Joel Geier writes that most of the time people are loath to rise up against an oppressive government. Instead, they find it much more expedient to adapt to existing conditions, even very bad ones. They feel powerless; they don't think they can change things. Add to that the fact that there are not many true revolutionaries in the world - and the few who actually exist are considered unrealistic utopians and are, as a result, marginalized - and it is easy to see why revolution (even a bloodless one; even one achieved through "constitutional" means) is a path seldom chosen by most people.
"The people" are warned away from the very few revolutionaries that exist. They are told that if they join themselves to these utopians and dreamers, they too will find themselves marginalized and "cut-off" from all that passes as "conventional" and "established" in this life. So give the idea of revolution up; forget it, relax, enjoy your life - or what there exists of it; that's the best you can hope for.
And then suddenly, unexpectedly, out of nowhere there is an "EXPLOSION FROM BELOW" in which millions of people begin to engage the "established order" on a "revolutionary" basis. They reach for revolutionary changes to the oppressive conditions they have been living under - AND IN DOING SO, THEY THREATEN TO DIVEST THE GOVERNING FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL ELITES OF THEIR POWER AND ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH, AND SWEEP THEM AWAY, just as "the people" did to the French and Russian elites in 1789 and 1917 respectively. And make no mistake about it - these two years - i.e., 1789 and 1917 - have been stamped indelibly into the mindset of the world's elites as nightmares more horrible and ghastly than hell itself.
1933 & 1968
Most people today think that the elites in the United States have never been threatened in such a fashion. But that's not quite true; for example, the elites in America were twice threatened with extinction in the 20th century - once in the 1930s, and again in the '60s - and each time the elites reacted with a murderous rage. In the 1930s it was the New Deal of FDR that threatened to undo the American elites; and in the 1960s it was the Civil Rights Movement and the rage against the Vietnam War that threatened to do so.
In the first instance, the rage of "the people" was driven by an unprecedented economic crisis - the Great Depression; and in the second instance, their frenzy was driven by the twin conundrums of a war that wouldn't go away (and that was swallowing up in its bloody maw thousands and thousands of American soldiers as human sacrifices), and by the drive for civil rights by heretofore marginalized factions of the American population that threatened to undo the social and political "establishment" upon which the elites relied.
IN BOTH OF THESE INSTANCES, WHAT HAPPENED WENT FAR BEYOND THE USUAL FAKE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTES.
THE FAKE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE
|1949||Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader.|
|1950s||CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany.|
|1950s||Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life.|
|1950s||Sukarno, President of Indonesia.|
|1951||Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea.|
|1950s||Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader.|
|1955||Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India.|
|1957||Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt.|
|1959||Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia.|
|1960||Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq.|
|1950s-70s||Josι Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life.|
|1961||Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti.|
|1961||Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire).|
|1961||Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic.|
|1963||Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam.|
|1960s||Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life|
|1960s||Raϊl Castro, high official in government of Cuba.|
|1965||Francisco Caamaρo, Dominican Republic opposition leader.|
|1965-6||Charles de Gaulle, President of France.|
|1967||Che Guevara, Cuban leader.|
|1970||Salvador Allende, President of Chile.|
|1970||Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile.|
|1970s, '81||General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama.|
|1972||General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence.|
|1975||Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire.|
|1976||Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica.|
|1980-'86||Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life.|
|1982||Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran.|
|1983||Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander.|
|1983||Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua.|
|1984||The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate.|
|1985||Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt).|
|1991||Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq.|
ANNOTATION: The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.
The fact that the American elites find it so easy and routine to employ assassination against their opponents outside the American "homeland" should give some evidence as to how routine they would find it to employ assassination against their political opponents inside the American "homeland." What's the difference to them? As far as they are concerned, ALL their opponents are worthy of death. It's not without reason that the New Testament condemns the rich, and anathematizes them:
"They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, WHICH DROWN MEN IN DESTRUCTION AND PERDITION." (1 Timothy 6:9)
It's not without reason that the Bible warns Christians away from the rich:
"Do not rich men OPPRESS you, and draw you before the judgment seats (i.e., do not they force you into the bankruptcy courts)?
"Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?" (James 2:6-7)
The first attempt by the oligarchs to stop Roosevelt was made on the evening of Feb. 15, 1933. Roosevelt, who had been vacationing in the Caribbean prior to his scheduled March 4 inauguration [app. two months after the current date (Jan. 20th) for the presidential inauguration], landed in Miami for a series of prearranged political meetings. He arrived in Miami on board the yacht of Vincent Astor, who - some believe - was a part of the plot. A crowd of some 10,000 people had gathered near the waterfront, waiting to see the President-elect. As FDR, speaking from the seat of an open car, concluded his brief remarks on the ocean front, several shots rang out. Five people on or near the bandstand directly behind the President-elect were hit, although FDR, miraculously, was not.
The man firing the shots, Giuseppe Zingara, a brickmason from New Jersey, was immediately branded a "lone assassin" and an "anarchist.'' When Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, wounded in the hail of bullets, died three weeks after the attack, it fed speculation that he, not Roosevelt, had been the target of what was called in the press a "mob hit.'' It was reported that Chicago mob boss Frank Nitti had put Cermak on a "hit list,'' and that FDR "just happened to be there.''
But Zingara's own statements, prior to and during the trial, made it clear that he had been targeting FDR, and that the others had been hit by mistake in the botched assassination attempt. Contemporary newspaper accounts speak of the assassin's arm being deflected by a woman in the crowd. Her report was that the shooter had carefully prepositioned himself to have a clear shot at Roosevelt, and that the gun was pointed directly at him at a range of less than 30 feet; had she not hit his arm, FDR would have been hit, and most likely killed.
With Cermak's death, Zingara was rushed to trial and execution in less than 90 days from the time of the shooting. It was, contemporary media accounts claimed, an "open-and-shut case;" after all, the FBI, under the "personal" direction of J. Edgar Hoover, had conducted an "exhaustive'' investigation, and concluded that Zingara was a "lone assassin'' acting from an emotionally disturbed and bizarre political mindset - pretty much what Hoover suggested thirty years later with regard to JFK's assassination. It was the same "cock-and-bull" stuff. [Please see our articles, "Conspiracy Theories," "MK-Ultra: The Search for the Manchurian Candidate," and "MK-Ultra & the Assassination of John F. Kennedy - More Evidence."]
NOTE: It should be noted in connection with MK-Ultra (see above), that the British had been working on so-called "zombie assassins" as early as the late '20s and early '30s at the London Tavistock Clinic. The results of these experiments were easily available to the American elites, especially to the Morgan/Mellon nexus that was at the heart of the conspiracy against Roosevelt. The fact is, the Tavistock experiments formed the clinical basis twenty years later for MK-Ultra itself. As a result, it's probably no coincidence that Zingara exhibited the same weird lapses of memory and even "false memories" that Sirhan-Sirhan exhibited during his trial for the RFK assassination in 1968.
No competent investigation of the assassination attempt on Roosevelt per se was ever attempted - which is truly distressing, because even a cursory examination of the evidence presented in the "show trial'' of Zingara (who, one must remember, was on trial for the assassination of Cermak, not the attempted assassination of Roosevelt) reveals that many contradictions were left unresolved, even as the assassin was quickly dispatched to the Florida electric chair.
For example, given his apparent meager resources, both mental and monetary, how was it possible that Zingara was placed in a perfect position to assassinate the President-elect? How was this preplanning accomplished? - and who if anyone might have assisted in this, including providing the necessary information about the rally and the placement of the President (e.g., how was Zingara aware that FDR was going to speak from a car and not from the bandstand)?
Nonetheless, the FBI report dismissed all talk of conspiracies as out of the question, and refused to let Zingara have any real direct access to the press during the entire 90 days - from his "capture" to his execution.
Roosevelt assumed office on March 4, 1933 - about one month after the failed assassination attempt on his life - and almost immediately initiated a series of actions that seemed to presage the worst fears of the Morgan-Mellon cabal. In bold actions, starting with his declaration of a bank holiday, the disconnection of the dollar from its ties to the gold standard, and the implementation of the Glass-Steagall Bill - which established rigid barriers between consumer banking and investment banking (and hence, greatly hampered the "dirty tricks" of the Wall Street plutocrats) - Roosevelt ignited a firestorm of financial reforms that threatened, at least according to the plutocrats, the very basis of capitalism in the United States.
All this coupled with the planned implementation of what appeared to the oligarchs as a series of "socialist" (even communist) schemes such as the Work Projects Administration (WPA), the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Public Works Administration (PWA), and the Civil Works Administration (CWA) proved to be too much for the oligarchs.
As a result, a new operation against FDR was set in motion. What the plotters evidently intended to do was not to seize power directly, but instigate a "Reichstag fire"-like pretext for a coup against the government, including - perhaps - a successful "inside job" assassination of Roosevelt. A government of "National unity" would have then been formed under the thumb of America's financial elites.
The Nazis (including all of Germany's leading industrialists) had used the ruse of a "communist-led" coup (i.e., the Reichstag Fire) to declare martial law and round up their opponents, especially the socialists and the communists (which then out-numbered the fascists in Germany). The plutocrats in America thought they could do the same.
Today, looking back at it, such a plot appears not only implausible, but impossible. However, one must remember that in 1933, the plutocrats who ran the country were furiously fanning the flames of fascism in the country as an antidote to socialism and communism. Indeed, many of the country's leading "economic lights" were recipients of Hitler's prestigious "Grand Service Cross of the Golden Eagle," including Henry Ford of Ford Motor Company and Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors.
The fact is, support for fascist ideology had been promoted for a decade by the plutocrats, the media, and by such outright pro-fascist, mass-based organizations as the Morgan-created American Legion, and such other organizations as the Paul Reveres, the Order of '76, the Industrial Defense Association, the Edmondson Economic Service, the American Vigilant Intelligence Service, the James True Associates, the National Union for Social Justice, the American Christian Defenders, the Defenders of the Christian Faith, etc. While these organizations are unknown to most today (except, of course, for the American Legion), in the '20s and '30s these were all very well-known, mass organizations. Thus, there were already significant numbers of fascist organizations (many of them armed) in the country ready to support the plot against Roosevelt. [Again, please see our article, "The Religious Right and the Business Right: An Alliance Made in Hell;" also "Henry Ford and Gerald L.K. Smith: Big Business and the Religious Right;" finally, please see the "Origins of the Illuminist Myth" for more details on other organizations that were in league with the Morgan/Mellon nexus; please also see Dr. Donald Strong (University of Texas), Organized Anti-Semitism in America; Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1941; please also see the minutes of the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee (November, 1934).]
In addition to all the groups listed above, there was also a large base of radicalized veterans whose assistance the plotters thought they could call on; specifically, the supporters of the failed Bonus Army comprised of veterans who had been promised a "bonus" for their service in World War I (to make up for lost wages they had suffered as a result of their service during the war), but which had been reneged on by the government.
Finally, there was also every reason to believe that the U.S. military officer corps, and especially the various state national guards (most especially the California National Guard, and the New York State National Guard), were rife with officers who supported the aims of the coup.
The problem, however, is that the plotters had no Adolf Hitler around which they could galvanize their attempted coup. They would have to bring in someone from the "outside" to "fill the bill." The person they chose was General Smedley Butler, a man who had been twice decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor, and who had served with distinction in every American military action of the 20th century. In choosing Butler, however, they made a big mistake; he proved to be an incorruptible anti-fascist - something the plotters should have known.
Butler turned on the plotters and "spilled the beans" to Roosevelt, who moved quickly to not only close the coup down, but to cover up its very existence - even to the point of letting the plutocrats behind the plot "off the hook" - though from that time forward, Roosevelt kept them on a very tight leash.
Now it's not our purpose here to give a detailed account of this failed coup; our point here is to indicate THE TOTAL LACK OF SCRUPLES ON THE PART OF THE NATION'S ELITES IN DEFENDING THEIR FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL PREROGATIVES: THINK ABOUT IT: ONE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT AND ONE ATTEMPTED COUP.
IT'S PRECISELY THIS TOTAL LACK OF SCRUPLES ON THE PART OF AMERICA'S ELITES THAT ONE SHOULD BEAR IN MIND AS THE ELECTION OF 2008 DRAWS NEAR. OBAMA IS SITTING ON A POWDER KEG OF ELITE RAGE, AND ONE IS MAKING A BIG MISTAKE IN BELIEVING THAT THE ELITES WILL NOT ACT ON THIS RAGE JUST AS THEY DID IN 1933 IF OBAMA WINS THE ELECTION OR EVEN IF IT APPEARS THAT HE MAY WIN THE ELECTION.
The second "EXPLOSION FROM BELOW" that engaged millions and millions of average Americans in a revolutionary rage against their "masters" occurred in the year 1968; and the shock waves that it produced continued to reverberate throughout the early 1970s.
Like the one that occurred in 1933, this one seemed to appear out of nowhere and involved populist forces that once again threatened to sweep the elites from power. As Joel Geier puts it:
"Millions and millions of people that had never before considered themselves to be revolutionaries seemed to appear out of nowhere. They wanted not just change; they wanted a sweeping radical, revolutionary socialist change. They didn't just want to elect somebody different; they wanted to do away with rulers and ruled; they wanted to do away with rich and poor, bankers and bosses. They wanted to run their own lives in what they called a participatory democracy "
"The radicalization [of 1968] was based upon two things - (1) the Vietnam War and the resistance to it, and (2) the Black Liberation Movement "
First, the Vietnam War; Geier writes:
"The Tet Offensive [of 1968] led to a massive shift in public opinion against the war, and out of that, the growth of the U.S. antiwar movement that already existed as a network of groups active on an almost daily basis in virtually every college campus liberal church, union hall, neighborhood, and in the army itself. There were huge antiwar protests - involving half a million, a million people, demonstrating against the war People had come to understand that the war was not just a government "mistake," but was in fact a consistent part and logical outcome of American foreign policy [a policy bent on expanding the scope of the American Empire]."
NOTE: The parallel here between the way the 1960s "radicals" viewed the war in Vietnam, and the way mass organizations like "MoveOn.org" view today's war in Iraq is astonishing. Both groups are (were) fully cognizant that what they are (were) really opposing is (was) the expansion of the American Empire, and if that means defeat in Iraq today (as it meant defeat in Vietnam in the '60s and early '70s, so be it! Both groups would have agreed with Martin Luther King when he declared at Riverside Church in New York (1967) that American militarism was the greatest threat to peace the world has ever faced.
There was a growing sense among average Americans that what the elite media described as America's "national interest" was not really their interest at all, but the interests of the plutocrats. The government was the enemy, not the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) or the Viet Cong. Americans were fighting and dying in Vietnam for the barons of Wall Street, not for the sake of their own loved-ones, their own fathers and mothers, their own wives, their own sisters and brothers, their own children. This kind of thinking radicalized a whole generation - and not only civilians, but in the ranks of the military itself.
"The mass opposition to the war, and the impact of the nature of the war they were fighting provided the context for a 'SOLDIER'S REVOLT' inside the American army. It is difficult for people to understand [today] that there was more opposition inside the American army than there was on the college campuses.
"Most history books are written as if this was just a student movement, and hide the rebellion of the American soldiers. An organized and critically important opposition to the war existed inside the U.S. army. The [mainline media] cannot tell you the truth, they cannot tell you that American troops were violently against the war THAT A QUARTER OF ALL AMERICAN TROOPS IN VIETNAM DESERTED OR WENT AWOL, AND THAT THOSE WHO STAYED OFTEN REFUSED TO FIGHT; THAT THEY MUTINIED, AND THAT THEY KILLED THEIR OFFICERS. Indeed, one quarter of all the officers killed in Vietnam were killed by their own men.
"There were dozens of antiwar groups and 300 underground antiwar newspapers inside the army and these newspapers presented a radical and socialist analysis of the war. This from the Ft. Lewis Free Press: 'In Vietnam the lifers and the brass are the enemy, not the [NVA and the Viet Cong]'; or this from the Fort Ord Right-On Post: 'We recognize the enemy. It's the capitalists who see only profit. They control the military and send us off to die'."
And I must tell you here; what Geier is saying is true. The fact is, I remember an especially "egregious" moment when elements of one armored cavalry regiment refused to obey orders to mount an offensive in the so-called "Parrot's Beak" west of Saigon near the Cambodian border. They refused to "mount up." It was a catastrophe. But make no mistake about it, it wasn't cowardice on the part of the troopers that resulted in their stand-off with the regiment's officers, but the thought on the part of large numbers of troopers in the regiment that they were no longer going to fight "Wall Street's War" - and that's EXACTLY the way they put it.
Word spread quickly throughout the entire army in Vietnam. When word of this revolt reached Washington, it sent shivers up the spine of those that "manned" the helm at the Pentagon, and over at the White House. THE ARMY WAS IN REVOLT! - so much for the inane babbling of today's "talking heads" in "conservative talk radio" - most of whom never served a day in combat - that the army was "stabbed in the back" by liberals back home. [Please see "About the Author and the Milieu out from which He Came" in the New Antipas Papers."
The truth is, as Geier says, MOST SOLDIERS AT THE TIME SUPPORTED THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT, although this fact is today a carefully hidden secret; one that has been purposefully obscured by the "loud-mouths" the conservative movement has hunted down to act as shills promoting the myth that "liberals" "dumped on" the army. It was this incident (the soldiers' revolt by members of General Patton's 11th ACR), and countless other smaller incidents like it, that convinced the Pentagon and their masters in the oligarchy that they could no longer count on a "people's army" - that is to say, they could no longer rely on a "draft army" - to support their economic interests worldwide.
"These three forces - (1) the resistance of the Vietnamese, (2) a mass antiwar movement, and (3) a revolt inside the army - eventually ended the war in Vietnam."
The second aspect of the "explosion from below" in 1968 had to do with the Black Liberation struggle.
"It was the struggle for Black Liberation that was the dynamic, the force behind the whole radicalization process of the 1960s; of the radical student movement, of the antiwar movement, and the movements that were to follow among women, gays, and other oppressed national groups. It was the mass base for change in the country, first for civil rights and then for Black Liberation that changed everything that went on in the politics of the 1960s
"Northern liberalism was seen for what it was. And that was one of the things that radicalized people during Vietnam - the war was not being conducted by right-wing Republicans, but by Democrats The [Democrats] were the people running the war. Similarly in terms of what was going on in the civil rights movement; when it shifted to the North, it shifted to northern cities that were run by Democratic mayors. These cities were totally segregated not by law, but de facto, by custom, and blacks there faced enormous police brutality and deep poverty. This led, starting in 1965, to a series of ghetto uprisings - from 1965 to 1966 to 1967 to 1968. Every year, every summer, was called the 'long hot summer', because there were hundreds of uprisings in the Black working-class ghettos. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in them
"These rebellions radicalized the black ghettos, leading to the call for black power and for black liberation. They led to the creation of large numbers of revolutionaries inside the ghettos - of people who thought you needed a revolution in the country to end racism.
"This led Martin Luther King, Jr. to reexamine his political strategy and to shift dramatically to the left. He came out against the war in Vietnam at his famous April 1967 speech at Riverside Church in New York, and he began to take part in organizing poor people and workers, saying that there could be no equality without economic equality. King was killed in Memphis, Tenn., where he was supporting a sanitation workers' strike "
King had been planning a "Poor People's March" on Washington D.C. in the summer of 1968. His purpose was to galvanize not only the black community against the oligarchs in Washington, but poor whites as well - A NIGHTMARE THAT THE ELITES FOUND TERRIFYING: THAT POOR WHITES WOULD UNITE WITH POOR BLACKS AGAINST THEM.
In addition, King had reached out to the labor movement and the antiwar movement, and had convinced them to join him in his "assault" on Washington.
William F. Pepper explains what was behind the thinking that went into King's assassination; he writes in his book, An Act of State:"
"(Dr. King) ... was emerging as a key figurehead in a powerful coalition of growing peace and civil rights movements, which were to form the basis of a 'new politics'. The National Conference for New Politics (NCNP) was established to catalyze people nationwide ... Dr. King was planning to move into mainstream politics as a potential candidate on a presidential ticket with Dr. Benjamin Spock in order to highlight the anti-poverty, anti-war agenda. He called for conscientious objection, political activity, and a revolution in values to shift American society away from its raw materialism to ... (something more compassionate)."
How did King propose to pay for all this? - by taking it out of the country's military budget? That would mean weakening the American military to a point where it could no longer act as an "enforcer" for the elite's developing "client-state" system [please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," and "The American Empire and the U.S. System of Client States") and with it, of course, the disintegration of the American New World Order System that the elites were bending every effort to construct at the time [a system which by now has been all but completed (please see our article, "Inside the American New World Order System")].
That was too much! Pepper continues:
"... There was great concern in the halls of power in America that this most honored of black Americans had decided to use the full force of his integrity, moral authority, and international prestige to challenge the might and moral bankruptcy of the American state, which he [King] freely characterized as the 'GREATEST PURVEYOR OF VIOLENCE ON EARTH'."
Thus, the spectral forces that really govern this country set in motion plans for the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and later the same year, RFK, both of which were "follow-on" assassination of JFK in 1963. [JFK had earned the undying antipathy of the elites by subverting their attempt at the Bay of Pigs to re-conquer Cuba and "end the threat of Communist subversion in the Western Hemisphere." In addition, he was planning to pull American "advisors" out of Vietnam following his re-election in 1964; JFK saw America's growing involvement in Vietnam as another "Bay of Pigs" fiasco, and he was determined to end it. Please see our article, "Now Is the Time to Do Something; It May Be too Late Tomorrow."]
America's plutocrats survived the revolts against them by "the people" in both 1933 and 1968. In 1933, they survived largely as a result of luck; both their attempts to assassinate FDR went afoul; but the unemployment crises - which had been the driving force behind all the unrest in the country at that time - began to abate as America began re-arming against the "threat of fascism." Ironically, it was the war against fascism - an ideology that most in the elite supported - that saved the elite.
However, in 1968 it was the twin assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy that blunted the drive for "people power" by leaving the movement leaderless. Neither Eugene McCarthy nor George McGovern - and most especially not Hubert Humphrey - were able to fill the gap left vacant by the assassination of RFK; and none of the black leaders coming after King's assassination were able ever to come close to building an alliance between poor whites and poor blacks - which to this day still represents the worst nightmare of the elites. [Again, please see our article, "Now Is the Time to Do Something; It May Be too Late Tomorrow" for more details on the assassinations of MLK, RFK and JFK; please also see "Conspiracy Theories" and "MK-Ultra: The Search for the Manchurian Candidate."]
But now a new "EXPLOSION FROM BELOW" is materializing; an explosion that may very well prove to be more threatening to elite power than the ones in 1933 and 1968; and we speak here of the possible (indeed, probable) election of Barrack Obama to the presidency.
The fact is, although Obama is doing everything he can to "tamp down" his very "left-wing" credentials, he is in fact linked immutably to left-wing, socialist-leaning constituencies that could very well play the same role in driving an Obama administration to the Left as they did when they drove an otherwise "middle-of-the-road," patrician like FDR to the Left in the 1930s.
Hank D. Zutter, a Chicago journalist, exposed Obama's Leftist tendencies when - on the eve of Obama's entry into Illinois state politics in the early 1990s - he wrote:
"Obama thinks elected officials could do much to overcome the political paralysis of the nation's black communities. He thinks they could lead their communities out of the cul-de-sac of [America's paternalistic policies toward the black community] which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks to 'move up, get rich, and move out'
"Obama, whose political vision was nurtured by his work in the 80s as an organizer in the far-south-side communities of Roseland and Altgeld Gardens, proposes an alternative His proposal calls for organizing ordinary citizens into bottom-up democracies that create their own strategies, programs, and campaigns AND THAT FORGE ALLIANCES WITH OTHER DISAFFECTED AMERICANS "
Now, think about the implications of what Zutter is saying here:
That Obama opposes America's present-day policies aimed at helping a few upwardly mobile blacks to 'move up, get rich, and move out' " But it's precisely these policies that the elites have used over the years to pretend that the black community is making progress, when, by all objective measures, it is not. In fact, the economic condition of most blacks has been sliding downward at an ever accelerating rate since 1973. [Please see our articles, "Measuring the Depravity of the Elites," and "The Utility of Police Brutality in the Elite's War against the Poor."]
His talk of "FORGING ALLIANCES WITH OTHER DISAFFECTED AMERICANS" (meaning poor whites) is, as we have already suggested, the very stuff out of which the nightmares of the super-rich are made.
And one needs to be aware of something here: this talk or rhetoric by Obama "has legs." It's something that he has practiced in the past on a grass roots level.
Furthermore, one should be clear here: WHEN OBAMA TALKS OF A COLOR-BLIND AMERICA, ONE THAT UNITES POOR WHITES AND POOR BLACKS TOGETHER AGAINST THE ELITES, what he's talking about is INSTIGATING CLASS-WARFARE against the elites.
This is not the kind of talk that America's plutocrats are going to "let slide." The elite press has tried to blunt Obama's talk of uniting poor blacks and poor whites against elite power by taking out of context comments that Obama made in San Francisco - comments that the elite press say make him an "enemy" of poor whites. But so far, the elite's effort here has been to no avail in stopping the Obama juggernaut.
It's in this context that one must understand Obama when he says:
"Many believe that the country is too racially polarized to build the kind of multiracial coalitions [between poor whites and poor blacks] necessary to bring about MASSIVE economic change I do not agree."
"MASSIVE economic change?" - that's not what the elites want!
"What makes Obama different from other progressive politicians is that he doesn't just want to create and support progressive programs; HE WANTS TO MOBILIZE THE PEOPLE He says he's tired of seeing the moral fervor of poor folks whipped up - at the speaker's rostrum and from the pulpit - and then allowed to dissipate because there's no agenda, no concrete program for change."
Finally, there's the talk by Obama and his followers of the need for "COLLECTIVE ACTION!" "In America," Obama says -
" we have this strong bias toward individual action [in America]. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. WE MUST UNITE IN COLLECTIVE ACTION, BUILD COLLECTIVE INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS."
To America's elites, this sounds like something straight out of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.
"Mobilize the people?" "Massive economic change?" "Collective action?" - eee gads, that's enough to send shivers up and down the spines of EVERYONE in the elite. That's the last thing the elites want to see. That's what FDR was doing in 1933, and that's what MLK and JFK proposed doing in 1968; that's precisely what led the elites to two failed assassination attempts on FDR in 1933, and two successful assassination attempts in 1968 - one against MLK, and one against RFK later that same year.
And, of course, it's not just Obama's personal rhetoric that damns him insofar as the elites are concerned, but his past left-wing associations. For example, take what Jean Rudd, the executive director of the Woods Fund - an organization with ties to what members of the elite class would call "extreme leftists" - says about Obama:
"He is one of the most articulate people I have ever met, but he doesn't use his gift with language to promote himself. He uses it to clarify the difficult job before him and before all of us. He's not a promoter; from the very beginning, he always makes it clear what his difficulties are. His honesty is refreshing."
Normally, such a recommendation would be a very real "plus" - but coming from the Woods Foundation, it's a very damning statement.
Then there's Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group that's a thorn in the side of America's elite; she says:
"I can't repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy [meaning tearing down the elites' power structure in the United States]. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."
A "kindred spirit?" A "fellow organizer?" - and that coming from one of America's leading "lefty" organizations? - again, that's hardly the kind of recommendation that the elites would find comforting.
Then there's the question of Obama's ties to William Ayers: Ayers, along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn, was an active member of the Weather Underground, a radical left-wing group that advocated violence against the United State in the 1960s. Both Ayers and Dohrn went "underground" in 1970 after others in the group accidentally detonated a bomb in a Greenwich Village (New York City) townhouse. The blast killed three of the group's members including Ayers' girlfriend at the time.
While Ayers and Dohrn were hiding from law enforcement, the Weather Underground participated in the bombings of the US Capital, the Pentagon and a State Department building. In 1981 Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to federal authorities, but all charges were dropped as a result of alleged "government legal misconduct."
Ayers remains unrepentant for his activities in the 1960s. For example, shortly after the 9/11 attacks against Washington and New York, Ayers is reported to have said:
"I don't regret setting the bombs [in the 1960s]. I feel we didn't do enough."
NOTE: The irony here, of course, is that while the elites condemn Ayers and Dohrn for what they did in the 1960s, they give themselves a "pass" for what they most likely were responsible for in 2001: the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington. But the elites wouldn't see the inconsistency here; after all, what the elites are permitted to do as opposed to what the "masses" are permitted are two different things entirely. [Please see our article, "Judi Bari, Darryl Cherney and Earth First."]
It seems that it's okay for the elites to bomb the institutions of government when it's in their interest to do so, but not for "radicals" like Ayers. When radicals attack the institutions of government - even the most oppressive institutions - it's called a "crime;" but when the elites do it, somehow or other it's okay because they are serving a "higher purpose" - and are attempting nothing more than to "manage" the public "for their own good," as Drew Pearson and the Alsop brothers (who described themselves as "Republicans by inheritance and registration, and conservatives by conviction") arrogantly put it. [Please see our article, "Welcome to the New National Security State" for information regarding the details behind the September 11th attacks on Washington and New York.]
Ayers, who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Obama served together on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund (see above); they have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, one in 1997 and another in 2001. In addition, Ayers and Dohrn are known to have held political fundraisers for Barack Obama in their Chicago home.
TO BELIEVE THAT OBAMA WAS UNAWARE OF AYERS' PAST, AND OF HIS MISGIVINGS WITH REGARD TO AMERICA'S ELITES, IS TO STRETCH THE LIMITS OF CREDULITY. OF COURSE HE KNEW - AND THAT CANNOT BUT GREATLY AGITATE THE ELITES IN THE SAME FASHION THAT FDR's CONNECTIONS WITH THE LEFT DISTRESSED THESE SAME ELITES 60 YEARS AGO.
Then there's Obama's connection to Professor Rashid Khalidi. Obama knows Khalidi from Khalidi's days in Chicago. Before coming to America, Khalidi was known as a man to be "reckoned with" in Beirut where - from 1972 through 1983 - Khalidi served as the director of the official Palestinian press agency, FAFA. His wife worked there as well.
Khalidi initially came to Chicago where he helped organize various Arab so-called "self-help" organizations. During Obama's last year on the board of the Woods Fund (2002), he and Ayers participated in awarding grants to several Khalidi organizations, including a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based group that Rashid and Mona Khalidi had helped found. When the Khalidi's left Chicago for Columbia University in New York, his Chicago well-wishers honored him with a goodbye party which included testimonials from Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.
Khalidi now holds the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies at Columbia. He is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. [In January of 2006 Professor David Price obtained 147 pages of Said's 238-page FBI file through a Freedom of Information Act request. The records reveal that Said had been under FBI surveillance starting in 1971. Significant portions of these records remain "Classified Secrets." It should be understood in this connection that Said was an Arab Christian; it seems that anyone - Christian, Muslim, or otherwise - who oppose what the elites are up to in the Middle East are subject to FBI surveillance.]
CLEARLY, OBAMA'S CONNECTIONS TO KHALIDI ARE NOT THE KIND THAT WOULD RECOMMEND HIM TO AMERICA'S OIL ELITES. THE GROUPS KHALIDI IS CONNECTED TO ARE IMPLACABLY OPPOSED TO WHAT AMERICA'S OIL ELITES ARE DOING IN THE MIDDLE EAST - PLUNDERING THE PEOPLE OF THAT AREA OF THEIR RIGHTFUL, GOD-GIVEN PATRIMONY.
Then there's the matter of Tony Rezko, a Chicago businessman who has now been convicted of corruption and who himself has deep roots as a "fixer" in Chicago's Arab community. Obama, of course, claims that his relations with Rezko - like his relations with Ayers and Khalidi - are tenuous at best. That's certainly the claim that Obama's "handlers" are making; but these claims fly in the face of the facts.
Obama's connections to Rezko go back to 1993; specifically to Allison Davis who hired Obama into his small, Chicago law firm "Davis, Miner, and Barnhill." Davis left the firm in late 1999-2000 and became a housing developer with Rezko.
Rezko was convicted of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state government business contracts under Governor Blagojevich. Obama has been identified as one of the politicians who received political contributions from Rezko out of his kickback funds.
NOTE: Rezko hosted fundraising events for Obama in his home and was on Obama's US Senate campaign finance committee which collected $14 million for his campaign against conservative Alan Keyes.
Needless to say, Obama's "handlers" have done everything they can to make these ties "disappear;" but there can be little doubt that they are there, and that they are very real. THEY ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE RADICAL, LEFT-WING "AMALGAMATE" THAT SURROUNDS THE POLITICS OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO, and once one begins to unravel this "amalgamate," one discovers some very strange and frightening left-wing connections - frightening at least insofar as the elites are concerned.
All this to say nothing with regard to Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and others like Wright who are involved in what passes today as "left-wing" Christianity; a Christianity that embraces the concepts of "Liberation Theology;" a kind of Christianity that stands in utter opposition to the concepts that undergird the American New World Order System; one that most American Christians - especially evangelical Christians - detest with a burning passion. [Please see our article, "Liberation Theology, the Vatican, and the CIA: Ghosts and Phantoms;" please also see our article, "The Devil Was Here."]
NONETHELESS - AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT - NONE OF THESE FACTS HAVE DONE MUCH TO DAMAGE OBAMA INSOFAR AS HIS CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED.
THE VERY REAL FACT OF THE MATTER IS, A "REVOLT FROM BELOW" IS BUBBLING UP TO THE SURFACE THAT THREATENS ELITE POWER. JUST AS "THE PEOPLE" TURNED AGAINST THE ELITES IN 1933 AND 1968, THEY ARE DOING SO AGAIN. AND ALL THE "DIRT" THAT THE ELITES ARE ABLE TO "DIG UP" ON OBAMA OR "MANUFACTURE" AGAINST HIM HAVE FALLEN ON DEAF EARS.
Moreover, what's happening today has the potential of being a "double whammy" insofar as the elites are concerned: It's as if 1933 and 1968 have been rolled up together as one giant "spit ball" aimed squarely at the country's super-rich.
The fact is, the country is facing an economic crisis very similar to the one the country faced in 1933 AND a military crisis similar to the one the country faced in 1968.
Commenting on the economic crisis the country is facing, a crisis that all but guarantees an Obama victory in November, economist Jack Rasmus writes:
"There's a specter hovering over the U.S. economy today. Like all specters, its background form may not be readily apparent. But the shadow it casts is nonetheless real. That specter and shadow are the still spreading financial crisis and the deepening credit contraction left in its wake."
A.K. Gupta, another economist, writes:
"Unless you live in a bubble, like George Bush, who expressed total surprise in February when a reporter told him gas was nearing $4 a gallon, you've been socked hard in the pocketbook by rising prices. It's most evident at the supermarket - according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of a gallon of milk has jumped 17 percent, and a dozen eggs have leaped 40 percent in the last year, and a loaf of bread is up nearly 30 percent in the last two years. At the gas pump, the national average for regular gasoline notched a record $3.63 [now $4.32] "
These facts, of course, are not "new news" to ordinary Americans; maybe to George Bush and his cronies; but not to average Americans.
The government, however, has been using RIGGED "statistics" to cover up what most Americans know instinctively is happening: that the country is in fact in a recession. Take, for example, the furtive, underhanded way California (and, indeed, the entire nation) calculates the number of people who are unemployed. While the unemployment rate is supposed to be based on a monthly survey of sample households, in reality, the unemployment figure is linked to the number of those in the state who are drawing unemployment pay. But today, those who qualify for unemployment pay represent only 35 percent of the state's workers. Assuming that this rate remains true for those who don't qualify for unemployment pay (it's in fact probably higher), the unemployment rate in California would climb to an astounding 24 percent of the state's population. Now, if hiding the fact that 24 percent of the state's workers are unemployed - and substituting the figure of 8.1 percent - DOES NOT REPRESENT A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD POSSIBLY CONSTITUTE SUCH A COVER-UP.
And this still doesn't count those who are listed as "no longer looking for work" - which essentially means, all those who have not found work in 6 months. Finally, if those who hold temporary or part-time jobs - but who are desperately looking for full-time work - are counted (about 70 percent of those holding such jobs), the unemployment rate would be truly astronomical.
The fact that many Americans - especially Christian evangelicals - don't see those who have been affected by these unemployment numbers only reveals the economic (and geographic, e.g. the white suburbs) cocoon in which many of them are living.
The very real fact of the matter is, America is in much more than a mere recession; there is a SILENT DEPRESSION abroad in the land - and just how real this depression is was made clear by a November 2006 New York Times analysis of 2004 federal tax information which found that the bottom fifth of American taxpayers earned below $11,166 a year ($930 a month), with their average income amounting to less than $5,800 a year ($483 a month).
Accounting for the fact that the IRS's definition of taxpayer applies to couples who jointly file as well as to single individuals, the Times estimated that THE POOREST 26 MILLION TAXPAYERS REPRESENTED NEARLY 48 MILLION ADULTS AND ABOUT 12 MILLION DEPENDENT CHILDREN. BY THIS MEASURE, THE TIMES CALCULATED THAT THE POOREST 60 MILLION AMERICANS (OR 20 PERCENT OF THE NATION'S POPULATION) WERE LIVING ON LESS THAN $7 A DAY (OR $210 A MONTH).
And that doesn't begin to tell all the story. Naomi Spencer, a well-known expert on these issues, says that ONE-FIFTH OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS HAVE A ZERO OR NEGATIVE NET WORTH, and another ONE-THIRD OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS HOLD LESS THAN $10,000 IN ASSETS. That includes equity in homes, cars, furniture, computers, clothing ad infinitum, ad nauseum. That's approaching almost one-half of the U.S. population.
Finally, there is the matter of home foreclosures; AMERICAN HOMES ARE BEING FORECLOSED ON IN NUMBERS NOT SEEN SINCE THE WORST DAYS OF THE "GREAT DEPRESSION." Indeed, some analysts believe that as many as 10 percent of American homes may be foreclosed on by the end of the current depression. That's a staggering number.
Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post writes:
"Everyone seems to acknowledge now that there will be lots of mortgage foreclosures and that house prices will fall nationally for the first time since the Depression. [Some analysts believe that home prices may fall by 50 percent countrywide.] Some lenders and hedge funds [that have been involved in the housing market] have failed, while some banks have taken painful write-offs and fired executives. There's even a growing recognition that a recession [cum depression] is over the horizon. BUT LET ME ASSURE YOU, YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET "
"What's important to understand is that this isn't just a mortgage or housing crisis, it's a crisis that affects the whole economy. If it sounds like the economy is a house of cards, that's because it is. AND IT IS ABOUT TO COME CRASHING DOWN."
[Please see our many articles on the condition of today's American economy; e.g., "The Utility of Police Brutality in the Elite's War against the Poor," "The United States: Replicating the Slave Economy of the Old South," "Lies and Damned Lies: Not Discerning the Truth," "Greed, Avarice, and the Coming Dictatorship," and "The Measure of a Man's Worth;" please also see "The Versailles Phenomenon" for a discussion of the growing divide between the rich and the poor, not only in America, but in the world at large.]
Then there is the matter of the military crisis the elites are facing - a crisis that threatens to stretch the American military upon which the elites rely to keep their New World Order System intact to the breaking point, just as the American military was similarly stretched during the Vietnam crisis. James H. Willbanks, the director of the military history department at the United States Army Command and General Staff College, writes in the New York Times:
"Historians are often reluctant to draw comparisons between historical events, and this has been especially true for Vietnam and Iraq That being said, however, American military actions today [in Iraq] can be informed by one general lesson from the Tet Offensive [in Vietnam in 1968], AND THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT PUTTING THE BEST FACE ON A MILITARY SITUATION FOR POLITICAL REASONS."
"In the early morning of hours of January 31, 1968, Communist forces struck suddenly and with a fury breathtaking in scope. More than 80,000 soldiers from the North Vietnamese Army [NVA] and the Vietcong guerrilla force launched nearly simultaneous attacks against major cities, towns and military installations from the Demilitarized Zone south to the Mekong Delta. They attacked 36 of 44 provincial capitals, five of the six major cities and 64 district capitals. They seized and occupied Hue, the ancient imperial capital, and sent 11 battalions into Saigon to strike six targets, including the United States Embassy.
"With a few notable exceptions - at Hue, Khe Sanh and Cholon - most of the fighting of the opening phase of the offensive was over in a few days as the American and South Vietnamese forces overcame the initial surprise and responded with superior firepower. Communist forces suffered horrendous casualties; some estimates ranged as high as 40,000 killed. Their losses continued to grow as subsequent fighting extended into the fall months. By the time the offensive had run its course, the Vietcong had been crippled; the major fighting for the rest of the war would be done by the North Vietnamese.
"The Americans had won a tactical victory. But the sheer scope and ferocity of the offensive and the vivid images of the fighting on the nightly television news convinced many Americans that the Johnson administration had lied to them, and the president's credibility plummeted. Perhaps more important, the offensive shook the administration's own confidence and led to a re-evaluation of American strategy. When General Westmoreland asked for an additional 206,000 troops to 'take advantage of the situation', the president balked."
Willbanks then makes the following point:
"To dampen antiwar sentiment [in the United States], Johnson and Westmoreland [like President Bush and General Petraeus today] encouraged what turned out to be false expectations about our prospects in Vietnam, and this colored Americans' perception of the Tet Offensive, stretching the president's credibility gap to the breaking point. A tactical victory [for the Americans during Tet] became a strategic defeat and led to the virtual abdication of President Johnson. General Tran Do of North Vietnam acknowledged that the offensive failed to achieve its objectives, but noted that the public reaction in the United States was a 'fortunate result'."
The parallel between then (Vietnam, 1968) and now (Iraq, 2008) is astonishing. Americans had been promised a quick victory in Iraq - and after a mere two months of fighting in 2003, that's apparently what the Americans got - a quick and relatively bloodless victory. The quick victory, however, proved to be illusory, and Americans found themselves, just as they had in Vietnam, bogged down in a war that has seemed endless; a war that has become an "UNREMITTING HORROR STORY."
By the time the American elites and their lackeys at the Pentagon figured out what was happening and adjusted their war strategy accordingly it was - like it was in Vietnam - too late insofar as the American public was concerned. Thomas Friedman, one of the leading spokesmen for the elites in the United States, laments in the New York Times:
"The reality on the ground in Iraq is no longer an UNREMITTING HORROR STORY. Clearly, the surge has helped to dampen the internal conflict [among Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds]. Clearly, the Iraqi army is performing better. Clearly, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, by cracking down on rogue Shiite groups from his own community, has established himself as more of a national leader. Clearly the Sunnis have decided to take part in the coming parliamentary elections. Clearly Kurdistan continues to operate as an island of decency and free markets. Clearly, al-Qaida in Iraq has been hurt. Clearly, some Arab countries are coming to terms with the changes there by reopening embassies in Baghdad."
Friedman recognizes, however, that despite the seeming success of the surge, the American public is fed up with the war. he continues:
"The mood of the American public, however, has now rendered a judgment that the price we have paid in Iraq over the past five years far, far exceeds what has been achieved there to date The American public will not tolerate another four years dominated by an open-ended commitment to Iraq."
This mood, according to Friedman, arguers for an Obama victory in the upcoming presidential election because most Americans see in a McCain victory a continuing and unending commitment to the War in Iraq.
WHEN THIS FACT IS ADDED TO THE ANXIETY MOST AMERICANS HAVE OVER THE ECONOMY - WHICH THEY BLAME (AND RIGHTFULLY SO) ON GEORGE BUSH AND THE GREED OF THE ELITES WHOSE INTERESTS BUSH REPRESENTS - AN OBAMA VICTORY IN NOVEMBER SEEMS LIKE A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
INDEED, THE VICTORY THAT COULD ACCRUE TO OBAMA IN NOVEMBER COULD VERY WELL GUARANTEE HIM MAJORITIES IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE THAT WOULD GIVE HIM "FREE REIGN" FOR HIS SO-CALLED "SOCIALIST AGENDA," AND FOR RADICAL DEMOCRATS TO DISMANTLE THE MILITARY, AND - IPSO FACTO - THE AMERICAN NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM.
Cal Thomas, another shill for elite power in the United States, whines pathetically:
"In today's political climate, a liberal might say that life is a banquet, which the government must pay for and that those who can't afford a place at the table should behave like it was an all-you-can eat buffet. THIS IS THE VIEW OF SEN. OBAMA. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Obama expounded on the economic policies he would pursue as president. Among other things, he is concerned about the 'winner-take-all' economy where, he says, 'the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy'."
"THIS IS BOILERPLATE WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION, AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY AT THE CENTER OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION. Obama and [left-of-center] Democrats wish to embrace it now Obama's economic doctrine subsidizes people who make wrong decisions "
One is left reeling at Thomas' cold-hearted regard for the plight of the poor - and Thomas is considered one of the "founding fathers" of today's Religious Right. Very obviously, Thomas would find it very difficult to subscribe to the New Testament's view of the rich:
"WOE UNTO YOU THAT ARE RICH! for ye have received your consolation.
"Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep." (Luke 6:24-25)
[Please see our articles, "The Deceitfulness of Riches and the Marxist Paradigm" and "Capitalism and Christianity;" please also see "Making Men Cogs in a Machine."]
THIS IS THE KIND OF TALK THAT LED THE ELITES TO DO WHAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO DO AGAINST FDR (AND FAILED IN DOING), AND WHAT THEY DID AGAINST MARTIN LUTHER KING AND ROBERT KENNEDY (AND SUCCEEDED IN DOING). This is what led Harper's Magazine to seriously discuss the possibility of a military coup against the government. When magazines such as Harpers feels that such a possibility is "for real," maybe it's time we all did. [Please see our article, "An American Coup d' Etat."]
WE SHOULD HOLD OUR BREATH over the next year or so!
God bless you all!
P.S. IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, ORDER YOUR FREE DVD ON THE AMERICAN NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM NOW.
Finally, Remember the Word of God:
"IF WE HAVE SOWN UNTO YOU SPIRITUAL THINGS, IS IT A GREAT THING IF WE SHALL REAP YOUR CARNAL (MATERIAL) THINGS?" (1 Cor. 9:11)
We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]
YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING
THIS ARTICLE TO