower said:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”
Kennedy’s hatred of the CIA was well-known. After the Bay of Pigs disaster,
he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (who had secretly developed plans to expand the Vietnam War),
and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
Using a federal statute, Kennedy was going to force J. Edgar Hoover,
the aging Director of the FBI, to retire, because he wanted somebody who better represented his New Frontier.

Conservative in his economics, it was his intention to circumvent the Federal Reserve,
by returning the authority to “coin and regulate money” back to the Congress,
rather than have it manipulated by the international bankers who print the money
and then loan in back to the federal government– with interest.
On June 4, 1963, he signed Executive Order #11110
which called for the issuance of $4.3 billion in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury,
rather than the Federal Reserve, very similar to what Abraham Lincoln did.
The Order also provided for the issuance of “silver certificates against any silver bullion,
silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption
of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates,
and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption…”
This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault,
the government could issue money against it.
This resulted in the introduction of more than $4 billion worth of U.S. Notes into circulation,
consisting of $2.00 and $5.00 bills; and although they were never issued,
$10.00 and $20.00 notes were in the process of being printed when Kennedy was killed.
On Monday, November 25, 1963, the day of Kennedy’s funeral,
President Johnson signed an executive order to recall the U.S. Notes
that had been issued by Kennedy’s earlier directive; and five months later,
the Series 1958 Silver Certificate was no longer issued, and was subsequently removed from circulation.

And to top matters off, he advocated a strong West Germany;
and after winning the showdown with Russia over Cuba,
signed a limited nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets.
Needless to say, Kennedy’s agenda was contrary to the plans for a New World Order.
As Jacqueline Kennedy was getting ready to leave Air Force One when it arrived in Washington,
still wearing the bloodstained clothing from Dallas, she said:
“I want them to see what they have done.”
A very strange comment to make since Oswald was already in custody.

In 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy promised an honorable end to the Vietnam War,
and with Martin Luther King, Jr. delivering the Black support,
Kennedy most likely would have been elected President.
However, that did not fit into the plans of the Illuminati, who wanted to prolong the war,
and wanted Nixon to be President, because he represented the instrument
that would perpetuate their goals. Again, there is plenty of evidence
that points to a conspiracy in the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy, as well as King.
The likelihood that the same forces were involved is evident, because again,
the course of the nation was altered to fit into their plans.

The Illuminati didn’t want Nixon elected in 1960, and to insure that he wasn’t,
Eisenhower told the country that he couldn’t think of a single thing that Nixon had done to help,
during the eight years of his Administration.
That comment and his haggard appearance during the debates,
were the two main things that kept him from being elected.
However, in 1968, the responsibility of moving the country closer to socialism,
and towards a one-world government, was put upon his shoulders.
Former Secretary of the Navy, J. William Middendorf II, Finance Chairman of Nixon’s 1968 campaign,
said that at 5:30 AM on the morning after Nixon’s election victory,
Nelson Rockefeller and William Rogers went to Nixon’s room to help select his Cabinet.

He appointed Mitchell, his campaign manager, to be his Attorney General.
He appointed Henry Kissinger to be his Secretary of State,
even though Kissinger’s views were the complete opposite of his own.
In reality, the Kissinger appointment was urged by Nelson Rockefeller,
so the Illuminati could control U.S. foreign policy.
At the beginning of each of his terms, Nixon offered the post of Treasury Secretary to David Rockefeller,
but he refused it. It was Nixon who chose George Bush, the former Texas Congressman,
to be the Chairman of the Republican Party, after Bush lost the Senate race to Democrat Lloyd Bentsen in Texas;
and later appointed him to be the Ambassador to the UN, the Ambassador to China, and the Director of the CIA.

In his 1971 State of the Union Address, Nixon said:
“We in Washington will at last be able to provide government that is truly for the people.
I realize that what I am asking, is that not only the Executive Branch,
but even the Congress will have to change by giving up some of its power.”
Three days later, he announced that the country was being divided up into ten federal districts,
and in February, 1972, he signed Executive Order #11647,
which gave the government the power to accomplish that division.
The Ten Regional Councils, a direct extension of the Executive Branch, since then,
have been getting control of local, county, and state governmental functions, through federal loans.

Nixon told ABC news correspondent Howard K. Smith, that he was “Keynesian in economics.”
This was a reference to John Maynard Keynes, the English economist and Fabian socialist,
who said he was promoting the “euthanasia of capitalism.”
Even though his policies had already indicated it, Nixon was basically saying that he was a Socialist.

Nixon had resigned from the CFR in 1962, when it became an issue
in the California gubernatorial primary campaign, but later rejoined.
In his book, Six Crises, he wrote: “Admitting Red China to the United Nations
would be a mockery of the provision of the Charter which limits its membership to ‘peace-loving nations’...”
Yet he wrote in the October, 1967 edition of Foreign Affairs about how he would have a new policy towards Red China.
Even after a July 15, 1971 statement on Radio Peking in China
that called for the “people of the world, (to) unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs,”
Nixon accepted an invitation by Premier Chou En Lai to go to China,
where the groundwork for trade relations was established.

In the early 1970’s, things began to go sour for Nixon.
It was the establishment newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times
who forced a third-rate burglary onto the front pages, and turned Watergate into a major media event,
which forced President Nixon to resign from office. As more and more facts came out,
it was quite obvious that Watergate was a move by the Illuminati to get rid of an uncooperative President.

Watergate can actually be traced back to 1956, when Nixon’s brother, Donald,
received a secret loan from Howard Hughes.
It proved to be embarrassing when it surfaced during the 1960 Presidential election.
Nixon vowed revenge against the Democrats, and later discovered
that Democratic Party Chairman Lawrence F. O’Brien had been secretly retained by Hughes.
Nixon sent a memo to Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman, in January, 1971,
to get his Special Counsel Charles Colson to get the proof so that they could expose him.
It was believed that the second break-in at the Democratic National Committee on June 16-17, 1972,
was to retrieve any derogatory information the Democrats had on the Republicans,
but it was later revealed that the main goal was to place a bug on the frequently used phone
that was in the area of the DNC that housed the offices of R. Spencer Oliver, his secretary,
and the Chairman of the State Democratic Governors organization.

In March, 1974, financier Robert Vesco told CBS’s Walter Cronkite in an interview, that six months before Watergate,
a group had come to him who “were going to attempt to get initial indictments of some high officials
using this as a launching board to get public opinion in their favor and using the press media to a great degree.
The objective was to reverse the outcome of the public election.”
There had been an article in the Washington Post pertaining to a secret contribution to the Republican Party,
and this group of Democrats had went to him, seeking more information to use against Nixon.
The three people that Vesco dealt with, “were names that everyone would recognize
(who) held extremely high posts in past Administrations.”
Vesco told New York Times writer Neil Cullinan, that Watergate was intentionally created to stop Nixon.

Nixon aide Bruce Herschenson said that the Watergate plot
was deliberately sabotaged “by a non-elected coalition of power groups.”
Former CIA agent, James W. McCord, Jr., the security chief for the Committee to Re-Elect the President,
has been accused of being a double agent, and used to bring Nixon down
by sabotaging the break-in at the Watergate Hotel.

There is evidence to believe that the police had been tipped off on the night of the break-in.
Detective Lt. Carl Shoffler, and three other officers, who usually went off duty at midnight,
just happened to stay on for the next shift, and was parked just a minute away from the hotel complex.
When the security guard, Frank Wills, found the tape on the door, and called the police,
it was those officers who came immediately to arrest the White House ‘plumbers’ (Special Investigations Unit).
To top it off, McCord and Shoffler were friends.

McCord had entered the Watergate while it was still open,
and put some tape on one of the doors so it wouldn’t lock.
The tape was put on horizontally, so that it could be seen between the doors.
When the ‘plumbers’ arrived hours later, instead of the doors being open, they were locked,
which indicated that the piece of tape had been discovered.
They left, since there was no longer any assurance of a successful operation.
McCord told them to go back and pick the lock, since the police had not been called.
E. Howard Hunt and his Cuban accomplices, did this, and left tape on the door for McCord to get in.
About five minutes later, he joined them. He was supposed to remove the tape from the door,
but he didn’t; however, he told the other ‘plumbers’ that he did.
He also instructed them to shut-off their walkie-talkies, so the static wouldn’t be heard,
which means they were inside the office without being able to hear any outside communications taking place.
They were caught, when Wills discovered the door taped for a second time.

Afterward, on March 19, 1973, McCord wrote a letter to Judge John J. Sirica,
which turned the Watergate affair into a national crisis,
by saying that Attorney General John Mitchell was involved,
that campaign money was used to pay the ‘plumbers,’
and that the White House was trying to blame the CIA;
when in fact the White House had engineered the entire operation,
and Nixon covered it up. This came after Nixon held a press conference to say:

“There is no involvement by the White House.”

In the years since Watergate occurred, one simple fact seems to have emerged, and that is,
that Nixon probably had no prior knowledge of the break-in.
White House Counsel John Dean III ordered it and
“deceived the President of the United States into joining a conspiracy
to obstruct justice in order to cover up a crime that Nixon had not committed.”

If it wouldn’t have been for the discovery of the Watergate tapes,
Nixon may very well have survived the scandal.
Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr., an aide to National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger,
who later became Nixon’s Chief of Staff, controlled the vault where the tapes were kept,
and secretly made copies of the transcripts available.

Haig became Cyrus Vance’s (CFR member, Secretary of the Army,
later Deputy Secretary of Defense under Robert McNamara, who was also a CFR member) assistant in 1962.
After a short tour of duty in Vietnam in 1966, where he was decorated for bravery,
he was made a full colonel in 1968. He transferred to West Point
to assist Commandant Gen. Andrew Goodpaster (CFR) for two years,
after which Goodpaster recommended Haig to Kissinger in 1969,
and Haig was put on the National Security Council.
In less than a year, he was promoted to general, and in two more years, to major-general.
Although he had served only four months as a battalion commander, and one month as a brigade commander,
in 1972 he was given four stars, and nominated for Army Vice Chief of Staff.
It was said, that 183 other generals, who were more deserving, were passed over.
Ford would later promote him to Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.
He resigned in 1979 because he was critical of Carter’s defense and foreign policies.
He became the chief operating officer of United Technologies,
only to return to government for 18 months as Reagan’s Secretary of State.
Haig was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

John Dean claimed that ‘Deep Throat,’ the man who leaked information to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post,
was Alexander Haig. Haig denied it. Woodward had claimed that he didn’t meet Haig until 1973,
however, it has since been revealed that prior to Woodward becoming a reporter, he was a lieutenant in the Navy,
and as a special briefing officer, and had contact with Haig at the National Security Office in the White House.
It now appears that Haig had a huge role in bringing Nixon down.

So why did the Illuminati turn against Nixon? In addition to the previously mentioned economical changes,
he infuriated Kissinger by bombing North Vietnam without consulting anyone.
It was even rumored that Nixon was planning to get rid of Kissinger.
However, Kissinger was the Illuminati’s man in the White House, and his job was to control Nixon,
so he was the one running the show.

Some very interesting information surfaced about Henry Kissinger.
In 1961, Col. Gen. Michael Goleniewski, of Polish Intelligence (GZI), defected to the United States,
bringing with him 5,000 pages of secret documents, 160 microfilms of secret reports,
800 pages of Russian intelligence reports, plus the names of hundreds of Soviet agents
in American and Europe. State Department Security Officer, John Norpel, Jr.,
testified before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
that the information provided by Goleniewski was never proven to be inaccurate,
and Goleniewski was honored by the 88th Congress for his efforts.

The documents indicated that after World War II, Russia established an ODRA spy ring in Poland
to infiltrate British and American intelligence. The GZI, discovered that one communist agent,
code-named ‘Bor,’ had worked with another agent,
Ernst Bosenhard (a clerk at the U.S. Intelligence Headquarters in Oberammergau, Germany),
who had been sending secret documents to Moscow. Bosenhard was convicted of espionage in 1951.
‘Bor’ returned to the United States, and was secretly working with the CIA,
while teaching at Harvard University. ‘Bor’ was identified as Sgt. Henry Alfred Kissinger.

Kissinger became a consultant on security matters during the Administrations of Eisenhower,
Kennedy, and Johnson; and served as Nelson Rockefeller’s chief advisor on foreign affairs.
In his book White House Years, he called Rockefeller, “the single most influential person in my life.”
His book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, in 1957,
established him as the leading authority on U.S. strategic policy,
and he was the one who initiated the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT).
There should be little doubt where his allegiances are in regard to his support of one-world government.

This story took on additional meaning, when in 1965, former CIA Chief of Research and Analysis,
Herman E. Kimsey, used fingerprint, dental and medical records, handwriting analysis, blood tests,
and interviews with childhood friends and relatives to reach a conclusion
that Goleniewski was actually Aleksei Romanoff, the son of Nicholas II,
who survived the alleged Communist massacre of the Russian Royal family.

The Bolshevik government had claimed, that in the middle of the night, July 16, 1918,
they had captured the seven members of the Russian Imperial family,
which included the Czar Nicholas, his wife (Alexandra), son (Aleksei),
and four daughters (Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia);
as well as Dr. Eugene Botkin, the imperial physician, and three servants;
and murdered them in the basement of the Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg (now Sverdlovsk).
They took their bodies fourteen miles away to the abandoned Four Brothers Mine,
soaked the bodies with gasoline, attempted to burn them, and buried them in the swamp.
They were only successful in burning the two youngest ones, Aleksei and Anastasia.
Their personal belongings were thrown down a mine shaft.
Fearing that they would be discovered, two days later, the bodies were retrieved.
Those remaining were buried in the middle of a dirt road, where in 1979,
they were discovered by a local historian and Soviet television personality,
who excavated two skulls, analyzed them, and then reburied them.
The discovery was finally announced in 1989.

In 1991, the final resting place of the Romanov’s was “reopened for the last time,”
and the remains, a box of bones purported to be five of the seven Romanov’s,
were removed for DNA analysis. In 1995, the tests results were released,
which indicated that the remains were that of the Royal family.
However, many Russians doubted the claims, and in 1998, when a funeral was finally held,
the head of the Russian Orthodox Church ordered the officiating priest
not to refer to Romanov’s by name, but instead, as the “victims of the Revolution.”
The priest said before the funeral: “The truth is I don’t know who I am burying.”

According to the official report, there were a total of 23 people in the cellar,
which measured 17 feet by 14 feet. One of the first investigator’s on the scene,
Captain Malinovsky, of the Officer’s Commission, concluded:
“As a result of my work on this case I became convinced that the imperial family was alive.
It appeared to me that the Bolsheviks had shot someone in the room
in order to simulate the murder of the imperial family…”
Some have suggested that it was only Dr. Botkin and the servants who were shot.

In December, 1970, documents released by the British Government revealed
that President Wilson backed a secret mission to Russia that resulted in the rescue of the Czar and his family,
who were smuggled out of Russia in the back of trucks, and then taken by ship to Europe
where they have lived since 1918. The Report said that,
“Sir William Wiseman, a partner in the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.,”
received $75,000 from the U.S. government as part of a “scheme” for a secret mission
to rescue the Czar and his family.

Prince Kuli-Mirza, commander of the ‘White Russian’ forces,
believed that the Royal family survived, and showed Gleb Botkin, the son of the Czar’s doctor,
documents which said that “the imperial family had first been taken to a monastery in the province of Perm,
and later to Denmark.” A 1919 book called Rescuing the Czar, by James P. Smyth,
who identified himself as an American secret agent,
revealed how he led the Romanovs through a secret tunnel to the British Consulate in Ekaterinburg,
and from there they were secretly taken to Tibet.

The remains of the two youngest of the Romanov children, Aleksei and Maria,
have never officially been located; and through the years,
there has been some evidence to suggest that Aleksei and Anastasia may have survived the execution.
An entry in the diary of Richard Meinertzhagen, a former British intelligence agent,
suggested that one of the Czar’s daughters escaped;
and in the 1993 book The Romanov Conspiracies, British writer, Michael Occleshaw,
also claimed that one of the Czar’s daughters survived.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Russia and Germany,
which was signed on March 3, 1918 to end the hostilities between them,
was said to also contain a codicil that guaranteed that the Romanov’s would not be harmed.
The Russian people were to continue believing that they were dead,
so the communists could replace the monarchy.
It had been hoped that the Bolshevik government wouldn’t survive, so they could return, but it never happened.

On June 11, 1971, the New York Daily Mirror announced the exclusive publication of “Reminiscences of Observations”
by ‘His Imperial Highness Aleksei Nicholaevich Romanoff, Tsarevich and Grand Duke of Russia.’
The U.S. Government never officially recognized Goleniewski as a Romanov,
because history reported that prince had suffered from hemophilia, an incurable genetic disease
– but Goleniewski didn’t.

The Czar left millions in American and European banks, which today is worth billions,
and some researchers have made the claim, that the respective governments wanted to keep the Romanovs “dead,”
because without the existence of a surviving heir, the money that had been left behind
probably had already been ‘taken’ by the international bankers.
Goleniewski pledged that as the Czar’s heir, if he would be granted his rightful inheritance,
he would use the money to destroy Communism.

Nixon also angered the Illuminati because of his choice of Vice Presidents.
After Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned because of income tax evasion charges,
Establishment insiders had urged Nixon to appoint Nelson Rockefeller.
However, Nixon instead, appointed Gerald Ford to be his Vice President
(who, when he became President, did appoint Rockefeller to be his VP).
If Rockefeller would have been appointed, he would have become President after Nixon was destroyed.
So, Nixon ruined their plans, and may have known that, because after he resigned,
he was having problem with a swollen leg, and said that if he would have gone to Bethesda Naval Hospital
to get it taken care of, he would have “never come out alive.”

Later, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme would attempt to shoot Ford on September 5, 1975; and on September 22, 1975,
Sara Jane Moore would also attempt to shoot Ford.
Moore said she was trying to expose the nation’s “phony system of government”
by elevating “Nelson Rockefeller to the Presidency.”
In a June, 1976, Playboy interview, she said that there was a “part that I don’t think I can talk about.
I just haven’t figured out a way to talk about it and protect everyone.
I’m not saying that anyone helped me plan it. I’m not just saying that there are other things
– which means there are other people, though not in terms of a conspiracy.
There are areas I’m not willing to talk about for a lot of reasons.”
The article also said that U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti,
“added to the air of mystery surrounding her case (and) sealed all the trial evidence.”
This certainly gives some serious overtones to the attempts on Ford’s life,
and if they were actually intended to elevate Rockefeller to the Presidency.

The bottom line seems to be, that Nixon got cocky.
With the Illuminati hoping to have world control by 1976 (it was “rescheduled” for the mid-eighties),
Nixon was hoping to follow in the steps of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt who were virtual dictators,
and began acting on his own to bring about change, so he could head the world government.
On May 21, 1971, James Reston (CFR) wrote in an article that appeared in the New York Times:
“Mr. Nixon would obviously like to preside over the creation of a new world order,
and believes he sees an opportunity to do so in the last twenty months of his first term.”
It is likely that the plan to get rid of Nixon was beginning to take shape at that time.

In the summer of 1973, Republicans partial to Nixon had announced to the Washington media
that they wanted Nixon to be elected to a third term and had organized a group
known as ‘The Committee to Repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment.’
The movement sort of died within a couple of weeks.
Then in October, came the rumor that Nixon may be considering a military coup to stay in office.
Gen. Alexander Haig told the Congress during his confirmation hearings
for the position of Secretary of State on January, 1981, that some people in Washington
were “flirting with solutions which would have been extra-Constitutional.”
Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski warned the grand jury, that if they decided to indict Nixon,
he may use force to remain in office. In June, 1982, Harold Evans, Watergate grand juror,
appearing on a segment of the ABC-TV news show “20/20.” said that Jaworski told them,
that if they indicted Nixon, he might “surround the White House with armed forces.”

On October 26, 1973, in a Washington Star article called “Has President Nixon Gone Crazy?”
syndicated columnist Carl Rowan wrote:
“…in the face of a vote to impeach he might try, as ‘commander-in-chief’ to use military forces
to keep himself in power.” In another article called “The Pardon,”
in the August, 1983 edition of the Atlantic Monthly,
Seymour Hersh, one of Nixon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that in a December 22, 1973 meeting:

“He kept on referring to the fact that he may be the last hope,
(that) the eastern elite was out to get him. He kept saying,
‘This is our last and best hope. The last chance to resist the fascists’ (of the left).
His words brought me straight up out of my chair. I felt the President,
without the words having been said, was trying to sound us out to see
if we would support him in some extra-constitutional action ...
(Secretary of Defense James) Schlesinger began to investigate
what forces could be assembled at his order as a counterweight to the Marines,
if Nixon– in a crisis– chose to subvert the Constitution.
The notion that Nixon could at any time resort to extraordinary steps
to preserve his presidency was far more widespread in the government than the public perceived...”

He felt it would be led by General Robert Cushman, the Marine Representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
who had been loyal to Nixon ever since he had been his military aide
while he was the Vice President under Eisenhower. Schlesinger,
in July, 1974, believing the Washington contingent of Marines to be the probable force used in a coup attempt,
began developing a strategy to bring in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On August 2, 1974, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger admitted that General Haig
had informed him that Nixon was considering the idea of surrounding the White House with troops.
In an August 27, 1974. article in the Washington Post, called “Military Coup Fears Denied,”
the fact was revealed that: “Defense Secretary James Schlesinger requested a tight watch
in the military chain of command to ensure that no extraordinary orders went out
from the White House during the period of uncertainty (and) that no commanders of any forces
should carry out orders which came from the White House, or elsewhere, outside the normal military channels.”

Tantamount to a military coup, and contrary to the Constitution,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent a secret communiqué to all Commanders of the U.S. military forces around the world:
“Upon receipt of this message you will no longer carry out any orders from the White House. Acknowledge receipt.”

Rather than a plot by the Illuminati to militarily take over the government,
it seemed to be more of an attempt by Nixon to keep from getting pushed out of office
by the powers that actually run this country. In the end, he knew what kind of power he was dealing with,
and resigned his office on August 9th, rather than risk what remaining credibility he had,
by trying to grab what he could not hold. His resignation also prevented an impeachment trial,
which may have allowed secret information to come to light.

=======
ARTICLE 3 ZIONIST PLAN FOR MIDDLE EAST

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism,
says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates."

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony
to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947:
"The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates,
it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."

from Oded Yinon's
"A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"
Published by the
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.
Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982
Special Document No. 1
(ISBN 0-937694-56-8)
The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate
its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon's article which appeared
in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization.
Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel.
To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date
of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation
of the "vision" for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan.
Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.

The plan operates on two essential premises.
To survive, Israel must
1) become an imperial regional power, and
2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states
by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.
Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state.
Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel's satellites and,
ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking.
Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.
This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,
Israel's Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach.
Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel,
Rokach's study documents, in convincing detail,
the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon
and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.

The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail.
The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982,
aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon,
but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments.
This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire
for a strong and independent Lebanese central government.
More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government
that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them.
They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian
and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people.
What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world,
but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony.
Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980's," talks about
"far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967" that are created
by the "very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel."

The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy,
but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war.
An appendix entitled "Israel Talks of a New Exodus" is included in this publication
to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show,
besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.

It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982,
that the "far-reaching opportunities" of which Zionist strategists have been thinking
are the same "opportunities" of which they are trying to convince the world
and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion.
It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans,
but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people
negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however,
especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.

Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document,
Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence.
There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications.
Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds.
This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut.
The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East
is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh
July 23, 1982

FOREWORD
The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime
(of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states,
and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states.
I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note.
Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units,
occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking.
For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel,
on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq:
"The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part"
(Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent,
especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West"
from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear:
To make an Imperial Israel into a world power.
In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text,
is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel.
Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential,
or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully
the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933,
which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement,
and determined their aims for East Europe.
Those aims, especially the division of the existing states,
were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale
prevented their consolidation for a period of time.

The notes by the author follow the text.
To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own,
but have put the substance of them into this foreword
and the conclusion at the end.
I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak
June 13, 1982
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon
This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions),
A Journal for Judaism and Zionism;
Issue No, 14--Winter, 5742, February 1982,
Editor: Yoram Beck.
Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid.
Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.

At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel
is in need of a new perspective as to its place,
its aims and national targets, at home and abroad.
This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes
which the country, the region and the world are undergoing.
We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history
which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics
are totally different from what we have hitherto known.
That is why we need an understanding of the central processes
which typify this historical epoch on the one hand,
and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy
in accordance with the new conditions.
The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state
will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.

This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose,
and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle.
The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook
as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance.
The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation
have been based on several "truths" which are presently disappearing
--for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe
and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs.
This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear
that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man's requirements,
his economic needs or his demographic constraints.
In a world in which there are four billion human beings
and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind,
it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society,1
i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption.
The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes,
but rather his material needs do--that view is becoming prevalent today
as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing.
We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things,
especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.

The vision of man's limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life,
when we witness the break-up of world order around us.
The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd
in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes.
The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism
and especially by Communism into a laughing stock.
There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas,
but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly
and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice.
In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years,
the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR
holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has:
that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism,
but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2

The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West,
are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations.
Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch
that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish
a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war,
in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child's play.
The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality
will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel.
That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world.3
The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West
to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know,
given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West
by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf
and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located.
We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.

The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World.
That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage,
win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West's military might well be destroyed
and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism,
is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence.
Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz' dictum into "War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,"
and made it the motto which guides all their policies.
Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world,
and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country's security policy
and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4

The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties,
despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might.
This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive,
as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria,
is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems
and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run,
but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import.
In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework
in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes.
The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners
(France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires
of the inhabitants having been taken into account.
It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups
which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within,
and in some a civil war is already raging.5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).

Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers.
In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country.
Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara,
in addition to the internal struggle in each of them.
Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view,
from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation.
That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine,
like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other,
an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians.
In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt:
some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear
that they will want a state of their own, something like a "second" Christian Lebanon in Egypt.

All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb.
Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it.
But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi'ite Alawi ruling minority
(a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.

Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni.
Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power.
In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime,
the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today.
The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran,
a leader whom the Shi'ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.

All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil.
In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population.
In Bahrain, the Shi'ites are the majority but are deprived of power.
In the UAE, Shi'ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power.
The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi'ite minority.
In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.

Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority,
but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian.
As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus.
All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking.
But there is a problem there too.
The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps,
the Iraqi army Shi'ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run,
and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time
except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.

Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament.
Half of Iran's population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group.
Turkey's population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities,
12 million Shi'ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds.
In Afghanistan there are 5 million Shi'ites who constitute one third of the population.
In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi'ites who endanger the existence of that state.13

This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey
points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region.
When this picture is added to the economic one,
we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards,
unable to withstand its severe problems.

In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people.
Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars.
That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya,
and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces.
It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities
(Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan,
in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest,
in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave,
in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO
and Major Haddad's state of Christians and half a million Shi'ites).
Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future
after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing
with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army.
Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger,
half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world.
Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently
and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6

In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world,
but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee.7
The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad,
and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example.
A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it,
problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967.
Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties
to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.

The "peace" policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing.8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.

In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil.9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.

(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat's visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979.10

Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.11

The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into "fact." In reality, however, Egypt's power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow.12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.

Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run.13

The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.14

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.15

The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.16

Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.

There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel's policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa'amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.17

Within Israel the distinction between the areas of '67 and the territories beyond them, those of '48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of '67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.

Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today.l8

Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation.l9

From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises.20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future.21

Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat's method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken "peace" policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion
Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.

The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being "explained" in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian "unrest" on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of "Haddad forces" or of "Village Associations" (also known as "Village Leagues"): local forces under "leaders" completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The "states" proposed by Yinon are "Haddadland" and "Village Associations," and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be "punished" either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.

It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.

Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews,
combined with expansionism and racist discrimination.
In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin's speeches) has to be persuaded.
The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient.
Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid "persuaders" and "explainers" (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then "learn it," more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was "in opposition") the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering "the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity" was explained in the years 1965-67.

Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?

In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." (In fact those among them who claim also to be "Anti-Stalinist" are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion--exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a "closed society" to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak
June 17, 1982
Jerusalem
About the Translator
Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistry at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel's Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)

Notes
1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today's world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp; Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force, including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, "USSR's Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future," Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

5. Elie Kedourie, "The End of the Ottoman Empire," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba'ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, "Egypt's Population Problem," The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

7. E. Kanovsky, "Arab Haves and Have Nots," The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba'ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June '67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel's policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma'ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma 'ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha'aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha'aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha'aretz, 5/5/79. Ma'ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel's energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma'arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once...see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha'aretz, 8/22/79.

10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet's programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10. According to these sources, Egypt's military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their military budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha'aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt's ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, "The Arab Republic of Egypt"; E. Kanovsky, "Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East," Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, "The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors," Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research carried out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai...by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha'aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

15. J.P. Peroncell Hugoz, Le Monde, Paris 4/28/80; Dr. Abbas Kelidar, Middle East Review, Summer 1979; Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha'aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

16. Arnold Hottinger, "The Rich Arab States in Trouble," The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

17. As for Jordan's policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma'ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa'amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha'aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha'aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma'ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO's position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al'Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, "The Palestinian Problem," Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, "The Palestinian Myth," Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, "The Palestinians and the PLO," Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, "Samaria--The Basis for Israel's Security," Ma'arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya'akov Hasdai, "Peace, the Way and the Right to Know," Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, "Strategic Depth--An Israeli Perspective," Ma'arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, "Israel's Defense Problems in the Eighties," Ma'arakhot October 1979.

19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime's Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

20. Henry Kissinger, "The Lessons of the Past," The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, "OPEC's Challenge to the West," The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, "Oil and the Decline of the West," Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report--"Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?" U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, "Reflections on the Present Danger," The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez "The illusions of SALT" Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, "The Present Danger," Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, "Oil and American Power Six Years Later," Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, "The Abandonment of Israel," Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, "Misreading the Middle East," Commentary July 1979.

21. According to figures published by Ya'akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, "The New Anti-Semitism," The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, "They poisoned the Wells," Newsweek 2/3/75.

See also: ISRAELI MILITARY & WEAPONS

Zionism as Jewish National Socialism Is the Intifada Over?
The Marxists and the Lobby Benjamin Freedman on Zionism
Rothschilds Conduct "Red Symphony" Protocols of Zion Updated
Thinking About Neo-conservatism The Hidden Tyranny: Rosenthal Interview
The Protocols of Zion Updated Zionist-Israeli Roots of Hamas exposed
American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel The Brutality and Savagery of Zionism
Walking on Eggs: defining anti-Semitism and Israel His New Career: A.Schickelgruber writes again
Danny The Blue & White: Bolshevik and Zionist Five to Midnight: the Dangerous Neighbors