[This post was written on 3-17-14; it has been progressively updated – scroll down.]

Let me say from the top that this article is strictly hypothetical.  It may be totally wrong, and events may discredit it within hours of its publication.  Nevertheless, MH370’s protracted disappearance merits some discussion over whether it might be part of the Illuminati agenda.

It has long been clear that MH370 did not explode, as there is no debris trail. Since family members are still able to ring cell phones that belonged to passengers, it is also clear that the plane did not go under water, as submersion would have rendered this impossible. The plane evidently made landfall.

All indications now are that the plane was deliberately diverted northwest.  Someone turned off the transponder, making the plane virtually untrackable (or so it is claimed) once it left the range of Malaysia’s military radar.

To turn off the transponder requires knowledge of the plane’s systems. It seems unlikely that terrorists seized the cockpit.  If they did, there should have been enough time for the pilots to send a distress message, and for passengers to use air phones to say they were being hijacked.

There is no indication so far from investigation of the pilots that they would have been involved in some nefarious scheme.

Is there another way the planes could have been diverted? Shortly after 9-11, the late Joe Vialls asserted that the four jetliners were remote-controlled into their targets using an emergency recovery system that had been installed on Boeing 757s and 767s; the system, he said, took the pilots and crews completely out of the control loop. I know Vialls has been sharply criticized, and I do not say he was right; but I believe it is worth reading his explanation, if only because remote-controlling the 9-11 planes would explain a lot:

• Why the planes were flown into their targets with pinpoint accuracy, despite known flying incompetence of the alleged hijackers;
• Why none of the pilots typed in a hijacking alert code (as they were trained to do);
• Why none of the pilots sent distress messages;
• Why the government has never publicly produced a cockpit tape from any of the flights;
• How the hijackers took over the planes so easily (perhaps they never did);
• Why fighters were delayed getting airborne, preventing them from intercepting any of the aircraft (had they done so, and flown alongside, they might have seen something in the cockpits very different from what we were told).

If, in fact, the 9-11 planes were seized by remote control  – whether through the method Vialls described or not – it raises the question of whether the rerouting of MH370 and turning off of its transponder was also done by remote control.  If this was an electronic hijack, it would have been executed by sophisticated high-tech resources that are available only to agencies of a powerful nation, who must have had a strong reason for doing it.

MH370 was diverted in the general direction of the Middle East.  On that note, it is worth observing that the Illuminati have been trying to widen the Middle East conflicts.  In the wake of stiffening resistance of Americans to stronger “Patriot Act” measures (e.g., Rand Paul’s filibuster against domestic drone strikes in March 2013), it may be that the Illuminati decided to revert to the old standby that worked so well on 9-11: Convince Americans that they needed more draconian security because “those Middle East Muslims are out to get us.”  And so in April 2013 we had the Boston Marathon bombing.

When Obama subsequently failed to win U.S. support for air strikes on Syria after the “Assad used chemical weapons” claims, the Illuminati must have been very frustrated.  Is it possible that they’re planning to go back to their “tried and true” 9-11 formula?

In other words, is the MH370 airliner eventually going to plow into a Western target, perhaps loaded with chemical weapons?  Of course, it is supposed to be impossible to hijack a plane in America with all those TSA checkpoints, so wouldn’t it be logical to use a plane “hijacked” overseas?  The Illuminati have been itching for war with Iran. In 2012, Foreign Affairs, journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, expressed alarm over the presence of Al-Qaida in Iran.  Might the U.S. government eventually claim MH370 landed in Iran and was loaded by Al-Qaida with a payload for a “terrorist attack”?  Might we then go to war with Iran on the same principle as the war in Afghanistan – that we won’t tolerate any nation protecting terrorists?  Would Obama then get his Congressional support for a new Middle East war as he shouts “We will NOT forget!” while an orchestrated mob waves American flags and chants “USA”?

This article is pure speculation, may contain errors (which I encourage readers to email me about) and I hope I am wrong on every count.  At the same time, given the Illuminati’s track record, I believe we are wise to be in a cautious “alert” mode, especially with something as high-profile as the strange disappearance of MH370.

UPDATE 3-20-14

The above post was published 3 days ago.  I now write an addendum.  Today AOL is headlining a news story about a security breach at the new World Trade Center.  Yesterday AOL headlined another news story saying Bin Laden’s son-in-law has confirmed Bin Laden admitted he was behind the 9-11 bombings.  And just two days ago, Cass Sunstein, Obama’s information czar until 2012, released his brand-new book Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas.   Sunstein has advocated having government agents infiltrate and undermine groups who advance “conspiracy theories.”

Certainly, these could be meaningless coincidences. But as the search for MH370 continues, it seems we are having some public attention drawn to the new World Trade Center (tallest building in the Western Hemisphere), reinforcement of the idea that “Bin Laden did it in 2001,” and more marginalization of those who challenge this view as “dangerous.”

Someone just emailed me this link affirming that in 2006 Boeing patented an auto-landing system that “removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.” In the above post, I suggested the possibility that MH370 might have been electronically hijacked, the intention being to later ram it into what I called a “Western target,” and then blame the incident on Al Qaida terrorists in Iran. (For insights into what Al Qaida really is, I suggest this article on Dr. Henry Makow’s website.)  Could that target be the new World Trade Center?  Wouldn’t that be the most “logical” target for Americans to believe Al Qaida would go after?  And since domestic hijackings are supposedly impossible with our TSA system, wouldn’t it also require a long-range jetliner hijacked overseas?

After stories were spun about Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, Americans were definitely not upset enough to accept yet another Middle East war.  Has a high-level decision therefore been made to hurt Americans where it really hurts – at home – with another 9-11?

A variation on this scenario might be to have the jetliner approach a target such as the new World Trade Center, but be shot down by the Air Force “in the nick of time.”

In 1871 the Satanist Albert Pike allegedly predicted three world wars, the final one beginning as a conflict between Islam and Zionism.  As the search for MH370 goes on, the most serious tensions since the Cold War are suddenly being raised between the United States and Russia over the Ukraine. Rather uncomfortably, 2014 also marks the 100th anniversary of World War I.

This theory about MH370, of course, remains very speculative.  If the plane is definitely found, discrediting it, I will withdraw the post.

UPDATE 3-25-2014

Yesterday it was publicly announced that MH370 crashed into a remote part of the Indian Ocean.

So why have I not withdrawn this blog post yet?  For two reasons. First, many unanswered questions remain about MH370.  Regardless of which media scenario is accepted – terrorism, pilot suicide, piracy, cockpit fire – none of them seem to credibly explain why the plane traveled to the southern Indian Ocean.

Second, I said I would withdraw the post when MH370 was “definitely” found.  The public announcement about the fate of MH370 is, so far, based on satellite analysis of “pings” by the British satellite company Inmarsat.  I would call that short of definite.

The Inmarsat report may be spot-on.  On the other hand, we live in era where “expert analysis” has been strategically deployed in the media to deceive the public about many issues, from global warming to Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction.” If MH370 was electronically seized and auto-landed by a powerful intelligence agency – quite possible using the technology which Boeing itself patented eight years ago – I should think that same intelligence agency would also find it necessary fabricate a plausible public “cover story” about MH370’s fate, in order to terminate further search and inquiry.  What better place to have a plane vanish than the deep waters of an extremely remote part of the ocean?  The inaccessibility of the ocean floor has long made it a convenient place to bury evidence, be it the Lusitania or Bin Laden’s body.

UPDATE 3-26-14

As this article notes, fishermen in the Maldives saw a jumbo jet flying low overhead on the morning that MH370 disappeared, and it was headed in the general direction of Diego Garcia, the U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean that has two 12,000-foot runways. Diego Garcia has no native population (they were forcibly deported long ago), just military personnel. A landing on Diego Garcia seems like a credible scenario.

This article suggests that high tech related to Freescale Semiconductors was the target of the diversion.

And this one examines a false-flag scenario similar to the one I suggested at the outset of this post.

Although the mainstream media ridicule such theories, I have yet to see the mainstream media come up with a credible explanation of their own for why MH370 ended up where they say it did.

UPDATE 4-1-14

The search for MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean has turned up nothing. It remains astonishing that the Malaysian government announced that the plane crashed there based on one computer analysis, by one satellite company– a report that could have been fabricated for political reasons.

Here are two new resources that have come to my attention:

The first is this excellent James Corbett video that strengthens the case that both the 9-11 jetliners and MH370 were electronically hijacked.

The second is this well-reasoned article from Prison Planet on why a Boeing 777 could not simply vanish without being detected, and why government and media cannot be telling the truth about the plane.

On June 25, 1950, Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s communist dictator, sent his troops to invade South Korea. American forces, fighting under UN authority, came to South Korea’s defense, in a bloody three-year war that ended in stalemate.

But how did Kim Il-sung and the communists come to power in North Korea? U.S. foreign policy put them there, in a roundabout way.

During World War II, the U.S. fought the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. The Soviet Union, then under Joseph Stalin’s brutal rule, was America’s “ally” during this war. The Soviets, however, only fought Germany; they maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan.

But at the “Big Three” conferences at Teheran and Yalta, President Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his treaty with Japan and enter the Pacific war. Stalin agreed – on condition that the United States supply him with all the weapons, vehicles and materiel his Far Eastern army would need for the expedition. Roosevelt agreed, and some 600 shiploads of supplies were sent to Russia to equip Stalin’s army to fight Japan.

This was an absurd foreign policy decision. Stalin was a well-known aggressor. The 1939 invasion of Poland, which officially began World War II, had actually been a joint venture by the Germans and Soviets. In 1940, Stalin had invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, and annexed part of Romania. No one could seriously believe he would bring benevolence to Asia.

Stalin did not send his army into the Far East until five days before the war ended; Japan, already struck by the atomic bomb, was ready to surrender. Soviet forces moved into China, where, after very limited fighting, they accepted the surrender of huge Japanese weapons depots. They then turned these weapons, plus their own American lend-lease supplies, over to communist rebel Mao Tse-tung. Thus armed, the Chinese communists ultimately overthrew the Nationalist government.

Prior to this, Korea had been a Japanese protectorate. In April 1944, Foreign Affairs – journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – published an article entitled “Korea in the Postwar World.” It suggested turning Korea into a trusteeship ruled by the Allies including Russia. Naturally, Stalin agreed with this idea when it was formally discussed, and the Soviets received power over North Korea, while the U.S. occupied Korea’s southern half.

Considering that the Soviets did almost nothing to win the Pacific war, North Korea was an enormous trophy to give the dictator Stalin, well known to have murdered millions of his own people. Stalin swiftly established a communist government under Kim Il-sung in North Korea, building a 150,000-man army with hundreds of tanks, hundreds of warplanes, and heavy artillery. When the United States departed South Korea, on the other hand, it left only a constabulary force of 16,000 South Koreans with small arms – they did not have a single tank or even one anti-tank gun.

Given communism’s record of insatiable expansionism, this arms imbalance made the invasion of South Korea inevitable. Kim-Il Sung waited until Mao Tse-tung consolidated communist control of China in 1949, securing Kim’s rear. In January 1950, Kim proclaimed this would be Korea’s “year of unification” and called for “complete preparedness for war.” Two weeks later, as if to sweeten the pot for Kim, America’s ever-intriguing Secretary of State Dean Acheson (CFR, Scroll & Key, Committee of 300) gave a speech on the Far East which placed South Korea beyond the U.S. “defensive perimeter.”

Should any attack occur outside the perimeter, Acheson declared, the victims would have to rely “upon the commitments of the entire civilized world under the Charter of the United Nations.” This remark intimated the role the Korean War was to play in the Illuminati agenda.

The Illuminati are Satanists. They seek world domination. The Bible predicts that the Antichrist or “beast” will have authority “over every tribe, people, language and nation” (Revelation 13:7). To govern the world requires a world government – this is self-evident.

The remarkably predictive Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion – whose uncritically accepted status as a hoax is discussed in Chapter 18 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior – openly proposed world government. In Protocol 5:11, for example, the authors declared that their cartel was “gradually to absorb all the state forces of the world and to form a super-government.”

In America, gradual establishment of world government was entrusted to the Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921 in direct response to the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the Versailles Treaty, which would have joined America to the League of Nations. After the League later failed, its successor was, of course, the United Nations. The plan for the UN was secretly contrived by a group of CFR members in the State Department. They called themselves the Informal Agenda Group, selecting this innocuous-sounding name to preempt any suspicions in Congress about what they were up to.

When the UN held its founding conference in San Francisco in 1945, most of the American delegates – 47 of them – were CFR members. Alger Hiss, who would later be exposed as a Soviet spy, was Secretary General at the conference. This time, the Illuminati were taking no chances that the Senate would reject the UN, as it had the League. Hiss flew directly from San Francisco to Washington, with the UN Charter in a locked safe. After glib assurances from delegates, the charter was ratified by the Senate after limited discussion. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated $8.5 million to purchase the land where the UN was built; his younger brother David, of course, was long chairman of the CFR and remains honorary chairman.

Once the UN was established, the next natural step was to try to empower it. This required that its credentials as a peacekeeper be validated, for the first purpose listed in the UN Charter is “To maintain international peace and security.” This was where the Korean War came into play.

Nearly two years into the Korean War, Adlai Stevenson penned the lead article for the April 1952 Foreign Affairs entitled “Korea in Perspective,” in which he summed up thus: “The burden of my argument, then, based on the meaning of our experience in Korea as I see it, is that we have made historic progress toward the establishment of a viable system of collective security.”

The term “collective security” was hypocrisy. During the Korean War, 90 percent of the UN’s forces were American. Although 15 other nations sent troops, their contribution was, numerically speaking, token. Tens of thousands of America soldiers would die under the UN flag.

Congressional opposition to the League of Nations had been largely based on the threat which a supranational government could present to American sovereignty. The UN action in Korea underscored just how justified those concerns had been.  The 10th section of the Protocols (published 1903) predicted: “In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents. . . . We shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war.” A president, of course, is far easier to control than an entire legislature. The U.S. Constitution had decreed that declaration of war was the responsibility of Congress. How, then, to steal this authority away? In 1944 the CFR prepared a memorandum for the State Department which stated: “A further possible difficulty was cited, namely, that arising from the Constitutional provision that only Congress may declare war. This argument was countered with the contention that a treaty would override this barrier, let alone the fact that our participation in such a police action as might be recommended by the international security organization [UN] need not necessarily be construed as war.”

When the Senate ratified the UN Charter, it effectively relinquished its authority to declare war – an authority that has not been invoked since. President Truman sent troops to Korea without so much as consulting Congress. At his press conference of July 29, 1950, Truman explained: “We are not at war; this is a police action.” The United States suffered over 100,000 casualties in Korea – but not to worry, this wasn’t war, just “police action,” surely a testimony to the power of Orwellian semantics.

Congress did not protest Truman’s action very vigorously because the Illuminati were playing a clever trump card. The strongest opponents of the UN in Congress were also staunch anti-communists. They had vigorously condemned the Truman State Department for allowing (in fact, pushing) China’s fall to Communism.  In the case of Korea, Truman now appeared to be atoning for that deed by sending American troops to halt communist aggression. Congressional conservatives faced a catch-22. If they tried to assert their Congressional prerogatives, Korea might be lost to Kim Il-sung’s rapidly advancing communist troops in the meantime.

But we can have no illusions. The backstage Illuminists controlling the American government had no intention of “fighting communism.” General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN forces, learned this the hard way. MacArthur not only succeeded in repelling the North Korean invasion, but – following his soldier’s instincts – he pursued victory, and liberated North Korea from communism nearly all the way to the Yalu River, which marks the border of China. At this point, Red China poured its troops into the conflict. MacArthur ordered the Yalu’s bridges bombed to keep the Chinese out, but within hours his order was countermanded by the Secretary of Defense, General George Marshall.

Marshall was the CFR’s military shill, a Judas in 5-star shoulder boards. He had betrayed the men of Pearl Harbor by withholding his foreknowledge of the 1941 attack; from 1945 to 1949 he had, as “special envoy” to China and then Secretary of State, helped condemn millions of Chinese to death through his manipulations on behalf of the Communists. Now as Secretary of Defense, he once again served as the Communists’ confederate by chaining GIs with the new concept of “limited war.” Victory had become an anachronism, replaced by “containment,” the idea originated in the famous “Mr. X” article in Foreign Affairs. Senator Joe McCarthy saw right through Marshall, condemning him in his 1951 book America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall. Predictably, McCarthy wound up dead and “disgraced,” while Marshall was awarded the 1953 Nobel Peace Prize.

General MacArthur said of Marshall’s order to leave the Yalu bridges alone – which cost thousands of GIs their lives – “I realized for the first time that I had actually been denied the use of my full military power to safeguard the lives of my soldiers and the safety of my army. To me, it clearly foreshadowed a future tragic situation in Korea, and left me with a sense of inexpressible shock.” MacArthur was soon dismissed from command in Korea. Like Patton, he was expendable once he had served his purposes.

We should not underestimate the importance of Harry Truman’s 1950 statement: “I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The Seventh Fleet will see that this is done.”

The joker in this deck was the “corollary.” Chiang Kai-shek and his nationalist army on Formosa (Taiwan) had been threatening to invade the mainland, in an effort to retake it from the communists, whose control there was still tenuous. By removing this threat, Truman freed up Chinese communist troops for their attack across the Yalu. In effect, Truman had the Seventh Fleet protect the communists’ flank while they killed American soldiers. (None of this would surprise any student of the subsequent Vietnam War’s realpolitik, in which Washington’s “rules of engagement” turned what could have been a 6-month victory into a 14-year defeat with 58,000 GIs dead.)

General Lin Piao, commander of Chinese forces in Korea, later stated: “I never would have made the attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication.”

Perhaps the greatest irony of all: the Soviet Union could have prevented the UN action in Korea simply by exercising its veto power as a member of the Security Council. After all, Kim Il-sung was their puppet. However, on the day of the Korea vote, the Soviet delegation was absent. They were in the middle of a walkout they had staged over the failure of the UN to seat Red China. UN Secretary General Trygve Lie expressly invited Jacob Malik, Soviet Ambassador to the UN, to attend the Korea vote, but he declined. Establishment historians refer to this as a “Soviet blunder.” But politicians rarely blunder. If Malik (died 1980) had really goofed, Stalin would have had him nailed to a board.

The Korean War was not about victory on either side. It was about validating the UN as “peacekeeper.” Including civilian casualties, some three million people died on this altar to world government.  When the war ended in 1953, Korea’s North-South borders were restored to approximately where they had been at the outset: the 38th parallel. General Mark Clark commented: “In carrying out the instructions of my government, I gained the unenviable distinction of being the first United States Army commander in history to sign an armistice without victory.”

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion – whose uncritically accepted status as a hoax is discussed in Chapter 18 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior – declared: “In order that the masses may not guess what they are about we further distract them with amusements, games, pastimes, passions, peoples palaces. Soon we shall begin through the press to propose competitions in art, in sport of all kinds.” (Protocol 13:3)

The Protocols were first published publicly in 1903. After that, technological strides made movies and television major means of “distraction.” More than this, they became instruments of political indoctrination and social change sought by the Illuminati to advance their New World Order.

A few years ago, I told a friend that I enjoyed watching Turner Classic Movies, because older films possessed morality missing in today’s cinema. “Well,” he cautioned me, “even back then, Hollywood was pushing the envelope.”

He was right, of course. Hollywood has always been a step to the left of the culture. Filmmakers were usually too cagy to thrust something shocking on the public. Instead, they nudged the culture, one step at a time, away from its traditional Christian worldview.

The idiom for this is “boiling a frog.” It’s said that to boil a frog, you can’t just toss him in boiling water – he’ll jump out. Instead, you put him in lukewarm water, and gradually turn up the heat. That way, the frog never realizes he’s been boiled. The Illuminati have consistently applied this principle in building their New World Order – for example, introducing income tax at a benign 1 percent in 1913, then progressively increasing it to today’s double-digit brackets.

TV perfectly exemplifies “boiling the frog.” The 1950s saw what was called “the Golden Age of Television.” Every program was a family show. By design, there was no sex, gore, or foul language. If there had been, hardly anyone would have purchased a TV back then. So early programs were loaded with traditional values. Someone would say, “Hey, Joe, I just bought a TV and it’s great! My children are learning the importance of honesty, patriotism, and obeying parents!” His friend would respond, “Gee, if that’s what TV’s like, I’m buying one for my kids too!” Then, about 1963, television approached saturation – over 90 percent of American homes had one. Programming then began to change. That year, Leave It to Beaver and Dobie Gillis were cancelled. Like the boiled frog, content was gradually modified year-by-year until now you’ve got sex, gross violence, bizarre occult horror, foul language, “politically correct” propaganda. The frogs (me included) didn’t know they were being incrementally boiled.

While year-to-year contrasts are subtle, comparing today’s standards to decades ago exposes the degree of overall change. Many R-rated films of the 1960s, such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, are so tame by today’s standards they would now be PG-13 or even PG.

What have these changing standards targeted? America’s morals were rooted in the Bible, especially the Ten Commandments. In older films, violations of these commandments – murder, adultery, theft, lying – were portrayed negatively. Characters indulging in such conduct were never allowed to “get away with it,” to discourage viewers from emulating them. (Alfred Hitchcock had a clever way of circumventing this on his television program. Often the entire drama depicted the lead character succeeding in crime, but in Hitch’s postscript, he would say something like, “Eventually Mr. Smythe was apprehended by the police, paid his debt to society, and all that sort of rot.”)

We’ve come a long way down since. Many of today’s movies openly celebrate evil, and depict it as incurring no consequences. A few years ago, USA Network even ran a promotional ad which read: “Guaranteed to break more Commandments than any other lineup.” Even the third commandment – against taking God’s name in vain – is being blitzed, as “Oh my God” has become the signature exclamation for TV reality shows like Keeping Up with the Karshadians.

The satanic nature of the changes is corroborated by the attacks extending, beyond morals, to direct assaults on Christianity itself. Since theology is generally perceived as boring, and stories revolve around characters, most of the attacks have been against Christian people, portraying them countless times as stupid, mean, bigoted, hypocritical, mentally unstable, money-grubbing, etc. But even the Gospel account itself has been subjected to ridicule and revisionism (The Life of Brian, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Da Vinci Code).  Although pro-Christian films still get a few rare screenings, gone are the days of Ben Hur and The Robe.

The Password is Quality

One strategy the Illuminati have employed is “quality sells.”Anatomy of a Murder (1959) was an involving courtroom drama that featured superb performances by the venerable James Stewart and then-up-and-coming George C. Scott. About a rape case, it was also the first film to use the words “bitch,” “contraceptive,” “penetration” and “sperm.” Director Otto Preminger, who utilized this tactic in several films, knew that once he passed the censors, a precedent would be irrevocably set.

In the Pawnbroker (1965), Rod Steiger gave what may have been the performance of his life, as a hardened Holocaust survivor with no compassion for his fellow man. The film was also the first to show naked female breasts. Once again, quality rowed the boat past the gatekeepers, and there was no turning back.

In the 1990s, my wife and I were impressed by two new television shows: Law and Order and ER.  We were surprised to see scripting and acting at a level unprecedented for TV – that infamous medium of “mindless entertainment.” Although doctor and police dramas had always been popular genres, these two series were of exceptional quality. And, followed by a rash of spinoffs and imitations, they ushered in an era where viewers are being saturated with positive images of law enforcement and medicine. In retrospect, it is evident that the Illuminati, who control Hollywood, wanted the public conditioned to accept the new surveillance police state, and the medical apparatus through which Big Pharma exerts population control.

Academy Awards

The Illuminati have long used honors – such as Nobel and Pulitzer prizes – to reward and dignify people serving their agenda. When Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize after one year in office, American entrepreneurs expressed their estimation of the Prize’s worth:

Before discussing the Oscars, I digress. About 20 years ago I wrote a screenplay. It was optioned twice, but never produced. My goal was to create a film that would include a scene where Christian faith was defended. Knowing that any preachiness would sour an audience, I worked the scene into what was otherwise an action-mystery story, in which a vicious cult kidnapped a young minister. The “defense of faith” scene was a well-intentioned “joker” hidden in my deck of cards, but was actually the screenplay’s main purpose.

It occurs to me that the Illuminati have employed this same technique to indoctrinate the public. Did you ever wonder why It’s a Wonderful Life didn’t win the best-film Oscar for 1946? The honor instead went to The Best Years of Our Lives. While the latter had an impressive performance by disabled war veteran Harold Russell, I believe the secret of the film’s Oscar success was this political joker in its deck.

How Green Was My Valley earned Best Picture of 1941, and while many Christians cherish it, it contained its own little jokers, such as the two-minute scene that begins around 36:20 of the movie, in which a mean-spirited, bigoted clergyman – who has a permanent scowl etched on his ugly face – condemns unions and socialism, which he denounces as the work of “the devil.” The film’s protagonist – the town’s young, handsome, broad-minded new minister – disagrees, as he puffs on his pipe, personifying wisdom.

When I was a teenager in the 1960s, my father and I noticed that a local TV station was promoting its upcoming broadcast of the 1947 Best Picture Oscar winner, Gentleman’s Agreement. We watched with great anticipation, since to us, “best picture” carried a promise of noteworthy entertainment. However, the film – which concerns a magazine writer who pretends to be Jewish so he can experience anti-Semitism first-hand – was a complete yawner. Not even the great director Elia Kazan, nor actor Gregory Peck, could pump air into this flat tire, with its lifeless, preachy screenplay. My father and I, not being politically informed then, were naively mystified as to why the award was accorded to such a lemon.

With an informed retrospect, the solution is evident. There was no joker in this deck; the whole movie was the joker. The public was being prepped to accept an important event. Less than two months after Agreement won the Oscar, the state of Israel was proclaimed, accompanied by simultaneous recognition from Harry Truman – who then received his own surprise “Oscar”: reelection that November, in history’s greatest Presidential election upset.

While a number of Oscars of the classic era rewarded political correctness, some did not – films like All About Eve, On the Waterfront, and Marty won on talent and poignant messages. But in recent years, the Academy’s bias toward “agenda” films has become much more dominant.

For 1991, The Silence of the Lambs won an impressive Oscar sweep: best picture, actor and actress. Although I’d already been forewarned about the film by Ted Baehr’s Christian-outlook Movieguide, my wife and I began watching when it aired on television. After about an hour, I told my wife: “I’m turning in. This is nothing but a gore movie – they’ve just dignified it by using some name actors.” My wife insisted on finishing the film, convinced that the Oscar honors meant the movie would eventually have redeeming moments. It didn’t.

The next morning, my wife told me she hadn’t been able to sleep all night – not because of the film’s ghoulish violence, but because of what its Oscar wins said about the state of American culture. William Guy Carr, one of the pioneering analysts of the Illuminati, wrote in Pawns in the Game that “the general public, and particularly the children, have been systematically hardened to accept the sight of violence and bloody death as normal.” He wrote that in 1955. In 1991 The Silence of the Lambs simply took public acclimatization to violence to a new level, certified by the Oscars’ stamp of approval.

For the following year, 1992, the Oscar went to Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven, despite its mediocre, predictable script. Since Eastwood had made superior Westerns long before that, such as The Outlaw Josey Wales, why was he suddenly knighted by Oscar? To me, the answer was obvious. Eastwood had shed the conservatism that stigmatized him as a “Neanderthal” in Hollywood. Unforgiven was brimming with political correctness: cowboys in the saddle discussing animal rights and masturbation; women’s rights, of course, were at the story’s core; the film was loaded with profanities that Eastwood’s earlier Westerns hadn’t found necessary; and even the title was an inversion of Christianity’s message.

During the Oscar ceremonies for 1993, I watched Bruce Springsteen perform “Streets of Philadelphia.” It was  – to me, at least – a very unremarkable melody. When it was subsequently handed the “Best Song” Oscar, I was perplexed – until later that night, when I learned that the film Philadelphia was a gay-rights vehicle.

It was becoming clear that Oscars were no longer rewarding artistry or talent; they were doled out for purely sociopolitical reasons. Of course, I am not saying that the films’ quality was necessarily poor; as noted, the Illuminati know “quality sells,” so they pay top dollar to have their agenda packaged attractively. But the reason for Oscar selections is increasingly disconnected from talent.

For 1993, one of the last times I bothered watching, the “battle” for best picture came down to Zionism (Schindler’s List) versus sodomy (Philadelphia). For those uninitiated to the Illuminati agenda, Zionism’s goal is enthronement of the Antichrist in Jerusalem; and the Illuminati support the gay movement, not because they sympathize with gays, but so they can exploit reclassification of homosexuality as a “civil right” to try to suppress Bible-based churches on the pretext of “civil rights violations.” For 1993, Zionism carried the day with “Best Picture,” but the Oscars would increasingly promote the gay lifestyle. Ellen Degeneres, of course, was the most recent Oscar hostess.

Dividing up the Agenda

Hollywood has served many specific planks of the Illuminati platform. War has been at the forefront of these.

In May 2001, Disney’s Touchstones Pictures released Pearl Harbor starring Ben Affleck. It was a flag-waving war movie – not a genre Touchstone was known for. Eight months earlier, the Project for a New American Century had issued its notorious paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” which called for an increased U.S. military presence overseas, especially the Middle East, but warned: “The process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” Less than four months after Touchstone’s release, 9/11 provided them with their “new Pearl Harbor.”

Such cinematic timing wasn’t new. In August 1939 British audiences saw release of The Four Feathers, the lavish classic about a soldier who overcomes his cowardice to fight in war. Within a month, Britain declared war on Germany. In September 1941, ten weeks before Pearl Harbor, Americans saw a parallel epic: Sergeant York, the true story of an American who initially resisted enlisting for World War I, but ended up a hero.

Even long after the Civil War and Reconstruction, lingering resentment of the South toward the federal government made it expedient that reconciliation occur, so that Southerners could be persuaded to enlist and fight alongside “Yankees” in foreign wars. It may or may not be coincidence that the two films which made Southerners feel vindicated – Birth of a Nation (1915) and Gone with the Wind (1939) – were both released soon after world war had broken out on the European continent, but before America had joined those conflicts. Both movies broke box-office records.

Darwinism – an Illuminati-financed attempt to discredit God and the Bible – got a big push from Inherit the Wind, a Hollywood rendering of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial. In the film, enlightened evolutionists battle imbecile Christians. The film set records for inaccuracy, from depicting John Scopes as a jailed martyr (violating Tennesee’s Butler Act was not an imprisonable offense) to showing William Jennings Bryan denouncing science during the trial (whereas he actually praised it). In Chapter 17 of Tornado in a Junkyard, I systematically compare the film script to the trial transcript, and they are often diametrically opposite. Jurassic Park used the “quality sells” formula to plug Darwinist arguments (the turning of a herd of dinosaurs in unison “proved” they evolved from birds, but the film didn’t mention that herds of mammals and schools of fish are seen doing the same thing). Even family staple The Waltons had an episode (“The Fire”) in which a young girl’s evil backwoods father burns the schoolhouse for teaching evolution. Et tu, John-Boy?

Big Pharma got a classic Hollywood boost when Law and Order SVU aired an episode in 2009 called “Selfish,” in which a young mom is prosecuted for murder because she didn’t have her child vaccinated for measles (that’s what was “selfish”), resulting in the measles death of another child. For maximum effect, the mother of the dead victim was played by teen idol Hilary Duff (Lizzie McGuire).

There is no component of the Illuminati agenda which lacks Hollywood’s dramatic support. As this clip demonstrates, recent movies have flaunted Illuminati symbols (all-seeing eye, Masonic pyramid, 9-11 before it happened). This informative Infowars clip amplifies further, showing how satanic symbolism is used in Superbowl halftime shows and other entertainment venues.

And in case you’re wondering why they still allow Turner Classic Movies to showcase old-time films, reread the Protocols quote at the top. The Illuminati want to keep people of all tastes distracted, and that includes us “old geezers.”

[This is a reprint of Chapter 17 of Tornado in a Junkyard.  A condensed paraphrase may be found on Dr. Henry Makow’s website.]

It has been said that fiction persuades people more effectively than nonfiction, because it does a better job of touching emotions. Perhaps nothing has advanced evolution’s cause so effectively as a play and movie–Inherit the Wind.

Inherit depicts what was perhaps the most famous court case of the twentieth century–the “monkey trial” of 1925. The defendant was John Scopes, a schoolteacher from Dayton, Tennessee. He was charged with violating the Butler Act, a state law that forbade teaching that man descended from lower life forms (it did not prohibit teaching other aspects of evolution). The Butler Act had been uncontroversial in the Tennessee legislature, passing 71-5 in the house, and 24-6 in the senate.

Leading Scopes’s defense was Clarence Darrow, the most famous criminal lawyer of his day; assisting the prosecution was William Jennings Bryan, former Secretary of State and three times the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate. The most common impression about this trial is probably that Darrow humiliated Bryan in cross-examination, scoring a powerful blow for evolution against religious fundamentalism.

Above: Scopes, Darrow and Bryan

Public beliefs regarding the trial are based mostly on Inherit the Wind. The play enjoyed a record three-year run on Broadway. It then became a film starring Spencer Tracy and Frederic March and was nominated for several Academy Awards. The movie, as well as a 1988 televised remake, have been shown countless times to students as “educational” material. The play has been frequently revived. Few people, however, have ever read the actual trial transcript. For most, Inherit the Wind IS the trial, and for many, even defines their perception of the creation-evolution debate.

It might be said, “Ah, come on, lighten up, nobody expects literal interpretations from Hollywood. Everyone knows that screenwriters sometimes change facts to make a story more interesting.” That’s right. I have signed away options on an unproduced screenplay of my own, and I know that when a writer fictionalizes a true event, he may have to create conflict where none existed, to put zip into the story, or invent new characters to generate dialogue.

That’s not what I’m talking about. Inherit the Wind did not alter facts merely to stimulate the audience. It grossly perverted the Scopes trial to advance a specific agenda. It is true that the original playwrights, Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, acknowledged that their work “is not history,”¹ and changed the principals’ names. John Scopes became Bert Cates; Clarence Darrow became Henry Drummond; William Jennings Bryan became Matthew Harrison Brady; Dayton, Tennessee became Hillsboro, Tennessee. Of course, everyone knew who they were talking about, but by making this disclaimer and changing the names, Lawrence and Lee padded their license to slander.

This chapter will contrast Inherit the Wind with the actual Scopes trial, by comparing the Spencer Tracy movie (the most familiar and accessible version) to the original courtroom transcript and other records.

IN THE MOVIE, the film opens as the grim town minister and other prudish-looking residents of Hillsboro gather. Ominous music plays against the hymn “Give me that old time religion, it’s good enough for me.” The citizens march to the local high school, where young Bert Cates (John Scopes) is forthrightly teaching biology, using Darwin’s Descent of Man. Cates is portrayed as a man who grew up in Hillsboro; neighborhood children, we learn, would come to his house to peer through his microscope.

The town prudes arrest Cates on the spot. The arresting officer reads in a droning fashion from a warrant. Cates says to him: “Come off it, Sam, you’ve known me all my life.”

IN REAL LIFE, John Scopes was not a biology teacher, nor did he grow up in Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes taught math and coached football, but had briefly substituted for the regular biology teacher during an illness. He was recruited by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to challenge Tennessee’s Butler Act. Evidently, he never even taught evolution or Darwin.L. Sprague de Camp’s The Great Monkey Trial relates the following conversation between Scopes and reporter William K. Hutchinson of the International News Service:

“There is something I must tell you. It’s worried me. I didn’t violate the law.”

“A jury has said you had,” replied Hutchinson.

“Yes, but I never taught that evolution lesson. I skipped it. I was doing something else the day I should have taught it, and I missed the whole lesson about Darwin and never did teach it. Those kids they put on the stand couldn’t remember what I taught them three months ago. They were coached by the lawyers. And that April twenty-fourth date was just a guess.

“Honest, I’ve been scared all through the trial that the kids might remember I missed the lesson. I was afraid they’d get on the stand and say I hadn’t taught it and then the whole trial would go blooey. If that happened they’d run me out of town on a rail.”

“Well, you are safe now,” said Hutchinson.²

Don’t buy it? Here’s what Scopes himself said in his autobiography, Center of the Storm:

To tell the truth, I wasn’t sure I had taught evolution.³

Darrow had been afraid for me to go on the stand. Darrow realized that I was not a science teacher and he was afraid that if I were put on the stand I would be asked if I actually taught biology.⁴

And Scopes wrote of his students who were called as witnesses:

If the boys had got their review of evolution from me, I was unaware of it. I didn’t remember teaching it.⁵

IN THE MOVIE, we next see Cates in jail, where he learns that the famous William Harrison Brady is coming to prosecute him. The jailer asks, “Who’s gonna be your lawyer, son?” Cates replies: “I don’t know yet. I wrote to that newspaper in Baltimore. They’re sending somebody.”

Cates’s girlfriend, Rachel, pleads with him: “Tell them you’re sorry. Tell them it was a mistake.” But Bert says: “Tell them if they let my body out of jail, I’d lock up my mind? Could you stand that, Rachel?”

At night, having recently heard a fiery sermon by the town preacher, a mob gathers outside Cates’s jail, burning him in effigy and threatening to lynch him. To the tune of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” they sing: “We’ll hang Bert Cates to a sour apple tree, our God is marching on, Glory, glory, hallelujah. . . .” A rock is hurled through the jail window, injuring him.

In the courtroom, Cates is told: “We’ll fix you, Cates–we’ll run you out of town!”

John Scopes is thus portrayed as a heroic martyr, persecuted by witch-hunting bigots for daring to speak the truth.

IN REAL LIFE, Scopes never spent one second in jail. Violating Tennessee’s Butler Act was not an imprisonable offense; it was punishable only by a fine (which Scopes was never required to pay).

Furthermore, there was no bad blood between Scopes and Dayton’s people. The entire affair was amicably arranged. The ACLU had been running ads in Tennessee newspapers, offering to pay expenses for any teacher who would volunteer to participate in a court challenge to the new law. (The ACLU, of course, is well known for opposing organized religion; it has frequently sued public schools that allow religious teachings and towns that display nativity scenes at Christmas.)

George Rappleyea, manager of a mining company, noticed the ad. He convinced local businessmen that such a trial would put Dayton on the map (which it did) and hopefully lift its sagging economy. The men approached Scopes in the local drugstore run by “Doc” Robinson. They asked John if he would agree to say he had violated the law and be served with a warrant. Scopes later recalled the conversation:

“You filled in as a biology teacher, didn’t you?” Robinson said.

“Yes.” I nodded. “When Mr. Ferguson was sick.”

“Well, you taught biology then. Didn’t you cover evolution?”

“We reviewed for final exams, as best I remember.” To tell the truth, I wasn’t sure I had taught evolution.

Robinson and the others apparently weren’t concerned about this technicality. I had expressed willingness to stand trial. That was enough.⁶

Scopes and Dayton citizens reenact the drugstore encounter

The Dayton businessmen were so eager to have the trial, that when they learned Chattanooga was trying to get its own court case going, Daytonians threatened to boycott Chattanooga merchants, and Scope’s indictment was accelerated.⁷

To be sure, John Scopes believed in evolution. However, his trial was not instigated by witch-hunting fundamentalists, but by the ACLU, which not only paid the defense’s costs, but offered to pay the prosecution’s as well (an offer that was turned down). Everything happened with Scopes’s consent. Far from lynching him, the townspeople gave Scopes a seat of honor next to William Jennings Bryan at a banquet held for the latter.

IN THE MOVIE, when the locals learn Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow) is coming to be Bert Cates’s defense attorney, they yell: “We’ll send him back to hell!” “Ride him out on a rail!” “Don’t let him into town! Keep him out!”

When he arrives, he is greeted by only one person–newspaperman E. K. Hornbeck (based on the cynical journalist H. L. Mencken). (Drummond was played by Spencer Tracy and Hornbeck by Gene Kelly.) Drummond gets a rough reception. A big, gruff farmer rebukes him. A senile-looking Bible salesman asks Hornbeck: “Are you an evolutionist? An infidel? A sinner?” The only hospitable folks are Bert Cates’s enlightened students. When Drummond approaches the courthouse the next morning, he is loudly booed. At night, a mob of fundamentalists outside his hotel threaten to lynch him.

Lynch mob in Inherit the Wind

IN REAL LIFE, a friendly crowd greeted Clarence Darrow at the train station. The town held a banquet in his honor. Here is what Darrow himself said of his experience there:

Yet I came here a perfect stranger and I can say what I have said before that I have not found upon anybody’s part–any citizen here in this town or outside, the slightest discourtesy. I have been better treated, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied would have been the case in the north, and that is due largely to the ideas that southern people have and they are, perhaps, more hospitable than we are up north.⁸

IN THE MOVIE, Henry Drummond is Bert Cates’s lone attorney–an underdog fighting the system, represented by Matthew Harrison Brady, the state attorney, and a bigoted judge.

IN REAL LIFE, Clarence Darrow brought to Dayton a team of lawyers, including ACLU heavyweight Arthur Garfield Hays, New York divorce attorney Dudley Field Malone, and, for insight into local law, Tennessean John Neal.

IN THE MOVIE, in sharp contrast to Drummond’s cold reception, Matthew Harrison Brady (William Jennings Bryan) is given a huge parade. Marching before him, singing “Gimme that old time religion, it’s good enough for me,” are the town’s housewives, who, to a woman, are matronly, dour, prudish and frumpy (does that about sum it up?). They change the lyrics to: “If it’s good enough for Brady, then it’s good enough for me.” On the spot, the mayor makes Brady an honorary colonel in the state militia.

The movie’s parade for “Brady”

In court, the judge prejudicially keeps referring to Brady as “Colonel.” Drummond says: “And I object to all this ‘Colonel Brady’ talk. I am not familiar with Mr. Brady’s military record.” Smitten, the mayor reluctantly makes Drummond a colonel, too.

IN REAL LIFE, no parade was given for Bryan, who was a colonel in the U.S. Army during the Spanish-American War, though he saw no action. And the judge, John T. Raulston, courteously referred to Darrow as “Colonel” from their first courtroom exchange, with no wrangling over titles.

IN THE MOVIE, Brady is an ignorant bigot opposed to all science. He says, “The people of this state have made it very clear that they do not want this zoological hogwash slobbered around the schoolrooms!” He declares: “The way of scientism is the way of darkness.”

IN REAL LIFE, Bryan was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Here is what he really said about science during the trial:

The Christian men and women of Tennessee know how deeply mankind is indebted to science for benefits conferred by the discovery of the laws of nature and by the designing of machinery for the utilization of these laws. Give science a fact and it is not only invincible, but of incalculable service to man.⁹

IN THE MOVIE, Brady opposes evolution solely on Biblical grounds.

IN REAL LIFE, he also opposed it on rational, scientific grounds. In an article published in Reader’s Digest he said:

It is not unusual for evolutionists to declare that their hypothesis is as clearly established as the law of gravitation or the roundness of the earth. Yet anyone can prove that anything heavier than air, when thrown up into the air, will fall to the ground; anyone can demonstrate the roundness of the earth by traveling around it.

But how about the doctrine that all of the species . . . by the operation of interior, resident forces came by slow and gradual development from one or a few germs of life, which appeared on this planet millions of years ago–the estimates varying according to the vigor of the guesser’s imagination and the number of ciphers left in his basket? . . . On the contrary, no one has ever been able to trace one single species to another. Darwin admitted that no species had ever been traced to another, but he thought his hypothesis should be accepted even though the “missing links” had not been found. . . . If there is such a thing as evolution, it is not just one link–the link between man and the lower forms of life–that is missing, but all the millions of links between millions of species. . . .

When a few bones and a piece of skull are fashioned into a supposed likeness of a prehistoric animal, described as an ape-man, the evolutionists fall down before it and worship it, although it contains a smaller percentage of fact than the one-half percent alcohol permitted in a legal beverage. . . .¹⁰

IN THE MOVIE, Brady is completely unfamiliar with Darwin’s works. After he declares his knowledge of the Bible, the following exchange ensues:

Drummond: I don’t suppose there are many portions of this book you’ve committed to memory–the Origin of the Species?

Brady: I am not in the least interested in the pagan hypotheses of that book.

Drummond: Never read it?

Brady: And I never will.

Drummond: Then how in perdition have you got the gall to whoop up this holy war about something that you don’t know anything about?

IN REAL LIFE, Bryan quoted Darwin extensively, in both the Dayton courtroom and his writings.

“Drummond” and “Brady” in court. The film script bears little resemblance to the trial transcript.

IN THE MOVIE, the prosecution objects when the defense tries to introduce Darwin’s texts as evidence; the bigoted judge agrees and excludes them.

IN REAL LIFE, not only were Darwin’s books allowed in evidence, but Bryan introduced them. I quote the trial transcript:

Mr. Bryan: Let me read what Darwin says. . . .

Mr. Malone [defense attorney]: What is the book, Mr. Bryan?

Mr. Bryan: “The Descent of Man,” by Charles Darwin.

Mr. Malone: That has not been offered as evidence?

Mr. Bryan: I should be glad to offer it.¹¹

IN THE MOVIE, Brady is an obnoxious boor who laughs at his own corny jokes and can never resist making long speeches in the courtroom. Even the judge at last seems exasperated by Brady’s penchant for speeches.

IN REAL LIFE, Bryan never spoke a word in court until the fourth day of the trial, and that was in response to a query. The defense was quoting Bryan’s writings on religious freedom; asked if he minded, he said: “Not a bit.”¹²

In contrast, Clarence Darrow had already engaged in considerable oratory during the trial, including a two-hour speech on religion, bigotry and the law.

Darrow and Bryan in the courtroom

IN THE MOVIE, Drummond must turn down a bigoted juror. Brady accepts jurors based solely on their belief in the Bible, and even tries to renege when he learns that one is not as dogmatically religious as he had hoped.

IN REAL LIFE, Darrow turned down no juror for prejudice, and Bryan never spoke during jury selection.

IN THE MOVIE, in one of the script’s worst misrepresentations, the judge disallows any testimony from eminent scientists whom Drummond has brought to the trial. In a droning voice, the judge declares that “zoology” (which he can barely pronounce) and other scientific topics are “irrelevant to the case.”

IN REAL LIFE, Darrow called as a witness Maynard Metcalf, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins. He testified at length.¹³ It is true that Judge Raulston excluded the jury from that testimony. Darrow had instructed Scopes to plead “not guilty”; the jury’s only responsibility was to determine if he had broken the law. It was not their duty to decide if evolution was true, or if the Butler Act was constitutional.

It soon became clear that the atheistic Darrow was orchestrating a parade of witnesses for the purpose of promoting evolution. (The trial was being broadcast by radio across the nation, and reported in all the newspapers.) The prosecution correctly protested that this was irrelevant to the legal question at hand–Had Scopes violated the Butler Act?–and the judge, after studying the issue, concurred.

However, the defense argued that if Judge Raulston heard further scientific testimony, he would realize he was wrong. Giving great leeway, he courteously consented to hear more from the experts. Here is what he said:

The Court–I am going to let you introduce evidence and I will sit here and hear it, and if that evidence were to convince me that I was in error I would, of course, reverse myself.

William Jennings Bryan then raised a point that riled Clarence Darrow:

Mr. Bryan–I ask your honor: Will we be entitled to cross-examine their witnesses?

The Court–You will, if they go on the stand.

Mr. Darrow–They have no more right to cross-examine than to bring in the jury to hear this issue.

The judge then asked Darrow a pertinent question:

The Court–Colonel, what is the purpose of cross-examination?

Mr. Darrow–The purpose of cross-examination is to be used on the trial.

The Court–Well, isn’t it an effort to ascertain the truth?

Mr. Darrow–No, it is an effort to show prejudice.¹⁴

Obviously, when one side in a trial calls witnesses, the opposing party has a right to cross-examine them. But Darrow knew Bryan would ask his experts tough questions like “Where are the missing links?” Even worse, he might ask if they were atheists–which some could not deny without perjuring themselves. All this would spoil Darrow’s evolutionary showcase. He decided to have his witnesses instead make written affidavits for submission to an appeals court, thus avoiding any risk of cross-examination:

Mr. Darrow–We expect to protect our rights in some other court. Now, that is plain enough, isn’t it? Then we will make statements of what we expect to prove. Can we have the rest of the day to draft them?

Darrow was given the whole weekend, during which eight scientists dictated 60,000 words to stenographers.¹⁵ Copies were given to the press; excerpts were read aloud in the courtroom. Far from being excluded, the testimony of Darrow’s witnesses occupies 54 pages of the trial transcript. The decision to stay off the stand, and submit only written affidavits, was not made by a bigoted judge, but by the defense itself, in an effort to escape cross-examination. The ploy worked. Ironically, most of the evolutionary “evidence” Darrow’s experts discussed–Piltdown Man, “useless” organs, embryonic recapitulation–now sits in the trash heap of discredited ideas.

IN THE MOVIE, Brady wins the case through a vicious betrayal that reveals much about the writers’ view of Christian faith. The Scopes character, Bert Cates, is engaged to Rachel Brown, daughter of the town preacher. Reverend Brown tells Rachel she must leave Bert. Rachel refuses. He asks why. She says, “I love him, Pa.” He says, “No, no, that is the love of Judas–this man has nothing to offer you but sin.” Rachel asks: “Why do you hate him so?” Her father says, with a malicious expression: “Because I love God and I hate his enemies.” (Got that, teens of the sixties? Only religion and parents stand in the way of “true love.” Indeed, Cates tells Rachel: “It’s his church or our house–you can’t live in both.” )

The vicious–and fictitious–“Reverend Brown”

Reverend Brown orders Rachel to beg forgiveness. Refusing, she assertively confronts her father with how unloving he has been since her childhood. The reverend nearly has a nervous breakdown, falling on his knees and babbling Bible verses.

Later, Reverend Brown leads a prayer meeting which looks more like a storm trooper rally:

Reverend Brown: Do we curse the man who denies the Word?

Crowd (wild-eyed, frenzied): Yes!

Brown: Do we call down hellfire on the man who has sinned against the Word?

Crowd: Yes!

Brown (looking toward heaven): O Lord of the Tempest and the Thunder! Strike down this sinner, as Thou didst Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharaohs! Let him know the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his soul writhe in anguish and damnation!

Rachel (sobbing): No, Pa! Don’t pray to destroy Bert!

Brown: Lord, we ask the same curse for those who ask grace for this sinner–though they be blood of my blood, and flesh of my flesh!

At this point, Matthew Harrison Brady intervenes, calling for moderation and forgiveness. He breaks up the prayer meeting, and walks Rachel home, apparently to comfort her. For a moment, the writers seem to be showing a more balanced picture of Brady.

However, we later learn it’s a ruse to milk Rachel for information about Bert Cates! The next day, Brady calls her as a witness, insisting that she repeat to the courtroom what she said the night before. Rachel protests: “Mr. Brady, I confided in you.” But he and the judge compel her to reveal what Bert told her during their most intimate moments– personal thoughts showing he had some doubts about religion. Brady cruelly forces her to the point of tears, saying: “Tell it, tell it all, tell it, tell it, tell it!” In the movie, it is this testimony that convicts Cates.

That night, Rachel goes to Brady’s rooming house. She tells his wife: “I turned to your husband for help. He encouraged me to open up my heart to him. And then he twisted my words. He tricked me! Why? Why did he do it?” She breaks down, sobbing, then tells Mrs. Brady: “If he could do such an evil thing, he must be an evil man. And everything he stands for must be evil too!” The next day, Rachel tells Bert: “I left my father.” True love has won!

IN REAL LIFE, John Scopes had no girlfriend at the time of the trial, and no women were ever called to testify.

IN THE MOVIE, the judge cites Drummond with contempt of court because he makes an impassioned speech about truth and justice, denying that his client has received a fair trial (which in the movie, of course, he hasn’t).

IN REAL LIFE, Darrow’s contempt citation was for repeatedly insulting and interrupting the judge. The spark was Judge Raulston’s ruling that Bryan could cross-examine defense experts if they took the stand. We have already quoted Darrow’s testy remark that the purpose of cross-examination is to “show prejudice.” Let’s read excerpts from the ensuing exchange, which led to the citation:

The Court–Courts are a mockery . . .

Mr. Darrow–They are often that, your honor.

The Court–. . . when they permit cross-examination for the purpose of creating prejudice.

Mr. Darrow–I submit, your honor, there is no sort of question that they are not entitled to cross-examine, but all this evidence is to show what we expect to prove and nothing else, and can be nothing else.

The Court–I will say this: If the defense wants to put their proof in the record, in the form of affidavits, of course they can do that. If they put the witness on the stand and the state desires to cross-examine them, I shall expect them to do so.

Mr. Darrow–We except to it and take an exception.

The Court–Yes sir; always expect this court to rule correctly.

Mr. Darrow–No, sir, we do not.

(Laughter) . . .

The Court–I would not say . . .

Mr. Darrow–If your honor takes half a day to write an opinion . . .

The Court–I have not taken . . .

Mr. Darrow–We want to make statements here of what we expect to prove. I do not understand why every request of the state and every suggestion of the prosecution should meet with an endless waste of time, and a bare suggestion of anything that is perfectly competent on our part should be immediately overruled.

The Court–I hope you do not mean to reflect upon the court?

[At this point, Darrow turned his back on the judge and hunched his shoulders.]

Mr. Darrow–Well, your honor has the right to hope.

[laughter]¹⁶.

Raulston did not charge Darrow with contempt in the heat of anger, as the movie judge does. He made the citation the following day, after reviewing the court transcript. And incidentally, as in the film, he dropped the citation as soon as Darrow apologized.

IN THE MOVIE, Cates and Drummond hang on pins and needles waiting for the jury’s decision. When a “guilty” verdict is read, gloom falls on the defendant and his brave attorney. Brady and the prosecution exult. Bigotry and ignorance have won the day.

IN REAL LIFE, there was no suspense. On the last day of the trial, Darrow himself changed Scopes’s plea to “guilty.” Here are his words:

Mr. Darrow–Let me suggest this. We have all been here quite a while and I say it in perfectly good faith, we have no witnesses to offer, no proof to offer on the issues that the court has laid down here, that Mr. Scopes did teach what the children said he taught, that man descended from a lower order of animals–we do not mean to contradict that, and I think to save time we will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty.¹⁷

Yow! What goes on? Why did Darrow plead Scopes “not guilty,” then do an about-face? The answer lies in his famous cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan. Again, this is what the trial is primarily remembered for–that Darrow trounced Bryan, and that evolution thus trounced fundamentalism. Let’s look at that famous debate.

IN THE MOVIE, Drummond, denied the right to quote Darwin or call scientific witnesses, is brooding in his hotel room. “What I need is a miracle,” he says.

Hornbeck, the journalist, tosses him a Bible, saying: “Miracle? Here’s a whole bagful. Courtesy Matthew Harrison Brady.”

Drummond holds the Bible, thinking and smiling. An imaginary lightbulb pops above his head. Hm . . . If they won’t let him ask science questions, he’ll get ‘em on the Bible. That egotist Brady would never pass up a chance to defend “the Good Book.”

IN REAL LIFE, this decision was anything but spontaneous. A bitter critic of Christianity, Darrow had crafted most of his Bible questions years earlier. He had long yearned to debate Bryan. The night before the cross-examination, he rehearsed it with Kitley Mather, one of his academic witnesses.¹⁸

Did Darrow win his confrontation with Bryan? Yes, but not nearly as convincingly as in the movie, and he succeeded for a plain reason. When a trial witness is cross-examined, he may only answer the questions asked. Furthermore, he may not ask any questions himself. Thus Darrow totally controlled the exchange. He took the offensive throughout, while Bryan could only assume the defensive, answering questions, asking none. Normally, of course, no politician consents to debate under such one-sided conditions.

Why, then, in heaven’s name, did Bryan? First, because Darrow baited him by publicly branding him a coward. Over the weekend, he told the press: “Bryan is willing to express his opinions on science and religion where his statements will not be questioned, but Bryan has not dared to test his views in open court under oath. . . .”¹⁹

When Darrow called Bryan as a witness that Monday, chief prosecutor Tom Stewart protested, but Bryan declared, to great applause: “I am simply trying to defend the word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. I want the papers to know I am not afraid to get on the stand and let him do his worst.”²⁰

But there was a more significant reason why Bryan agreed: believing that afterwards he’d have the opportunity to cross-examine Darrow on evolution. This was important to Bryan since he had been denied cross-examination of Darrow’s experts.

Mr. Bryan–If your honor please, I insist that Mr. Darrow can be put on the stand, and [defense attorneys] Mr. Malone and Mr. Hays.

The Court–Call anybody you desire. Ask them any questions you wish.²¹

 

Darrow strung Bryan along, letting him believe this would happen:

The Witness [Bryan]: I want him [Darrow] to have all the latitude he wants. For I am going to have some latitude when he gets through.

Mr. Darrow–You can have latitude and longitude.²²

But as we will see, Darrow apparently had no intention of going on the stand! Now let’s inspect the interrogation.

IN THE MOVIE, Brady is a Bible literalist:

Drummond: You believe that every word written in this book should be taken literally?

Brady: Everything in the Bible should be accepted, exactly as it is given there.

IN REAL LIFE, we find Lawrence and Lee lifted Bryan’s answer out of context:

Darrow: Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?

Bryan: I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: “Ye are the salt of the earth.” I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God’s people.²³

IN THE MOVIE, Drummond asks Bryan about sex:

Drummond: You’re up here as an expert on the Bible. What is the Biblical evaluation of sex?

Brady: It is considered “Original Sin.”

Lawrence and Lee thus established Brady as a prude.

IN REAL LIFE? Darrow never asked Bryan about sex. Incidentally, the Bible says adultery, not sex, is sinful.

IN THE MOVIE, Drummond asks Brady how old the Earth is:

Brady: A fine Biblical scholar, Bishop Ussher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the Creation. It occurred in the Year 4,004 B.C.

Drummond: Well, uh, that’s Bishop Ussher’s opinion.

Brady: It is not an opinion. It is a literal fact, which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October, 4,004 B.C. at–uh, at 9 A.M.

Drummond: That Eastern Standard Time?

IN REAL LIFE, here’s what was said:

Q–Mr. Bryan, could you tell me how old the earth is?

A–No, sir, I couldn’t.

Q–Could you come anywhere near it?

A–I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.²⁴

IN THE MOVIE, Bryan crumbles as Drummond brings his interrogation to a climax:

Brady: It is the revealed Word of the Almighty God spake to the men who wrote the Bible.

Drummond: How do you know that God didn’t “spake” to Charles Darwin?

Brady: I know, because God tells me to oppose the evil teachings of that man.

Drummond: Oh. God speaks to you.

Brady: Yes.

Drummond: He tells you what is right and wrong.

Brady: Yes.

Drummond: And you act accordingly?

Brady: Yes.

Drummond: So you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory, legislature, or whatever, you pass on God’s orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the “Prophet From Nebraska!”

Brady begins cracking up. Finally–even after being dismissed as a witness–all he can do is frantically shout the names of the books of the Bible. The fundamentalists in the courtroom are visibly disillusioned and even angry with their hero.

IN REAL LIFE, nothing remotely resembling this sequence occurred.

Drummond demolishing Brady in the movie

Sure, Darrow scored some points. One of his wittiest moments came while pursuing Bryan on the date of the Flood:

Q–What do you think?

A–I do not think about things I don’t think about.

Q–Do you think about things you do think about?²⁵

This resulted in an outburst of courtroom laughter. And you can be certain that, while Lawrence and Lee invented most of their dialogue, they kept this. After all, we must have some reality, mustn’t we?

On the other hand, the playwrights took care to eliminate Darrow’s surly remarks, such as his reference to Christianity as “your fool religion.”²⁶

The truth is, Bryan often gave as good as he got. One Darrow strategy was to list various esoteric subjects, such as philology, and ask Bryan if he had ever studied them. Since Bryan was forced to keep answering “No,” it made him appear ignorant. However, Bryan soon discerned that Darrow did not necessarily know the answers to his own questions:

Q–Do you know about how many people there were on this earth 3,000 years ago?

A–No.

Q–Did you ever try to find out?

A–When you display my ignorance, could you not give me the facts, so I would not be ignorant any longer? Can you tell me how many people there were when Christ was born?

Q–You know, some of us might get the facts and still be ignorant.

A–Will you please give me that? You ought not to ask me a question when you don’t know the answer to it.

Q–I can make an estimate.

A–What is your estimate?

Q–Wait until you get to me.²⁷

Here we see Darrow still baiting Bryan with the promise that their roles would soon be reversed.

But the next morning, Bryan sat stunned as Darrow changed Scopes’s plea from “not guilty” to “guilty,” thus ending the trial. The judge gave Darrow an ostensible excuse by saying he planned to expunge the chaotic Bryan-Darrow interrogation from the record. But it is unlikely that Darrow ever planned to take the stand. It is well established that he intended to keep the eloquent Bryan from making a closing statement. As Darrow biographer Kevin Tierney noted:

Darrow, realizing that Bryan might make a comeback by giving a final address to the jury, pleaded Scopes guilty and waived the defense’s right to a closing speech, thereby under Tennessee law depriving the prosecution of the chance to address the court.²⁸

Darrow himself wrote in his autobiography:

I made a complete and aggressive opening of the case. I did this for the reason that we never at any stage intended to make any [closing] arguments in the case. . . . By not making a closing argument on our side we could cut him [Bryan] out.²⁹

The trial had never been about John Scopes’s guilt or innocence. Its purpose had been to disseminate Darwinism and assail fundamentalism. Darrow accomplished both. He had gotten his witnesses’ testimonies into the record without their being cross-examined; and he had roughed up Bryan on the Bible, then prevented Bryan from reciprocating. Give Darrow credit–he was a great tactician.

Williams Jennings Bryan thought it was a football game. He let Darrow go on offense first; Darrow drove downfield and, after a hard battle, scored a touchdown. Now, as Bryan stood awaiting a return kickoff, Darrow announced that the game was over. He proclaimed himself winner and was carried off the field on the media’s shoulders.

Bryan cynically commented that day: “. . . I think it is hardly fair for them to bring into the limelight my views on religion and stand behind a dark lantern that throws light on other people, but conceals themselves.”³⁰

IN THE MOVIE, when the jury convicts Bert Cates, the judge decides to be lenient, and fines him only $100. Brady is wildly upset.

Brady: Did your honor say one hundred dollars?

Judge: That is correct. That seems to conclude the business of the trial . . .

Brady: Your honor, the prosecution takes exception! Why, the issues are so titanic, the court must mete out more drastic punishment!

IN REAL LIFE, Bryan had opposed having any penalties attached to Tennessee’s Butler Act.³¹ Regarding the Scopes case, he said:

I don’t think we should insist on more [than] the minimum fine, and I will let the defendant have the money to pay if he needs it.³²

Scopes was fined $100, the minimum under the law, but was never required to pay; the Tennessee Supreme Court later disallowed it on a technicality.

IN THE MOVIE, Bert Cates’s career is over. Facing the judge for sentencing, he says: ” I do not have the eloquence of some of the men you have heard in the last few days. I’m just a schoolteacher.” A woman in the courtroom shouts: “Not any more you ain’t!” Cates says sheepishly: “I was a schoolteacher.”

IN REAL LIFE, Scopes wrote in his autobiography: “I could have continued teaching in Dayton. Doc Robinson, as president of the school board, offered me my old job of coaching and teaching math and physics. . . .”³³ But Scopes opted instead to undertake graduate studies.

IN THE MOVIE, after his showdown with Drummond, Brady is obsessed with a speech he wants to deliver in court. He says to his wife in their hotel room: “My speech! Where’s my speech? I’ll make them listen! Where’s my speech? I must have it!”

He then sobs to his wife: “Mother! They laughed at me!” Mrs. Brady holds her husband like a child and says, “Hush, baby.”

Brady: I can’t stand it when they laugh at me!

Mrs. Brady: It’s all right, baby. It’s all right.

The next day, after the trial is adjourned, Brady attempts to make his “speech” to the courtroom. But no one is interested–reporters and hawkers are busy talking. Brady pathetically babbles religious phrases, trying to shout above the crowd noise. Drummond, Cates and Hornbeck watch him with looks of disgust bordering on pity. Even his wife is appalled. Then Brady falls down with a big “thud” and dies. Having assassinated the man’s character throughout the script, the writers now kill him off for real, like, “There! Take that, ya lousy stinkin’ bigot!” To add to a touch of sadistic humor, Brady had been waving a fan bearing the name of a funeral parlor.

IN REAL LIFE, spectators laughed at Darrow as much as Bryan. And what was this “speech” Bryan was supposedly obsessed with? He had prepared a closing statement; every attorney does in a jury case. But as we have seen, Darrow, knowing Bryan was a powerful orator, nixed that too by changing Scopes’s plea to guilty.

Bryan made no attempt to deliver a lengthy speech that day in court, and certainly didn’t die there. He did die of a stroke five days later, but as he pursued a very vigorous schedule over those days, he was clearly not the “broken man” some have claimed. Bryan was elderly, had a bad heart and diabetes, and was also nicked by a passing automobile after the trial. Doubtless the case’s rigors took their toll as well.

The movie’s smear of Bryan knew few limits. He was known to have a big appetite, a condition his diabetes probably exacerbated. But the film goes to absurd proportions, with Brady gorging himself on fried chicken right in the courtroom. Brady is not only a liar, but a moron, always disarmed by the wit of E. K. Hornbeck, the journalist based on H. L. Mencken. By contrast, Drummond is brilliant, kind, courageous, honest, and even gets along with Brady’s wife much better than Brady!

The people of Tennessee–except Cates, his students and girlfriend–are also smeared as ignorant bigots. In a masterful stroke of subtlety, however, Lawrence and Lee did not begin every sentence spoken by a Tennessean with “Duh.”

IN THE MOVIE, when E. K. Hornbeck learns of Brady’s death, he says he “died of a busted belly.” Drummond chides Hornbeck for being so callous. The audience sees the attorney is thus gracious to his enemies.

IN REAL LIFE, it was Darrow himself who said Bryan “died of a busted belly.” (Mencken reportedly said: “We killed the son-of-a-bitch!”)³⁴

Lest anyone think me alone in this assessment of Inherit the Wind, I quote Time magazine’s reaction: “The script wildly and unjustly caricatures the fundamentalists as vicious and narrow-minded hypocrites, just as wildly and unwisely idealizes their opponents, as personified by Darrow.”³⁵ Critic Andrew Sarris called it “bigotry in reverse.”³⁶ The New Yorker commented that “history has not been increased but almost fatally diminished. . . . the picturing of Dayton as a community composed entirely of backwoods religious maniacs, which apparently wasn’t the case at all, makes the play a much too elementary study in black and white “³⁷

Constitutional scholar Gerald Gunther said it was the only play he ever walked out on:

 I ended up actually sympathizing with Bryan, even though I was and continue to be opposed to his ideas in the case, simply because the playwrights had drawn the character in such comic strip terms.³⁸

In the movie’s theatrical trailer, after showing some clips of the Drummond-Brady debate, producer-director Stanley Kramer told audiences: “The winner? You’ll have to make that decision for yourselves when you see Inherit the Wind.“

Oh, thanks, Stan! We can decide for ourselves! We can choose Brady, who’s gluttonous, hypocritical, ignorant, mean-spirited, prudish, and laughs at his own bad jokes–or choose Drummond, who’s witty, courageous, generous, sincere, and broad-minded.

Inherit the Wind asserts that John Scopes was convicted because he didn’t receive a fair trial. It falsely claims that all evidence supporting his case was disallowed.

Ironically, that’s what Inherit did. It prosecuted William Jennings Bryan, the people of Tennessee, and Christians by showing the “jury” (the audience) only one side of the story–a fabricated one.

When the fictitious “Reverend Brown” whipped glassy-eyed fundamentalists into a frenzy–helping turn them into a lynch mob–audiences were expected to be appalled at how the minister’s propagandizing built hatred into his followers. Ironically, it was the film’s viewers themselves, watching this scene, who were being propagandized and encouraged to hate.

Throughout the movie, defense attorney Henry Drummond speaks out against “bigotry, ignorance and hate.” Those words pretty well summarize Inherit the Wind.

NOTES

1.  Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, Inherit the Wind (1955; reprint, New York: Bantam, 1960), page preceding Act One.

2.   L. Sprague de Camp, The Great Monkey Trial (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), 432.

3.  John T. Scopes and James Presley, Center of the Storm (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), 60.

4.  Ibid., 187-88.

5.  Ibid., 134.

6.  Ibid., 60.

7.  Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 96.

8.   The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case (Dayton, Tenn.: Bryan College, 1990) (hereinafter referred to as “Transcript”), 226.

9.  Transcript, 322.

10.  William Jennings Bryan, “Mr. Bryan on Evolution,” Reader’s Digest, August 1925, 213-14.

11.  Transcript, 175-76.

12.  Transcript, 117.

13.  Transcript, 133-43.

14.  Transcript, 205-6.

15.  Larson, 184.

16.  Transcript, 206-7; Scopes and Presley, 160.

17.  Transcript, 306.

18.  Larson, 182-83.

19.  “Bryan Now Regrets Barring of Experts,” New York Times, 18 July 1925, p. 2.   

20.  Transcript, 299.

21.  Transcript, 284.

22.  Transcript, 288.

23.  Transcript, 285.

24.  Transcript, 296.

25.  Transcript, 287.

26.  Transcript, 288.

27.  Transcript, 293.

28.  Kevin Tierney, Darrow: A Biography (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1979), 369.

29.  Clarence Darrow, The Story of My Life (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932), 259-60.

30.  Transcript, 308.

31.  De Camp, 62-63.

32.  Ibid., 127.

33.  Scopes and Presley, 206-7.

34.  Larson, 200.

35. “The New Pictures,” Time, 17 October 1960, 95.

36.  Carol Iannone, “The Truth About Inherit the Wind,” First Things 70 (February 1997).

37.  “Mixed Bag,” The New Yorker, 30 April 1955, 67.

38.  Larson, 242.

The Lusitania, Woodrow Wilson, and the Deceptions that Dragged America into World War I

This is a long article. But World War I – which was the first global war, and claimed as many as 65 million lives – has nearly been forgotten about. This article contains many suppressed facts, and I hope you come away from it with a better understanding of how the present connects to the past.

As discussions crop up of a Third World War possibly arising from tensions in the Middle East or Ukraine, it is apt to examine the First World War, whose 100th anniversary falls this year. America’s entanglement in that war, like so many others, was engineered through a false flag.

In 1915, Britain was at war with Germany. The United States was still neutral. On May 7, the Lusitania, a British ocean liner en route from America to England, was sunk by a German submarine some 12 miles off Ireland’s southern coast. There were 764 survivors, but nearly 1,200 people, including 128 Americans, lost their lives. The Lusitania – which had been the world’s largest ship when launched in 1907 – went down in just 18 minutes after a single torpedo hit. Survivors reported there had been two explosions – a smaller one followed moments later by an enormous one. This was affirmed by the log of the U-20, the submarine which sank her.

The tragedy was portrayed to the public as the wanton slaughter of women and children. It became the subject of a relentless propaganda campaign, including a fabricated claim that German children were given a holiday from school to celebrate the sinking. The Lusitania was the most important in a series of pretexts used to generate the eventual U.S. declaration of war on Germany.

Understanding Germany’s U-boat Policies

After the war began in 1914, Britain immediately began a naval blockade of Germany, intercepting merchant ships and strewing the North Sea with mines. Since the British classified even foodstuffs as “contraband,” the Germans had to ration food. By all estimates, several hundred thousand people ultimately died of starvation due to the blockade.

Germany’s decision to blockade Britain was retaliatory. Since the British possessed naval superiority, Germany’s only means of blockade was through its U-boat force. Although the U.S. media characterized sub warfare as barbaric, British mines were just as lethal as German torpedoes. Furthermore, while the Germans normally only targeted only ships of belligerent nations (sparing neutrals), the British blockade was indiscriminate, barring neutral as well as belligerent ships.

In the war’s early stages, U-boats observed the “Cruiser Rules” that had been established under international law (e.g., at the Hague Conventions). Before sinking a merchant vessel, they would surface, and allow the ship’s crew to evacuate in lifeboats.

This changed, however, thanks to new rules unilaterally instituted by the British Admiralty, then headed by Winston Churchill. The British began arming their merchant ships. As Colin Simpson notes in The Lusitania:

From October 1914 onward a steady stream of inflammatory orders were issued to the masters of British merchant ships. It was made an offense to obey a U-boat’s orders to halt. Instead masters must immediately engage the enemy, either with their armament if they possessed it, or by ramming if they did not. Any master who surrendered his ship was to be prosecuted, and several were.¹

One British merchantman was paid a bounty of $3,300 for ramming a submarine. Thus both a carrot and stick goaded merchantmen to engage subs.

The Germans faced an inescapable dilemma. As warships, subs were fragile. One shot from even a low-caliber cannon could sink a U-boat. By the time of the Lusitania incident, merchantmen had sunk several. Walter Schweiger, commander of the sub that sank the Lusitania, had already narrowly escaped an attempted ramming. Although U-boat captains continued to exercise discretion, they were usually unwilling to surface and risk destruction by observing the Cruiser Rules which Britain herself had abandoned.

Above: Schweiger; Churchill as head of Admiralty

Why Churchill Broke the Rules

Prior to the Lusitania’s sinking, Winston Churchill wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, that it is “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”² In his postwar book The World Crisis, Churchill wrote: “The maneuver which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle.”³

The first British counter-move, made on my responsibility in 1915 was to arm British merchantmen to the greatest possible extent with guns of sufficient power to deter the U-boat from surface attack. . . . As the U-boats were forced by the progressive arming of the British Mercantile Marine to rely increasingly on under-water attacks, they encountered a new set of dangers. The submerged U-boat with its defective vision ran the greatest risk of mistaking neutral for British vessels and of drowning neutral crews, and thus of embroiling Germany with other great Powers.⁴

To Churchill’s disappointment, however, U-boat captains scrupulously avoided attacking American ships. The next best thing, therefore, was to have a British ship sunk with American passengers on board. Churchill had Commander Joseph Kenworthy, of the Political Section of Naval Intelligence, submit a report on what the political results would be of such a sinking. The Lusitania became the fulfillment of Churchill’s objectives. This false flag involved coordination on both sides of the Atlantic. The political background requires us to digress from the Lusitania momentarily.

The Bankers’ Handmaiden

Woodrow Wilson had been elected President in 1912. Given that the former Princeton professor had only one year of political experience (as governor of New Jersey), this was a miracle that only the American “Establishment” (less politely called Illuminati) could have pulled off. Among Wilson’s top financial angels were munitions manufacturer Cleveland Dodge (National City Bank/Rockefellers) and banker Jacob Schiff (Kuhn, Loeb Bank/Rothschilds).

“Wall Street” Republicans had ruled the White House for 16 years, but with a vociferous reform movement growing within the party, under the auspices of men like Senator Robert La Follette and Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., the bankers were content to let the Republican Party cool off and put their trust in Wilson. With J. P. Morgan’s backing, former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt was trotted out as the candidate of the short-lived “Bull Moose” Party. His candidacy split Republican votes between himself and incumbent President William Howard Taft. This allowed Wilson, the Democratic Party candidate, to win the election with only 42 percent of the popular vote. Since Roosevelt spoke loudly (though with tongue in cheek) about “reform,” he also helped derail La Follette’s attempt to secure the Republican nomination.

According to Curtis Dall (President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s son-in-law), Wilson pledged to banker Bernard Baruch to do four things if elected President:

• lend an ear to advice on who should occupy his cabinet;
• support creation of a central bank (i.e., the Federal Reserve);
• support creation of the income tax;
• lend an ear to advice should war erupt in Europe.⁵

How swiftly Wilson fulfilled these pledges! These were still the days, of course, before the Council on Foreign Relations – chief recruiting ground for Presidential cabinets over the last century – existed. Wilson’s cabinet was said to have been handpicked by “Colonel” Edward Mandell House, CFR founder. He was a Wall Street front man who lived in the White House, wielding such influence that Harper’s Weekly called him “Assistant President House.” (His role paralleled that of Harry Hopkins, who later lived in the White House during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Presidency, acting as the liaison to Bernard Baruch.)

Above: Wilson & House; Bernard Baruch

1913 – Wilson’s first year in office – saw establishment of both the Federal Reserve and income tax (the latter was ratified the month before his inauguration). The Federal Reserve gave the bankers the authority to set interest rates (and thus toggle the stock market at will) and to create money from nothing, which would flow into their multinational banks and corporations. Colonel House’s official biographer, Charles Seymour (Skull & Bones), called House the “unseen guardian angel” of the Federal Reserve Act.⁶

Income tax (which the banksters had no intention of substantially paying themselves) gave them a lien on Americans’ earning power, to pay for (among other things) the interest the bankers would collect on loans to the government. Both the original central bank legislation, as well as the income tax amendment, were introduced in Congress by Senator Nelson Aldrich, whose daughter married John D. Rockefeller, Jr.; he was the maternal grandfather of CFR chairman David Rockefeller.

Once the Federal Reserve and income tax were in place, only one thing was still needed: a significant reason for America to borrow. In June 1914, six months after the Federal Reserve Act passed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, triggering the start of World War I. America participated; as a result, our national debt grew from a manageable $1 billion to $25 billion.

The war would not only yield billions in profits for the Illuminati, but would, with the League of Nations, incipiently fulfill their dream of a world government. But how to entangle America in the war? Here the interests of the British and American Establishments coincided in the Lusitania’s sinking.

A False Flag Foreknown

Our ambassador to England under Wilson was the militantly pro-British Walter Hines Page. During his tenure, he received a private annual stipend of $25,000 (well over a half-million in today’s dollars) from munitions magnate Cleveland Dodge, so that he could live in “proper ambassadorial style.”⁷ (In realpolitik, this is normally called a “bribe.”)

On May 2, 1915 – five days before the Lusitania was sunk – Page wrote to his son: “If a British liner full of American passengers be blown up, what will Uncle Sam do? That’s what’s going to happen.”⁸

Edward Mandell House was in England at this time as Wilson’s emissary. On the morning of the fateful 7th, House met with Edward Grey (left), Britain’s foreign minister. House recorded: “We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk, and I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.”⁹ Later that day, House and Grey met with King George V at Buckingham Palace. House wrote: “We fell to talking, strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner. . . . He [the king] said, ‘Suppose they should sink the Lusitania, with American passengers on board?’”¹⁰ (These quotes appear in Houses’s official biography, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House.)

These remarks betrayed foreknowledge that cannot be dismissed as coincidences chanced upon in casual conversation.

That evening, a splendid dinner was given honoring House; numerous British dignitaries attended, including Grey, and – at House’s request – Lord Mersey, the Wreck Commissioner, who would later oversee the inquiry regarding the Lusitania. During this dinner the news arrived of the great ship’s sinking. House announced to the assembled guests that America would enter the war within the month.

The following day, Ambassador Page cabled Wilson: “The freely expressed universal opinion is that the United States must declare war or forfeit European respect. So far as I know this opinion is universal. If the U.S. does come in, the moral and physical effect will be to bring peace quickly and to give the U.S. a great influence in ending the war and in so reorganizing the world as to prevent its recurrence. . . .”¹¹ This remarkable cablegram reveals that the postwar restructuring of the world – which really occurred four years later at the Paris Peace Conference, where Wilson proposed the League of Nations – was envisioned from the outset. In Berlin, without even waiting for instructions, the American embassy began preparing to shut down.

As we will, see however, the Wilson-House-Page clique had overestimated Americans’ willingness to go to war over the Lusitania. But first: How was this false flag engineered? How did British and American officials know, in advance, that a submarine would likely target the ship? And that the attack would result in its being “blown up” and sunk? Why did the 32,000-ton ship vanish beneath the waves in just 18 minutes?

From Luxury Liner to Warship

The Cunard Line built the Lusitania and her sister ship Mauretania with loans from the British government, which also bestowed annual subsidies on Cunard for operational costs. In return for this, the Admiralty required that the ships be designed as auxiliary cruisers, available in wartime.

In February 1913, Winston Churchill informed Cunard chairman Alfred Booth that war with Germany was expected, estimating the outbreak as September 1914.¹² (He was only off by a month.) In accordance with instructions, the Lusitania, like other British liners, was refitted to carry guns. There is dispute over whether she actually had cannon, but some testimony exists that she did, concealed on her lowest deck, where passengers were not allowed. The Lusitania was listed as an auxiliary cruiser in Jane’s Fighting Ships, a copy of which U-boat commanders kept on board to identify targets.

More importantly, the British used the Lusitania to ferry heavy loads of munitions from America to Britain. Since the U.S. government disallowed shipment of most munitions on passenger ships, the British got around this by submitting falsified manifests for the Lusitania. Wilson had appointed Dudley Field Malone as collector of customs for the port of New York. Malone rubber-stamped the manifests, knowing full well what was going on.

As submarine warfare increased, the situation became too much for the Lusitania’s captain, David Dow, who informed Cunard he could no longer mix carrying passengers with munitions. As a result, for the final voyage he was replaced by William Turner.

On that fateful crossing, the Lusitania was transporting six million rifle cartridges and more than 50 tons of shrapnel shells. But there were other items that provide possible clues to the mysterious second explosion that sank the ship after a single torpedo hit. One was guncotton, an explosive the British used in their mines (it was called gun“cotton” because in its manufacture, the chemicals were soaked in cotton).

In the U.S. Justice Department’s archives is an affidavit signed by Dr. E. W. Ritter von Rettegh, a chemist employed by Captain Guy Gaunt, the British naval attaché in Washington. Ritter von Rettegh stated that Gaunt called him to his office on April 26, 1915, and asked what the effect would be of sea water coming into contact with guncotton. The chemist explained that there were two types of gun cotton – trinitro cellulose, which sea water would not affect, and pyroxyline, which sea water could cause to suddenly explode, as a result of chemical changes that he explained in technical detail.¹³

The following day, Gaunt visited the Du Pont munitions plant in Christfield, New Jersey, and Du Pont thereupon shipped tons of pyroxyline, packaged in burlap, to the Cunard wharf in New York City, where it was loaded onto the Lusitania. It quite evidently accounts for the item on the ship’s manifest of 3,813 40-pound containers of “cheese,” which were shipped along with 696 containers of “butter.” That these packages were not butter and cheese is clear: they were not shipped in refrigerated compartments; their destination was listed as the Royal Navy’s Weapons Testing Establishment; and no one filed an insurance claim for the lost “butter and cheese.”¹⁴

Above: Captain Turner (left); Guy Gaunt

Placing thousands of burlap containers of guncotton in the Lusitania’s hold would sharply increase the chances that a torpedo would make the ship – as Ambassador Page predicted – “be blown up.” Considering that the ship also carried tons of shrapnel shells and cartridges, the potential for devastation became even worse. One of the Lusitania’s survivors, Joseph Marichal, stated he had distinctly heard cartridges exploding, a sound he was familiar with as a former officer in the French army.

While Captain Gaunt’s interview with Dr. Ritter von Rettegh might have an innocent explanation, it is noteworthy that after submitting his affidavit, the chemist was arrested and charged with making “utterances prejudicial to the peace of the Nation.” He was tried in camera and sentenced to prison. Gaunt, on the other hand, was promoted to rear-admiral and knighted.

Other mysterious items appeared on the Lusitania’s manifest. One was 323 bales of “furs.” The furs originated from depots employed by Du Pont; the cargo was destined for the British company of B. F. Babcock, which was never involved in importing furs, but did import cotton used in making guncotton.¹⁵ Like the butter and cheese, no one ever filed an insurance claim on the “furs.”

Patrick O’Sullivan, in The Lusitania: Unravelling the Mysteries, advanced a theory that the explosion was touched off by aluminum powder, a highly combustible explosive; 46 tons were aboard, destined for the Woolrich Arsenal. Also stored with the cargo were 18 cases of percussion fuses consisting of mercury fulminate, which a torpedo could also have caused to explode.

Regardless of which item ignited first, the massive detonation which sank the ship did originate in the forward area holding her munitions.

German Warnings

The Germans had little choice but to try to stop the Lusitania’s munitions from reaching England. But neither did they wish to provoke America by harming its citizens. On April 22, they ordered a conspicuous warning placed in fifty newspapers near the Cunard sailing notices, alerting potential passengers to the danger. This would have given the public a week’s notice. However, a State Department officer ordered the warning’s publication suppressed. On April 26, George Viereck, representing the Germans, obtained an audience with Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. Bryan immediately cleared the notice for publication, and also urged President Wilson to warn Americans. Wilson, however, always on the bankers’ puppet strings, declined to do so.

Setting the Trap

There was no guarantee, of course, that this false flag would occur, since it depended on a U-boat commander’s unpredictable actions. There were, however, probabilities. The British had broken Germany’s naval codes. While they could not pinpoint a sub’s exact location, intercepted radio signals provided abundant information about U-boats’ activities, destinations and general areas of operation. They were also well aware of the U-20’s presence in the Irish Sea that May, from reports of the sub sinking vessels.

On May 5 – two days before the tragedy – Winston Churchill met with Admiral Fisher (First Sea Lord), Admiral Oliver (Chief of Naval Staff), and Commander Joseph Kenworthy (Naval Intelligence), in the Admiralty’s map room. Here a great grid showed locations of British ships and hostile ships, marked with pins. The map showed the Lusitania and U-20 on a collision course. What was said is unrecorded, but Kenworthy wrote in his postwar book The Freedom of the Seas: “The Lusitania was deliberately sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting and with her escorts withdrawn.” However, the publisher deleted the word “deliberately” at the Admiralty’s insistence.¹⁶

Above: Churchill with Admiral Fisher; Kenworthy

The Admiralty could have safeguarded the Lusitania by rerouting her around the north of Ireland, where it knew no U-boats were operating. Especially damning was the failure to provide escorts. On previous voyages, destroyers had accompanied the Lusitania where submarines threats existed. On May 7, however, no destroyers were designated to protect her, even though four were lying idle in the nearby port of Milford Haven,¹⁷ and despite the U-20’s known presence in the south Irish Sea, where it had sunk two steamers the previous day. The only warship assigned to meet the Lusitania was an aging cruiser, the Juno. However, even the Juno was ordered back to the port of Queenstown on Ireland’s southern coast – on the justification that she was vulnerable to submarine attack!

Yet the Lusitania received no instructions to divert to Queenstown. On the evening of the 6th, Captain Turner assured his increasingly nervous passengers that, on entering the war zone the next day, they would be securely in the Royal Navy’s care. But when dawn broke, the Royal Navy was nowhere in sight. Turner was alone in the Irish Sea with a U-boat on the prowl. It is a matter of record that there were wireless communications with the Lusitania, but these messages’ transcripts have always been missing from the Admiralty’s files. Some suspect Turner requested permission to reroute the ship and was refused. Vice-Admiral Henry Coke, commanding defenses in this sector from his Queenstown headquarters, requested permission from the Admiralty to divert the Lusitania. He received no decision.

Left: the U-20

Patrick Beesly was considered the leading authority on the history of British Naval Intelligence, in which he was long an officer. In his book Room 40, Beesly wrote:

Nothing, absolutely nothing was done to ensure the liner’s safe arrival . . . . I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in the hopes that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill’s express permission and approval.¹⁸

The Cover-up

As soon as Vice-Admiral Coke received the report of the Lusitania’s SOS, he ordered the Juno to its rescue. The cruiser was in sight of the survivors in the water when it was recalled to Queenstown on the Admiralty’s orders – the pretext being that it, too, might be sunk by the submarine (which was now gone). Although this concern was legitimate, it undoubtedly cost considerable loss of life, for it was much longer after the Juno’s recall that other rescue craft – fishing smacks and patrol boats – began arriving.

Hundreds of bodies washed up on the Irish shore or were recovered by vessels. Another instruction the Admiralty sent Coke was “to ensure that bodies selected for the inquest had not been killed or mutilated by means which we do not wish to be made public.”¹⁹ What “means” could this have referred to, other than mutilation from the ship’s munitions?

Orders were also given to try to halt the inquest held by the local coroner, John Horgan, for fear that the Irish – whose rapport with England was tenuous – might render an unfavorable verdict. (This fear proved unfounded.)

In Britain, a formal inquiry into the sinking was to be held before Lord Mersey, who had also overseen the Titanic inquiry. However, well before it got underway, the Admiralty resolved to scapegoat the ship’s captain, William Turner:

• Within a week of the sinking, Richard Webb, director of the Admiralty’s Trade Division, issued a report which said of Turner that “one is forced to conclude that he is either utterly incompetent, or that he had been got at by the Germans.”²⁰

• Admiral Lord Fisher concurred, saying that Turner “is not a fool but a knave. I feel absolutely certain that Captain Turner of the Lusitania is a scoundrel and been bribed. . . . I hope that Captain Turner will be arrested immediately after the Inquiry, whatever the verdict or finding may be.”²¹ And, he added, in his notations on Webb’s report: “Ought not Lord Mersey to get a hint?”²²

• Churchill responded that “we shall pursue the Captain without check.”²³

• Webb then wrote Lord Mersey: “I am directed by the Board of Admiralty to inform you that it is considered politically expedient that Captain Turner the master of the Lusitania be most prominently blamed for the disaster.”²⁴

Thus, in violation of the traditions of justice, Lord Mersey was asked to render a verdict before the inquiry even began. The request came from the men responsible for denying the Lusitania protection.

Comparison to Pearl Harbor is apt. In that event, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and select officials had complete foreknowledge of the attack, which they denied to the commanders in Hawaii, Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Roosevelt then appointed an investigative body, the Roberts Commission, which laid all blame on Kimmel and Short. Roosevelt thus followed the example set 26 years earlier by his distant cousin Churchill. It bears mentioning that when the Lusitania sank, Franklin D. Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the same position held by another of his cousins, Theodore Roosevelt, when the USS Maine exploded in 1898, triggering the Spanish-American War.

At the inquiry, held partly in camera, Lord Mersey (left) quashed all evidence of the Lusitania’s munitions. Captain Turner was never even asked what his cargo was. Mersey relied on a letter from Dudley Field Malone saying items on the ship’s manifest “were permitted to be shipped on passenger steamers under the laws of the United States.” Malone’s letter was unsworn (he declined to make a statement under oath) and referred only to the first one-page manifest, not its 24-page supplement.

Mersey’s report concluded that “the loss of the ship and lives was due to damage caused to the said ship by torpedoes fired by a submarine of German nationality whereby the ship sank.” However, Mersey was unwilling to crucify Captain Turner. There seem to have been two factors in this: (1) no substantive evidence was produced in court incriminating Turner, an able and veteran seaman; and (2) by the time of the verdict, Churchill had been dismissed from the Admiralty due to the disastrous Dardanelles (Gallipoli) campaign, so there was no longer any need to placate him.

Following the hearing, Mersey waived his fee for his work on it, asked to be excused from further justice duties, and told his children: “The Lusitania case was a damned dirty business.”²⁵

In the United States, a separate hearing on the Lusitania was held much later under Judge Julius Mayer. The nature of the ship’s cargo had become increasingly known. Senator Robert La Follette publicly stated:

Four days before the Lusitania sailed, President Wilson was warned in person by Secretary of State Bryan that the Lusitania had 6,000,000 rounds of ammunition on board, besides explosives; and that passengers who proposed to sail on that vessel were sailing in violation of a statute of this country, that no passengers shall travel upon a railroad train or sail upon a vessel that carries dangerous explosives.²⁶

American families who had lost loved ones sued the Cunard Line for allowing passengers to sail with contraband munitions. Dudley Field Malone was named as codefendant and, if convicted, could have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter. However, no evidence concerning the illicit cargo was heard at the hearing. Judge Mayer, relying in part on Mersey’s findings, ruled in favor of Cunard and against the claimants.

The Mayer hearing was missing a critical piece of evidence: the Lusitania’s original manifest. President Wilson personally sealed it in an envelope, marked it “Only to be opened by the President of the United States,” and had it hidden in the archives of the Treasury Department (which oversees the customs service). We know this because President Franklin D. Roosevelt later had it retrieved, and it turned up among his papers. (To see it, click here.)

The False Flag Falters

Although Colonel House and Ambassador Page had seemed confident the U.S. would declare war over the Lusitania, the American people didn’t share their zeal. They were upset by the sinking, but not enough to send their sons to European battlefields.

The case for war was baseless:

• That the British were the first to violate the “Cruiser Rules” was not lost on everyone, especially German-Americans;

• The effort to conceal the truth about the Lusitania’s munitions was only partially successful; many recognized that the British were using women and children to protect arms shipments – as State Department solicitor Cone Johnson put it, mixing “babies and bullets.”

• Americans wishing to travel to England safely could easily do so by using U.S. ships or those of other neutral countries. Americans boarding British ships traveled at their own risk; they could no more claim immunity from German attack than an American who chose to ride on a British gun carriage on a battleground in France.

With the nation’s mood insufficient for war, Wilson and House began what would be a long series of diplomatic jousts calculated to provoke Germany into rupturing relations. After the Lusitania, Wilson demanded that Germany halt submarine warfare. The Germans replied that the Lusitania was an auxiliary cruiser carrying contraband munitions, and that Britain’s Admiralty had ordered all merchantmen to fire upon or ram surfaced submarines (they provided Wilson with copies of the British orders, which a U-boat crew had found on a captured vessel). Wilson’s reply denied the charges, asserting the United States had “enforced its statues with scrupulous vigilance through its regularly constituted officials and it is able therefore to assure the Imperial German Government that it has been misinformed.”

Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan refused to sign this reply. He had long striven with the President over the latter’s double-standard policy: tolerating England’s naval blockade of Germany and violations of “Cruiser Rules,” while excoriating Germany for reciprocation. Now Bryan was being asked to sign a note that was glaringly false – for Dudley Field Malone had already told Wilson that “practically all of her [the Lusitania’s] cargo was contraband of some kind.”²⁷ Bryan chose to resign, for which the press excoriated him; the New York World accused him of “unspeakable treachery.”

Left to right: Bryan; cartoon depicts Kaiser applauding Bryan; Dudley Field Malone. Interestingly, Malone would oppose Bryan again as an attorney assisting Clarence Darrow in the 1925 Scopes Trial; and in 1944 he portrayed Winston Churchill in Mission to Moscow, perhaps the most flagrantly pro-Communist movie Hollywood ever made. It would probably be reasonable to say Malone was “connected.”

Bryan’s resignation was gold to the Illuminati, for he possessed something they couldn’t stomach: integrity. He’d been made Secretary of State in return for helping secure Wilson’s nomination at the 1912 Democratic Convention. In his place was appointed Robert Lansing, a pro-war State Department legal adviser who’d already proven useful in circumnavigating Bryan. Lansing’s nephews, Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, would become two of the most powerful insiders of twentieth century politics.

Newspapers and books began stirring hysteria about the imminence of a German invasion. The film The Battle Cry of Peace depicted a Hun-like army devastating New York City and Washington. A well-financed national “preparedness” movement was birthed; J. P. Morgan’s daughter served as treasurer for the women’s section of the “Movement for National Preparedness.”

Above: foreign invaders assault the virtuous maidens of New York City in The Battle Cry of Peace (1915)

Wilson meanwhile awaited another pretext for war, but the Germans were careful not to give him one, having no desire to see American troops swelling Allied ranks. They ordered U-boat captains not to torpedo another passenger ship without warning. However, sooner or later, a mistake was bound to occur. On March 24, 1916 in the English Channel, a U-boat commander, looking through his periscope, mistook an odd-looking ship for a minelayer, and fired a torpedo. The ship turned out to be a French passenger steamer, the Sussex. The damaged ship was towed to port; there were Americans on board; none were killed, but four were injured.

Wilson and his controllers hoped they now had their pretext for war. The President sent a hostile ultimatum to the Germans, demanding they halt “present methods” of submarine warfare (go back to “Cruiser Rules”) or face a rupture in relations. The Germans wisely responded that they would comply, provided the United States require Britain to likewise observe international law.

Once again, Germany had parried war – and Wilson now had to focus on reelection.

The 1916 Elections

Despite the anti-Germany media campaign, Americans remained overwhelmingly opposed to entering the European war. Wilson’s belligerence had not been lost on many, and as a result, the Republican nominee – Charles Evan Hughes – held a large lead in polls.

The American Establishment was very satisfied with the services the obedient Wilson had provided, and preferred him to the untried Hughes (similar to the Obama-Romney paradigm of 2012). Hughes’s public relations director Myron Fagan later became a pioneering exposer of the CFR and Illuminati.

Hughes and Fagan

To ensure Wilson’s reelection, Teddy Roosevelt was brought out to do just what he’d done in 1912: betray his own party.²⁸ Roosevelt traveled the country making militant speeches, attacking Germany and denouncing pacifists as “mollycoddles.” These speeches greatly annoyed Hughes, as the public started believing, by proxy, that Hughes was pro-war. Taking the cue, the Democrats made Wilson’s campaign slogan “He kept us out of war,” even though Wilson had done everything possible to get us into it. The ploys worked. Hughes’s polls lead evaporated. Wilson won one of the closest Presidential elections in history, and did so, ironically, because voters wanted to avoid war.

The Zimmerman Note

Once reelected, Wilson shed the “peace” pretenses, and again sought justification for war. After Germany – pressing for victory to end the gruesome conflict ­– announced resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, Wilson terminated relations, claiming Germany had broken its pledge. (He ignored that the pledge had been conditional on Britain’s reciprocal observance of international law, something the British government never did.)

But Wilson still needed another provocation to push the war button. Ever-reliable British intelligence produced just what he needed: their decoding of the “Zimmerman telegram.”

Arthur Zimmerman (left) was Germany’s foreign secretary. In January 1917 he had cabled the German ambassador in Mexico, instructing him that, if the U.S. entered the war, Germany should propose a military alliance with Mexico. (Wilson had antagonized Mexico in 1914 by having U.S. forces occupy Vera Cruz, a move undertaken for the benefit of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, which had extensive oil interests in Mexico.) The Germans reasoned that having Mexico as an ally might keep U.S. troops pinned in North America. The Zimmerman telegram rather naively suggested that, in the event of victory, Mexico could recover territories previously lost to the United States: Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Such proposals were actually “par for the course” in the international deal-making of World War I. For example, Britain had brought Italy into the war as an ally by promising the Italians new territories. The Mexicans considered the German proposal quite unrealistic. Nonetheless, when Wilson released the Zimmerman telegram to the wire services, it was used to renew “German invasion hysteria.”

On April 2, Wilson convened Congress and requested a declaration of war, which came four days later. Despite the orchestrated media furor, most Americans still opposed war, but the financial powers had lined up both parties’ machines; only a handful of courageous senators and congressmen opposed the declaration.

Agenda of the First World War

Americans were told this would be “the war to end all wars.” Though it failed utterly in this purpose alleged for public consumption, it succeeded in the purposes that were hidden:

• (1) Europe was restructured in accordance with Illuminati wishes, in preparation for their “new world order.” As foreign affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted of World War I: “Three empires, six monarchies and twenty-three duchies and principalities disappeared because leaders who had a stake in nationhood had been carried along in a losing tide.“²⁹ The Illuminati have always opposed any monarchies they could not compromise because kings symbolized nationhood, and were figures behind whom a nation’s people would rally and unite. The Illuminati wanted monarchies replaced by “democracy,” because democracy splinters a nation into parties; a divided country is weaker, and easier to absorb into world government. This is the “divide and conquer” principle, and the true reason Wilson said the war would “make the world safe for democracy.” This catchphrase really meant “make the world safe for Illuminati,” for the latter knew that in a democracy, wealth combined with media control would ensure their handpicked candidates received over 50 percent of the vote. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (10:5) called voting “the instrument which will set us on the throne of the world.”

• (2) The first formal world government – the League of Nations – was established. It was the 14th of the famous “Fourteen Points” Wilson brought to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which settled the war’s aftermath through the Versailles Treaty.

To head the American delegation to the conference, Wilson appointed Paul Warburg – whom he’d also named vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. As his chief economic advisor, he brought banker Bernard Baruch. And as always, Wilson was under the eye of the bankers’ front man, Edward Mandell House. Wilson didn’t invite a single congressman or senator of the Democratic Party to the conference – only the bankers and their entourage.

Many people think Wilson invented the League, but it originated with House and the bankers. Ray Stannard Baker, Wilson’s official biographer, said that “practically nothing – not a single idea in the Covenant of the League – was original with the President.”³⁰ Charles Seymour, House’s official biographer, said Wilson “approved the House draft almost in its entirety, and his own rewriting of it was practically confined to phraseology.”³¹

Ironically, though the American President proposed the League, the United States did not join. The U.S. Constitution stipulated that no President could single-handedly make a treaty; the Senate had to ratify it. The Senate rejected the Versailles Treaty. Americans had helped win the war, but saw no reason to join an organization that might infringe on their sovereignty. When news of the Senate vote reached Paris, the bankers reacted swiftly. They held a series of meetings, culminating with a dinner at the Majestic Hotel, at which they resolved to form a new organization in the United States. Its purpose would be to change the climate of American opinion so that the nation would accept world government. In 1921, that organization was incorporated in New York City as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

• (3) The first communist state, the Soviet Union, was birthed from the war’s chaos. Students of realpolitik know the Illuminati established the USSR. Jacob Schiff, one of Wilson’s financial angels, ran Kuhn, Loeb – the Rothschilds’ New York banking satellite – along with Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg. In 1917 Schiff supplied $20 million in gold to Leon Trotsky, who sailed from New York with 275 other terrorists. The Canadians detained Trotsky at Halifax, Nova Scotia, because they knew he intended to foment revolution in Czarist Russia – our ally in the raging World War. The Bolsheviks (communists) had promised to pull Russia out of the war if the revolution succeeded. The Canadians realized what that meant: Germany would shift its troops from the Eastern to Western front, where they could kill more British, Canadians, and Americans. But at the bankers’ behest, Wilson personally intervened, and requested that Canada release Trotsky. The President thus placed communism’s success above the lives of American soldiers.

When Wilson went to the Paris Peace Conference, the Bolsheviks had taken over Russia, and one of his assigned tasks was to ensure they kept it. Here is the long-forgotten sixth of Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”:

VI. The evacuation of all Russian [Soviet] territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her [the communists] an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia [the communists] by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

In his book The Secret World Government, Czarist General Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich expressed the opinion that United States entry into the war was delayed until it was certain Czarist Russia collapsed.  (In other words, a premature U.S. commitment might have bolstered the Czar’s position in Russia, thwarting the revolution.) Wilson requested the declaration of war just 18 days after the Czar abdicated.

• (4) The war dramatically advanced the cause of Zionism, whose secret agenda is to establish, in Jerusalem, the throne of the Antichrist. In 1916, leading Zionists assured the British government they would bring Wilson and America into the war provided that Britain secure the Jewish people a national homeland in Palestine. The British consented, resulting in the Balfour Declaration, named for its purported author, Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour.

This declaration was addressed to Walter Rothschild, a private banker holding no government position. It pledged the British would “use their best endeavours” to found a Jewish homeland in Palestine, even though Britain had no position or authority there whatsoever. Palestine had been under Ottoman (Turkish) control for 400 years. During World War I, the Ottoman Empire was a German ally; on this pretext, the British invaded Palestine, though it had little strategic significance. The famous film Lawrence of Arabia portrayed the exploits of T. E. Lawrence, the British officer who led the Arabs against the Turks. The Arabs were promised Palestine in return for helping Britain defeat the Ottoman Empire. They – and Lawrence himself – did not know that, behind their backs, the Balfour Declaration would secretly pledge the land to the Zionists.

The Balfour Declaration was issued on Nov 2, 1917. Five days later, Lenin and the Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government under Kerensky in Russia. This assured that Russia would no longer participate in the war. Since this cost Britain a military ally, it might be argued that Lenin’s Zionist-banker controllers instructed him to delay his seizure of power until Britain had formally committed to the Balfour Declaration.

• (5) The war gave the banksters an unprecedented opportunity to loot America. Prior to the declaration of war, J. P. Morgan & Co. acted as the official agent for all British munitions purchases. Morgan also loaned over $2 billion to the Allies during this period. Needless to say, Morgan had a vested interest in Allied victory. After the war declaration, Americans were urged to fund the war by buying government bonds in a series of “Liberty Loans.”  Out of the first Liberty Loan, $400 million was paid directly to J. Morgan & Co. to satisfy debts owed it by Britain.³²

Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries Board, whose function was purchasing munitions for America’s military. After the war, Congress’s Graham Committee conducted an investigation that revealed the public had been defrauded out of billions for war-related items that were unnecessary, or undelivered, or never even produced. Here is an excerpt from the Committee’s report:

We had 53 contracts for 37-millimeter shells, on which we expended $9,134,592. None of these shells ever reached our firing line. We had 689 contracts for 75-millimeter shells, on which we expended $301,941,459. Of these shells, we fired 6,000. We had 142 contracts for 3-inch shells, on which we expended $44,841,844. None of these shells reached the firing line. We had 439 contracts for 4.7-inch shells, on which we expended $41,716,051. Of these shells 14,000 were fired by our forces. We had 305 contracts for 6-inch shells, on which we expended $24,189,085. None of these shells ever reached the firing line. . . .³³

I spare the reader the full quote, but it continued as above for six more shell calibers. The Committee listed similar frauds in production of howitzers, artillery of all calibers, and gun carriages. A billion dollars was spent on aircraft never delivered. Comparable reports were made on other articles of war.

Hundreds of millions were invested in companies which used the money to build factories that contributed nothing to the war effort. House Report no. 998 of the 66th Congress stated:

The committee finds that there has been expended for construction upon the Government’s nitrates program to the present time the sum of $116,194,974.37, and that this expenditure produced no nitrates prior to the armistice, and contributed nothing toward the winning of the war. The nitrates program originated with the War Industries Board of the Council of National Defense, and is directly traceable to Mr. Bernard M. Baruch, chairman of the board . . . .³⁴

Many industries, such as copper and steel, charged the government inflated prices. Needless to say, the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil enjoyed skyrocketing war profits.

While the banksters pocketed billions, American soldiers earned $30 per month risking their lives. Although the Graham Committee conducted three years of investigations and published a 21-volume report, not a single banker or industrialist was jailed. As Ferdinand Lundberg noted: “The basis for many prosecutions was laid by the Graham Committee, and there were indictments of various minor figures. But there were no convictions. By November, 1925, the last of the indictments was quashed.”³⁵ You won’t even find a Wikipedia entry for the Graham Committee. It’s been long flushed down one of Orwell’s memory holes.

• (6) The war inflicted political as well as military casualties. One effect of the 1898 Spanish-American War had been to undermine the Populist Party, a grassroots movement of dissatisfied voters who opposed Wall Street’s domination of politics, and perceived increasingly fewer differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, many of whose bosses were beholden to the bankers. After the war distracted Americans with a new enemy (Spain) the Populist Party never ran another Presidential candidate.

World War I exerted a parallel effect. A reform movement, spearheaded by Senator La Follette (who might, in some respects, be described as the Ron Paul of his day), had attempted to wrest the Republican Party away from the Rockefeller-Morgan interests controlling it. But with America preoccupied with war and another new enemy (Germany), the reform movement all but died; the monopolists emerged from the war with tighter party control than ever before.

Above: Spain (left) depicted as a murdering ape, trampling the American flag, in 1898. In World War I, the ape became Germany. It is easier to kill an enemy if he is considered sub-human.

• (7) Civil liberties were crushed after Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, extended by the Sedition Act of 1918. While these measures decreed punishment for authentic crimes such as passing military secrets to foreign governments, Section 3 of the Sedition Act criminalized opposing the banksters’ plan of plunder:

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall . . . say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States . . . or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war . . . shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

It provided the same penalties for anyone who “shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” This broad language gave great leeway in suppressing the First Amendment.

In 1917, Robert Goldstein produced a movie about the Revolutionary War called Spirit of ’76. Because it portrayed Britain negatively, the film was seized as seditious. Goldstein was prosecuted under the Espionage Act and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Louis Nagler, assistant secretary of state for Wisconsin, refused to contribute to the YMCA and Red Cross (whose war council was headed by J. P. Morgan partner Henry Davison). Nagler remarked in a letter that “There is too much graft in these subscriptions . . . . Not over ten or fifteen percent of the money goes to the soldiers.” Nagler was sentenced under the Espionage Act to 20 years in prison (his sentence was commuted in 1920).³⁶ Historian Walter Karp notes: “The son of the chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court became a convicted felon for sending out a chain letter that said the Sussex Pledge [made by Germany] had not been unconditional.”³⁷ Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., one of the Federal Reserve’s bitterest opponents, wrote a book entitled Why Is Your Country at War? The printing plates were seized to curtail publication. For opposing the war, hundreds of less prominent citizens were imprisoned, and innumerable publications were censored or lost mailing privileges.

Left: Congressman Charles Lindbergh with his son Charles, Jr., who became the courageous aviator.  Right: “Fighting Bob” La Follette, running for President as a third-party candidate in 1924, shortly before his death. 

Ironically, no enemy spies were convicted under the Espionage Act – only dissenting Americans. In a major coup, the banksters had made opposing their agenda illegal. It therefore begs some comparison to today’s Patriot Act. Although many Americans long for “the good old days,” those days were often uglier than commonly realized.

The past is prologue. Woodrow Wilson served his masters well. So would Franklin D. Roosevelt three decades later. Whereas Wilson allowed the sacrifice of over 1,000 lives on the Lusitania, Roosevelt sacrificed over 2,000 at Pearl Harbor. Whereas Wilson and the First World War produced the Federal Reserve, the League of Nations, the Bolshevik Revolution, and Balfour Declaration, Roosevelt and the Second World War produced The World Bank, the United Nations, spread communism over half the globe, and birthed Zionist Israel. Both wars produced billions in war plunder, and suppressed civil rights. It is not difficult to envision what a Third World War might lead to.

Especially recommended for further reading: The Lusitania by Colin Simpson and The Politics of War by Walter Karp. A 1981 documentary, In Search of the Lusitania, is viewable on YouTube. Though it incorrectly states that over 1,000 Americans died when the Lusitania sank (“passengers” would have been correct), it contains much relevant footage.

NOTES

1. Colin Simpson, The Lusitania (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972), 36.

2. Donald E. Schmidt, The Folly of War: American Foreign Policy, 1898-2005 (New York: Algora Publishing, 2005), 72.

3. Winston S. Churchill, The World Crisis, 1911-1918 (1931; reprint, New York: Free Press, 1959), 294.

4. Ibid., 738-39.

5. Curtis B. Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law (Washington: Action Associates, 1970), 137.

6. Charles Seymour, ed., The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Vol. 1 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1926), 160.

7. Ferdinand Lundberg, America’s Sixty Families (New York: Citadel Press, 1937), 142.

8. Burton J. Hendrick, The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, Vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1923), 436.

9. Seymour, 432.

10. Ibid.

11. Simpson, 191.

12, Ibid., 25.

13. Ibid., 95-96.

14. Ibid., 105-10.

15. Ibid., 107.

16. Ibid., 131.

17. Patrick Beesly, Room 40: British Naval Intelligence 1914-1918 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982), 105.

18. Ibid., 122.

19. Simpson, 180.

20. David Ramsay, Lusitania: Saga and Myth (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002), 120.

21. Ibid.

22. Diana Preston, Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy (New York: Walker Publishing, 2002), 318.

23. Simpson, 189.

24. Ibid., 190.

25. Ibid., 241.

26. Speech of Senator Robert M. La Follette (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917), 109.

27. Simpson, 180.

28. Walter Karp, The Politics of War: The Story of Two Wars which Altered Forever the Political Life of the American Republic (1890-1920) (New York: Franklin Square Press, 2003), 294-95.

29. “As Summer Came in 1988,” H du B Reports, July-August 1988, 5.

30. Ray Stannard Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement, Vol. 1 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1923), 214.

31. Seymour, Vol. 4, 38.

32. Lundberg, 141.

33. Ibid., 199.

34. Ibid., 197.

35. Ibid., 201.

36. Andrew P. Napolitano, Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedoms (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), 229.

37. Karp, 333-34.

Like many people, I have been trying to better understand the world’s chaotic events, particularly those unfolding in the Middle East and Ukraine, which have recently peaked with the Gaza warfare and the sudden upsurge in Western hostility toward Russia and Vladimir Putin. There appear to be three possible explanations for what is going on.

(1) Methodical installation of puppet regimes.

A few days ago I asked Dr. Kevin Barrett of Truth Jihad Radio if he could provide any insights into (a) the Israeli attack on Gaza (besides its being the latest phase of genocide against the Palestinians) and (b) the meaning of the “Arab Spring.”

Concerning Gaza, Kevin directed me to an article by Alan Hart which suggests that Israel may be planning to ultimately install Mohammed Dahlan – believed by some to be an Israeli asset – as Palestinian president in a rigged election.

Concerning the Arab Spring, Kevin commented that “It’s 4th generation warfare aiming at permanent destabilization and balkanization,” and directed me to a post regarding Western attempts to destabilize Pakistan.

In studying the posts and recent events, a common denominator occurred to me: all the upheavals seem to entail regime changes and installation of puppets.

Following the Western-backed overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya, Zionist front man Basit Igtet was proposed as the new Libyan President.

And when former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych backed off of IMF loans and EU membership, he was overthrown in a now-too-typical Western-backed “popular uprising.” Ukraine’s new president, Petro Poroshenko, is only too happy to accommodate the IMF and EU.

In Syria, another U.S.-supported “popular uprising” has been trying to send Assad the way of Gaddafi, Mubarak, and Saddam Hussein. Last year’s false flag in Syria – the allegation that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people – failed to produce the air strikes Obama so eagerly sought. Clearly, the banksters wanted Assad replaced by another Zionist puppet.

Over the Ukraine crisis, Western propaganda is running full tilt against Putin. This accelerated right after the MH17 tragedy, despite paltry evidence that Russia had anything to do with it; Putin, of course, had no motive for downing a Malaysian airliner. Now the White House has announced Russia has violated a 1987 nuclear arms treaty – even though this violation was already known about last year. Clearly, the Obama administration is grasping at straws in its effort to rally EU support for sanctions against Russia. What is the objective? Citing Putin’s remarks before the Russian Security Council, Dr. Henry Makow recently observed that “Russia is under attack by the globalists who wish to exploit internal divisions to destabilize Russia and install a puppet.” Is that the endgame here? To force Russia to replace Putin with a sycophant for the globalist bankers? A man who will not take Russia off the dollar (see below)?

I am no expert on the internal affairs of any of these nations. However, there appears to be a pattern, and one could argue that the Zionist Illuminati bankers are trying to eliminate, one by one, every leader who opposes them, replacing them with compliant stooges. While this may be nothing new in the world of realpolitik, I have never seen it undertaken this systematically before.

The Illuminati already have flunkies at the executive helms of the major Western democracies. Is their current goal a world in which all heads of state are fully compliant with their agenda? If they could achieve this, the New World Order, with its world government and world currency, could move forward unchecked by a single political opponent.

However, I am aware of at least two other possible explanations for what is going on:

(2) Use war as a scapegoat for the anticipated U.S. economic disaster.

As Paul Craig Roberts and many other analysts have been pointing out, the dollar’s collapse appears imminent, and the U.S. economy with it. The privately owned Federal Reserve has, since its establishment in 1913, created trillions of dollars from thin air – “fiat money.” This cash has allowed the government to operate while running trillion-dollar deficits, to fund wars without the need for tax increases, and to bail out Wall Street directly. In 2011, a limited audit of the Fed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that, from 2007 to 2010, the Fed gave $16 trillion in secret financial assistance to multinational banks and corporations. Top recipients included Citigroup ($2.5 trillion) and Morgan Stanley ($2.04 trillion). Those aren’t typos; that’s trillions, not billions. Technically, these were loans, but the loans were at zero percent interest, and very little has been repaid. In short, these were essentially gifts that Ben Bernanke bestowed on his elitist friends, without informing Congress or the people.

Creating money from nothing is inflation: it devalues the dollar, making prices rise. In 1962, a postage stamp was 4 cents, a candy bar a nickel, tuition at Harvard was $1,520, and the average cost of a new house in America $12,500. As illustrated in this graph by Robert Sahr of Oregon State University, published at http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/sumprice.pdf, there was no real net rise in U.S. prices from the days of the Pilgrims until establishment of the Fed.

Inflationary blips are on the graph, as during the American Revolution, War of 1812 and Civil War, when the United States printed large quantities of money to fund those conflicts. But after the wars, money always returned to its normal value. But look at the graph’s right side. During World War I, our currency inflated, but instead of resuming its normal value afterwards, inflated out of sight. American money, stable for 250 years, began to rapidly and permanently lose its worth. This resulted from the Federal Reserve’s massive production of fiat money. The dollar’s value has shrunk by well over 95 percent since the Fed’s 1913 birth. In reality, the inflationary spike is much higher than commonly believed, because the government has, in recent years, understated the rate of inflation by repeatedly tweaking its methods of determining the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Does anyone really believe the government’s claim that current annual inflation is only 2 percent?

However, Americans still don’t experience the full effects of inflation because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency. When the U.S. buys imports, other countries receive payment in dollars – whose value is ever decreasing. Furthermore, due to an arrangement in place for four decades, OPEC nations have accepted payment for oil exclusively in dollars – also known as “petrodollars.” All countries who buy oil are thus required to keep large quantities of dollars on hand. As a result of these factors, the devalued dollar’s inflationary effects are spread throughout the globe, instead of being confined to the U.S.

However, the world’s nations are tired of having their economies suffer from reliance on the increasingly worthless dollar. Many countries – led by the “BRICS” – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – are planning to abandon the dollar. If that happens, the Fed bankers could no longer get away with creating trillions in fiat currency – there would be no place to distribute it: in America, prices would soar astronomically, and its economy would tailspin.

If such a collapse occurs, America’s central bankers would naturally seek to avoid the blame they deserve. They would not want the public to understand that the debacle resulted from decades of their corrupt fiat money policy. So how very convenient if the collapse coincided with a war. CNN reporters could then – reading from pre-written scripts – inform Americans that “the war caused the collapse.” The very banksters who wrought the disaster would then be interviewed as “experts” on what should be done next.

But there is still one remaining possible explanation:

(3) Engulf the planet in World War III, in order to induce apocalyptic changes.

In 1871 the Satanist Albert Pike predicted three world wars, the final one beginning as a conflict between Islam and Zionism. He said this final war would end in “the universal manifestation of the pure Luciferian doctrine, finally made public . . . which will follow the destruction of Atheism and of Christianity, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” In other words, it would culminate in the global reign of what the Bible calls the “beast” or “Antichrist,” what Orwell called “Big Brother,” and as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion put it, “when the hour strikes for our sovereign lord of all the world to be crowned.”

This graphic from my book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior helps illustrate the continuity of world wars:

• World Government was first established by World War I (the League of Nations); was strengthened by World War II (United Nations), and would presumably be fulfilled by World War III (all-powerful world government).
• Communism was a tool to overthrow kings, governments and religion. World War I established the first communist state (Soviet Russia); World War II empowered communism and spread it over half the globe; World War III would not end in Marxist communism per se, but would establish totalitarian rule surpassing communism’s worst excesses.
• Zionism: World War I generated the Balfour declaration, and seizure of Palestine for a “Jewish homeland”; World War II led to establishment of the political state of Israel; World War III would result in the Antichrist reigning from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. (As the Bible predicts in 2 Thessalonians, “He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.”)

To this schematic I suppose we might add Banking: World War I was piggybacked off the new Federal Reserve; World War II created the World Bank and IMF; and World War III would generate a global currency, a planetary “Euro,” possibly in digital form and thus fulfill the Biblical prophecy that no one will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast.

2014 marks the 100th anniversary of the First World War. Something as cataclysmic as a world war would likely be necessary to bring about the satanic global state that the Illuminati envision. The question is: Do the current showdowns in Ukraine and Gaza represent the beginnings of that?

The conflicts are unusual in that, for both arenas, the prime movers – the U.S. and Israel – are behaving irrationally (not that either country’s previous foreign policy has made much sense). The U.S. is seemingly trying to provoke Russia over issues that are complete “non-starters” (the dubiously explained downing of MH17 and old violations of an old arms treaty). Playing a game of “chicken” with a power like Russia, armed with nuclear weapons, is insanity.

Meanwhile, the Israelis are slaughtering the people of Gaza. This allegedly began over the murder of three Israeli teenagers, even though it is increasingly clear that the incident was not linked to Hamas. When a single Israeli soldier goes missing, Israel reacts with dozens of air strikes. Let there be no doubt: this is not a “battle” between Israel and Gaza; it is genocide. Israel has hundreds of tanks and hundreds of warplanes, paid for by American taxpayers. The Palestinians do not have even one tank or plane; their “rockets” are primitive homemade weapons which are all they have to fight back with, and represent no meaningful threat to Israel.

Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is certainly not new; but this latest episode seems especially brazen in its savagery. Furthermore, mainstream media has been publishing pictures of the Palestinian victims – something that has traditionally been off-limits. One way to enflame the Gaza situation into a worldwide controversy, of course, is for the media to “play both sides.” Meanwhile, ISIS has overrun much of Iraq, and Libya is in such turmoil that foreign embassies are closing.  One gets the impression the Powers That Be may be trying to immerse the Middle East and Ukraine/Europe in so much chaos that it will keep escalating until World War III results.

Certainly, those at the lower levels of the power pyramid do not want world war; they would rather continue with their comfortable lifestyles than face the risks a global war would present. But I believe that those near the pyramid’s top might be pressing hard for it. Revelation 12:12 says, “But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.”

With the world awakening through the Truth Movement and the Internet, the Illuminati may be worried that their time is also growing short, and thus have their foot on the geopolitical accelerator.

TAGS:

[Much of this post appears in Chapter 13 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.]

The USS Liberty was an American reconnaissance ship, unarmed except for four 50-caliber machine guns, serving with the U.S. 6th fleet in the Mediterranean. During the 1967 Six Day War between Israel and her Arab neighbors, it was stationed in international waters off the Egyptian coast. Israel’s air force and navy attempted to sink the Liberty. First their unmarked planes (bearing no Israeli insignia) hammered the ship with rockets, cannons, and napalm. They especially targeted the Liberty’s communication antennas; after destroying these, they sent in torpedo boats to finish the job. Five torpedoes were launched; one struck the ship, which had taken evasive action. In the meantime, Liberty crew members patched together some communications equipment, and got off a message to the 6th fleet that they were under attack. The aircraft carrier Saratoga replied that warplanes were on the way. The Israelis, apparently having overheard the communications, ceased attacking and fled. However, unknown to both the Liberty and her assailants, U.S. warplanes were not on their way. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara had ordered Rear Admiral Geis, commander of the task force which included the Saratoga, to recall them. As John E. Borne relates in The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History:

The first rescue flight was canceled on direct orders by radio from Secretary of Defense McNamara, who ordered a 90-minute delay before any further flights. When the second flight took off at 1550 (having waited 90 minutes as ordered) Geis notified McNamara, who again ordered the recall of the flights. Any officer who doubts the wisdom of an order he has received has the prerogative to ask that the order be confirmed by a yet-higher officer, and Geis availed himself of that right. Since he was questioning the order of the Secretary of Defense, the only man superior to the Secretary was the President. President Johnson himself came on the radio and ordered Geis to recall the flights because “we are not going to embarrass an ally.” ¹

The attack left 34 Americans dead and 173 wounded. The Israelis announced that they had misidentified the Liberty as an Egyptian transport ship, El-Quseir. This was implausible. The planes made many passes over the ship before commencing the assault. Liberty was approximately twice the size of El-Quseir; its markings were in English, not Arabic; and it flew an American flag. When that flag was shot down, the crew raised a huge ceremonial America flag.

Above: the Liberty after the attack; torpedo hole.

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated:

Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.²

Nevertheless, the United States government rubber-stamped Israel’s explanation. As Liberty survivor Richard Sturman relates:

Disgracefully, before awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor to our Commanding Officer for his heroic deeds our government first asked the government of the State of Israel if they had any objections. The Medal of Honor was then presented in a Washington, D.C. Naval Shipyard by the Secretary of the Navy. Hours later, then-President Lyndon Johnson awarded similar Medals of Honor at the White House with all the pomp and circumstance accorded the recipient of our country’s highest award for valor. Furthermore, Captain McGonagle is the only recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor in United States history who has not been accorded White House recognition. So not to embarrass the State of Israel for their attacking the USS Liberty, there is no mention in Captain McGonagle’s Medal of Honor Citation or in any Citation awarded the USS Liberty and her crew as to the identity of our attackers. A practice unheard of in American military awards.³

Also unprecedented for an attack of this magnitude: Congress never investigated the incident. The Navy’s investigation was limited to one week. The following is excerpted from the 2004 declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., chief counsel to the Naval Court of Inquiry; for the full text see http://www.ussliberty.org/bostondeclaration.pdf.

Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.)

I, Ward Boston, Jr. do declare that the following statement is true and complete:

For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them.

However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth.

In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.

The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would take at least six months to conduct. . . .

Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.

The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as “murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.

I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.

I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors.

Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded – a war crime. . . .

I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of mistaken identity despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.

Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to put the lid on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.⁴

Air Force intelligence analyst Steven Forslund stated in a formal declaration:

On the day of the attack on the Liberty, I read yellow teletype sheets that spewed from the machines in front of me all day. We obtained our input from a variety of sources including the NSA [Natural Security Agency]. The teletypes were raw translations of Israeli air-to-air and air-to-ground communications between jet aircraft and their ground controller. I read page after page of these transcripts that day as it went on and on. The transcripts made specific reference to the efforts to direct the jets to the target which was identified as American numerous times by the ground controller. Upon arrival, the aircraft specifically identified the target and mentioned the American flag she was flying. There were frequent operational transmissions from the pilots to the ground base describing the strafing runs. The ground control began asking about the status of the target and whether it was sinking. They stressed that the target must be sunk and leave no trace.⁵

Air Force intelligence analyst James Ronald Gotcher, also on duty that day, has testified:

We received a CRITIC message, informing us that USS Liberty was under attack by Israeli aircraft. Shortly thereafter, we began receiving rough translations of the Israeli air to air and air to ground communications. . . . It was clear from the explicit statements made by both the aircraft crews and the controllers that the aircraft were flying a planned mission to find and sink USS Liberty. My understanding of what I read led me to conclude that the Israeli pilots were making every effort possible to sink USS Liberty and were very frustrated by their inability to do so. Approximately ten days to two weeks later, we received an internal NSA report, summarizing the Agency’s findings. The report stated in, in no uncertain terms, that the attack was planned in advance and deliberately executed. The mission was to sink USS Liberty. A few days after the report arrived, another message came through directing the document control officer to gather and destroy all copies of both the rough and final intercept transmissions, as well as the subsequently issued report. After the destruction of these documents, I saw nothing further on the subject.⁶

Navy communications technician Harold Cobbs has testified:

I arrived in Morocco, July of 1967. I was young and new to the NSG world. While performing my duties on base, I was a witness to the collection and order to destroy ALL traffic regarding the attack on the USS Liberty. Not wanting to believe what I had just seen and heard, I made the comment to comm officer, Lieutenant Rogers, “That’s just not right!” Upon making the above comment I received a severe lecture regarding the following of direct orders.⁷

The Liberty’s survivors maintain a website, www.gtr5.com, from which I have drawn most of this information, and which I urge you to visit.

Now the paramount question: Why attack the Liberty? This was, in all probability, to be another Maine, another Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Gulf. The plan was to sink the Liberty with no survivors. That’s why the Israelis even machine-gunned the lifeboats. They flew in unmarked planes because, if successful, the attack would have been blamed on the Arabs. The intention was probably to then bring the U.S. into the Six Day War on Israel’s side, guaranteeing victory.

We can better understand the Liberty incident if we give it context.

After World War II, the British were governing Palestine, with their administrative, military and police headquarters in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel. Zionists wanted Britain to exit Palestine so they could proclaim Israel a nation. In 1946, members of Irgun, an Israeli terrorist group, entered the King David dressed as Arabs. They brought in explosives, concealed in milk cans, and blew up the hotel, leaving 91 dead and many others mutilated. This was one of numerous Zionist terrorist acts against the British, who got the message and departed.

In 1986, U.S. soldiers were frequenting a Berlin discotheque called La Belle. One night a bomb tore through it, killing two American servicemen and wounding over 50 others. U.S. intelligence then intercepted radio messages, originating in Libya, that congratulated alleged perpetrators of the crime. President Reagan sent bombers which struck Libya. The adopted daughter of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi was killed in those raids. However, Victor Ostrovsky, former agent of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, has revealed in his book The Other Side of Deception that the Mossad originated the radio signals from Libya, completely deceiving U.S. intelligence.⁸

And on 9-11, a group of Middle Eastern-looking men were spotted celebrating the World Trade Center bombings. They were dancing, high-fiving each other, and photographing themselves against the backdrop of the burning buildings. They then took off in a van. Neighbors wrote down the license number and gave it to police. The men were arrested. As Scotland’s Sunday Herald reported:

There was terror and ruin in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.⁹

The FBI detained the men, but since they were from “friendly” Israel, and the crime was attributed to Al-Qaida, they were deported back to Israel after less than two months. But a critical question had been left unanswered. On 9-11, we didn’t yet officially know who had attacked us – the FBI announced that two days later. So why were Mossad agents already celebrating on the day of the tragedy? At the very least, it means they knew about the attacks, and knew that America was therefore about to deepen its alliance with Israel. At the most, it means Mossad was directly involved with the 9-11 atrocities.

Seen in historical context, the attempted sinking of the Liberty fits a long-term pattern of Israeli strategy: deceive Americans into thinking they have been attacked by Arabs so that America will fight Israel’s enemies.

Let us remember that the next time an “Islamic terror attack” occurs on our soil. To the Zionists, Americans lives are as cheap as those of the Palestinians they are killing in Gaza.

NOTES

1. John E. Borne, The USS LIBERTY: Dissenting History vs. Official History (New York: Reconsideration Press, 1995), 38.

2. Thomas Moorer, “A Fair Probe Would Attack Liberty Misinformation,” Stars and Stripes, January 16, 2004, as quoted at http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer4.htm.

3. Statement of Richard Sturman, http://www.ussliberty.org/pdf/sturmanstatement.pdf.

4. Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., www.gtr5.com/Witnesses/boston.pdf.

5. Declaration of Steven Forslund, www.gtr5.com/Witnesses/forslund.pdf.

6. Declaration of James Ronald Gotcher, www.gtr5.com/Witnesses/gotcher.pdf.

7. Statement of Harold Max Cobbs, www.gtr5.com/Witnesses/cobbs.pdf.

8. Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda (New York: HarperPaperbacks, 1994), 143-49.

9. Sunday Herald, Nov. 2, 2003, http://www.sundayherald.com/37707. (link now down)

We in the Truth Movement are not privy to the backroom strategy meetings of the satanic Illuminist cartel that runs most of our world behind the mirage of democracy. Therefore we can only make educated guesses about their plans, based upon their actions and the propaganda spun by government spokesmen and MSM mercenaries.

Trampling of civil liberties has grown steadily since the Patriot Act and Homeland Security were enacted after 9/11.  But in early March 2013, two significant events occurred that revealed Americans were rebelling. One was Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster protesting the domestic use of drone strikes against Americans suspected of terrorism; a Gallup Poll showed Americans overwhelmingly supported Paul. The second event that month was public outcry over reports that the DHS was planning to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (enough to kill every American five times over) as well as over 2,700 armored vehicles. March 2013 was a watershed month during which Americans said: “Enough! What is going on? This can’t be just about fighting terrorism!”

The following month – April 15, 2013 – came the Boston Marathon bombing. In the immediate hours after the incident, many of us were wondering which domestic protest group might be blamed in order to further ramp up government suppression of civil liberties. But then came the announcement: the perpetrators were Islamic terrorists.

Since the Marathon bombing, the focus of MSM terrorism discussion has returned to Muslim extremists, culminating most recently, of course, with the viral ISIS beheading videos.

I suggest that the Boston Marathon marked a paradigm shift. With Americans stubbornly resisting further expansion of police-state powers, the cartel decided it needed to revert to the threat that had been so successfully utilized to justify initial establishment of those powers: Islamic terrorism.

What had worked on 9/11 would work again. Patriotic Americans opposed unconstitutional demolition of their own freedoms, but could be counted on to “rally round the flag” if they believed America was again under foreign attack.

Shifts in government strategies, in response to opinion polls, are nothing new, ever since pre-Pearl Harbor surveys revealed over 80 percent of Americans opposed joining the Second World War. On April 15, 2011, a Gallup Poll showed President Obama’s approval ratings at an all-time low. Solutions quickly emerged. On April 27, after years of foot-dragging, the White House released a purported long version of the President’s birth certificate. (A number of Obama’s critics had charged he was not an American citizen by birth, which would have disqualified him from the Presidency. Former Adobe engineer Gary Poyssick and others have charged that the President’s birth certificate is a computer forgery.)

But on May 2, 2011 came the clincher: It was announced that Navy Seals had killed Osama Bin Laden (politely waiting until the news of Kate and William’s royal wedding had finished). There were many reasons to doubt this story’s credibility:

Allegedly Bin Laden headed the world’s largest terror network. If so, capturing him alive should have been top priority. “Leaked” photos of Bin Laden’s bullet-ridden body quickly surfaced on the Internet, but analysis demonstrated these were old pictures that had been Photoshopped. But in the ultimate insult to Americans’ intelligence, the government proclaimed it had dumped Bin Laden’s body into the ocean – guaranteeing the body could not be viewed and its identity verified. On the night of the announcement, the image of the President saying “God Bless America” as demonstrators outside the White House chanted “USA!” had the smell of an orchestrated media event designed to boost the President’s pre-election image as a patriot.

I believe the Bin Laden incident marked something of a landmark moment: the beginning of a new Orwellian era in which events that never even happened would be written into history books.

The recent ISIS beheadings, whose authenticity many have questioned, may be the latest manifestation of this strategy. Last year, Americans overwhelming opposed the air strikes Obama sought on Syria; even the President’s own traditional supporters were crying “Enough Middle East wars!” and semi-MSM like Second City Network were chiming in.

So it was back to the drawing board. After the beheadings, new polling now shows public support for Obama’s air strikes on ISIS. Apparently beheadings proved a hot “button” for public opinion; after the Foley incident, more beheading videos were rolled out. I am not saying beheadings aren’t taking place, but I believe the Illuminati might be applying the principle taught by famed Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” In other words, they might prefer to induce Americans to relinquish their freedoms through video fakery, instead of through the troublesome engineering of another genuine 9/11. But they would resort to an event of 9/11’s caliber if necessary; that is Satan’s murderous nature.

If these social-media beheadings are truly done by Islamic militants, what do the militants hope to gain by them? All they are getting is air strikes and a renewed U.S. military presence in the Middle East, which is hardly in their favor.

One must remember the words of former French intelligence officer Pierre-Henri Bunel, published in 2004: “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . .”

With the Obama administration already having played its “kill Osama Bin Laden” card, it needed a new bogeyman to replace him. Certainly, it is not my intention to understate the reality of ISIS or its presence in the Middle East. Like most Americans, the group is new to me. The best analysis I have personally seen of ISIS and its history is David Livingstone’s.

But do not Bunel’s revelations apply equally to ISIS? Like Al Qaida, ISIS initially received U.S. financing and military training, allegedly to help overthrow Assad in Syria. Last year, Americans rejected Obama’s plan to bomb Syria to help the militants there. Yesterday (September 22, 2014), with hardly any protests, the United States began bombing Syria, the pretext this time not to help the militants but oppose them. This breathtaking inconsistency in logic suggests the administration was resolved to bomb Syria no matter what.

MSM is supplying its usual support. CNN, which routinely ignores worldwide Christian persecution, suddenly voiced concern over Christians persecuted by ISIS (the Illuminati know pulpits are opinion molders and have traditionally exploited them to fill congregations with pro-war sentiment). And this past Sunday, CBS aired the premier of its new series Madam Secretary, which Fox News appropriately dubbed “a campaign ad for Hillary Clinton 2016.” In the season opener, the task of the newly-appointed Secretary of State was to help American hostages held in – you guessed it – Syria.

I do not know the reason for Illuminati obsession with Syria. Complete the “Arab Spring” dismantling of Middle-East nations predicted by both General Wesley Clark and Pat Buchanan? Build the coveted Qatar-to-EU natural gas pipeline to offset Putin’s counter-threat to EU sanctions? Make the world safe for Netanyahu? Start World War III?

What can be said with certainty: their intentions are evil, lethal, dishonest, and aimed ultimately at global domination. May the world waken.

As a Christian, I am increasingly concerned that most of the church is unaware of the Illuminist plans unfolding around the world. “The church” is a broad term; by that phrase, I am not referring to those Christian churches whose authenticity was long ago lost to the spell of Rockefeller-financed Modernism, rejecting the Bible’s authority, Christ’s divinity, and hell’s reality. I refer to the churches that still faithfully follow the narrow path commanded by Christ, that seek to save souls.

Many of these churches have successfully resisted Darwinism, which the Illuminati invented expressly to destroy faith in God. As Protocols 2:2-3 boasted: “It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories, which our specialists have cunningly pieced together. . . . Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism. . . .”

And so “the Big Bang” replaced God’s creating the universe, a chance arrangement of chemicals replaced His miraculous creation of life, and man was turned from a creation “made in the image of God” to a highly evolved ape.

But even churches that have resisted Modernism and Darwinism have fallen victim to subtler deceptions. To repel the serpent (Satan), it is edifying to be versed in his ways. Jesus said (Matthew 10:16), “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents . . . .” Are not the Illuminati wolves? Protocols 11: “The goyim are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock?”

All Bible-believing churches pray. And it is a rule of thumb that “when all else fails, pray.”  In other words, when facing a crisis, and every human remedy is exhausted, we fall upon appeal to God alone.

However, I believe this rule is invoked prematurely in many cases. To illustrate the point, I’ll begin with an example that may seem insultingly obvious. Suppose you were walking along a lake’s edge, and saw a little boy drowning, just within arm’s reach. What would God expect you to do? Reach in and pull him out, or pray for the child’s divine rescue? Obviously, God would want you to act, not just pray. Does it seem probable that He would even answer such a prayer?

Let’s vary the situation. Suppose you were watching a little girl in a hospital bed, and an evil-looking person entered the room with a clearly-marked bottle of poison. Let’s say you knew this poison would cripple the child for life. Would God expect you to: (A) stop the poison from being given; or (B) let it be given, then pray for healing after it crippled the child? Would God likely honor such a prayer?

I believe the last story illustrates something happening in our culture. Today, millions of people, from infants to elderly, are stricken with “mysterious” illnesses: autism, Asperger’s, ADHD, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Alzheimer’s, a host of auto-immune diseases from Lupus to Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Since the medical world has proclaimed that neither causes nor cures are known, the lay Christian believes nothing is left but prayer – the last resort – and might even say “this sickness must be God’s will.”

I suggest Christians consider:

• the Illuminati’s population control agenda
• that, through financial control of Big Pharma and the medical establishment, vaccines were introduced as a genocidal instrument. More than 100 years ago, the Protocols (10:19) boasted that that they would “exhaust humanity” through “inoculation of diseases.” That is what a vaccine is: a “weakened” version of a disease, injected into your tissues, along with monkey protein and poisons like mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde. With vaccines, the Illuminati achieved a pinnacle of deception: they convinced people that the way to make themselves healthy is to make themselves sick.
• For those who cannot believe this, I suggest visiting sites like vaccinetruth.org and whale.to, or read Chapter 20 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior. Start learning from out-of-the box physicians how vaccines generate auto-immune diseases, the shocking lack of long-term safety testing, and why vaccines did not wipe out infectious diseases as widely proclaimed, including polio.

We often wonder why God does not answer prayers for healing more frequently. I must be careful here; it isn’t for me to interpret God’s will. But I’d like to suggest that possibly our prayers go unanswered because God expects us to act not pray. When we let children receive dozens of vaccination doses, we are in effect saying, “Lord, we don’t trust the way you designed us, nor the immune system you gave us. Instead, we’re going to trust Big Pharma to improve it with injections.”

Physical disease aside, the impact of vaccines on behavior should not be overlooked. The Bible has many verses commending self-control. But how many out-of-control, hyperactive children are misattributed to bad parenting, when in fact these “bad kids” had their brains skewered by vaccines?  While every case is individual, I believe the church needs to heed more than ever Jesus’s words to “Judge not” (Matthew  7:1). For when the church substitutes wrongful condemnation for understanding, it withholds the love of Christ and alienates the potential believer.

Vaccines, of course, are not the only weapon in the Illuminati population-control arsenal; they have come a long way since eugenics, atomic bombs and legalized abortion. Today they know if they level a town with a bomb, victims will ask who dropped the bomb, but if they level it with a HAARP-generated tornado, people will call it – like disease – “an act of God.” In Matthew 12, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for attributing His miracles to Satan; I believe the Lord is likewise displeased when we credit Him with Satan’s work. Christians need to ask why weather has gone insane over the past decade; it’s advanced technologies, not “global warming,” which is a myth fabricated as a pretext for controlling populations.

As William S. Cohen, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, said in a 1997 Defense Department briefing: “Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real.”

Also in the arsenal we find chemtrails, microwave weapons, GMOs and fluoridation of water. All of these induce death, for they are altering God’s creation, which is life.

Jesus said He is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). If churches are to draw people to God, they themselves must be versed in truth to maintain credibility.

Part of this includes understanding truth about modern finance, which impacts both the welfare of the congregation and a church’s operating revenue. I have noticed a tendency among some conservative Christians to stereotype destitute, unemployed individuals as lazy, applying verses like Proverbs 10:4: “Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth.” The Bible is true, but every verse must be applied in a truthful context.

Through fiat money policies, the Illuminati have destroyed over 95 percent of the dollar’s value since creating the Fed in 1913; they have generated noxious taxes that seize about half a working family’s income; and through specious treaties like NAFTA and GATT, they outsourced the vast bulk of our manufacturing sector. The government grossly understates the inflation rate (through a distorted Consumer Price Index), and as analysts such as Paul Craig Roberts have pointed out, the true unemployment rate (currently about 23 percent) is misstated by the government as 6 percent by using statistical card tricks, such as factoring out people who have given up looking for jobs.

Pastors who do not examine these realities, who continue to believe corporate media’s rosy economic reports, may have difficulty empathizing with financially struggling church members. The current Christian financial guru seems to be Dave Ramsay, and while no one would disagree with his advice that people get out of debt (especially credit card debt), he emulates MSM by suggesting that debt is the fault of individuals – spendthrifts who just can’t wait for that new car or iPhone – rather than the banksters who have squeezed the middle class into such poverty that many are forced to borrow just to survive.

It is commendable to advise people to be fiscally responsible, to help the destitute from the church’s budget, and pray that individuals find jobs.  But band-aids won’t stop arterial bleeding. As with vaccine-induced illnesses, the problem needs to be addressed at its source: the Illuminati.

If that sounds odd, it shouldn’t. The enemy of God and the church is Satan. Satan is real, and so are his minions on Earth. The Illuminati accepted Satan’s offer of the Earth’s kingdoms, which Jesus refused (Matthew 4:8-10). They are attempting to destroy the American economy as a precursor to world government. Our nation’s entire decline – spiritual, moral, physical, economic, political – has not occurred by chance, any more than life arose by chance.

We should pray for the safety of loved ones fighting overseas in the armed forces. But how much better if those wars were never undertaken? A “just war,” for self-defense, is a completely valid concept.  However, America’s modern wars have been fought for secret agendas disguised behind slogans like “freedom” and “making the world safe for democracy”; the first chapter of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior documents that America’s involvement in every major war since the Spanish-American (1898) was triggered by an orchestrated “false flag” or other deception.

In sum, I believe the church should assume leadership and actively oppose evil, not just pray for the suffering victims.

Hollywood has largely become a transmitter for satanic messages, but has seen better days. I personally consider On the Waterfront one of the most moral films it ever produced. The story was about choosing between right and wrong despite adversity. The characters included a priest, Father Barry, who stepped beyond his church doors to help his parishioners victimized by a gangster-run union. I think his waterfront speech to the dock workers (based on reality) bears re-watching. His condemnation of the “easy money boys,” and his exhortation to expose them, could well be taken as a parable for today: the banksters, the abused middle class, and the responsibility to speak out (the Truth Movement). The film, incidentally, was partly a veiled reference to the oppressions of communism, which screenwriter Budd Schulberg and director Elia Kazan had both tasted first-hand.

Karl Malden’s character (left) was based on real-life priest John Corridan

I realize many pastors don’t wish to politicize their sermons, which might risk their churches’ tax-exempt status, something the Illuminati would love to see. But nothing stops a pastor from taking a stand outside church walls, or privately communicating his views to parishioners.

The “separation of church and state,” to the limited extent that it originally existed, was intended to prevent any one denomination from ruling the others. But the Illuminati have hijacked the concept to mean eradicating all Christian influence. This satanizes the whole culture since socialism is gradually making everything, from education to healthcare, part of the government “state.”

My remarks are not intended to slight the activism already undertaken by a number of Christians, especially in the vital spheres of abortion, the defense of marriage, and Christian free speech. However, the Illuminati agenda is much broader. And wherever an enemy army attacks, we should both defend and counter-attack.

The world needs “Father Barrys” – from every denomination and faith – to stand in the gap.

As technology has advanced, so have weapons of mass deception

Newspapers were the first vehicle that mainstream media (MSM) used to manipulate Americans into war. The Spanish-American War (1898) was fought over Cuba, which had been a colony of Spain since 1511. By the 19th century, Cuba had become the world’s wealthiest colony and largest sugar producer, and its assets were coveted by the Illuminist cabal, which also wanted Spain neutered as a world power. National City Bank, then America’s preeminent bank, controlled the McKinley White House, loaned the government $200 million to fight the war, and took control of Cuba’s sugar industry afterwards (see Ferdinand Lundberg’s classic 1937 book, America’s Sixty Families).

To get young men to fight and die in Cuba for the banksters, it was necessary to persuade Americans – for the first time – that the U.S. military’s duty was not only self-defense, but “righting wrongs” overseas. It was before and during this war that the media honed a skill that would prove perennially useful: manufacturing fake atrocity stories.

The “Yellow Press,” as it was then appropriately called, was spearheaded by William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World. Together they fabricated outlandish atrocity tales about Cuba, such as Spaniards roasting Catholic priests. On October 6, 1896, Hearst’s Journal carried this headline: “CUBANS FED TO SHARKS. Cries Heard at Night – They are Taken Outside the Harbor, and the Silent Ferryman Comes Back Alone.” Pulitzer’s World raved: “RAIDED A HOSPITAL– More than Forty Sick and Wounded Cubans Butchered.” But no hospital even existed in the region the World described.

Hearst’s reporters rarely ventured outside Havana’s bars. Some never even traveled beyond Florida, where they forwarded tales spun by Cuban émigrés. And some stories Hearst invented himself in New York.

Hearst (above) discovered that atrocities against women struck a special chord with readers. In December 1896 his Journal blared: “BUTCHERED 300 CUBAN WOMEN – Defenseless Prisoners Shot Down by Spanish Soldiers.”

Newspapers could not reproduce photographs then; they published drawings. In a primitive precursor to Photoshopping, Hearst “authenticated” stories with artists’ fabrications. Having money to burn, he hired celebrated painter Frederic Remington. After Remington arrived in Havana in 1897, a famous exchange occurred. Reportedly, he cabled Hearst: “Everything is quiet. There is no trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return.” Hearst replied: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” Although Hearst denied this exchange took place, the words embodied the reality.

Perhaps Remington’s most infamous illustration: a naked girl surrounded by three Spanish ruffians, under Hearst’s Journal headline: “REFINED YOUNG WOMEN STRIPPED AND SEARCHED BY BRUTAL SPANIARDS WHILE UNDER OUR FLAG.” In reality, a Cuban woman, who had aided revolutionaries, had been searched on a ship by a Spanish matron, in privacy. Remington had not witnessed the event.

Depictions such as these built up the anti-Spain fervor which exploded along with the Maine in February 1898; America went to war.

The Illuminati follow the principle “stick with a winner.” What worked to drive Americans into the Spanish-American War would work to embroil them in World War I. And so we went from the Maine to the Lusitania, and from Spaniards roasting Cubans to Germans cutting hands off Belgian children, and other contrived atrocities.

Poster propaganda reached its apex in World War I.

What Americans didn’t know: the first $400 million from the “Liberty Bonds” they purchased went directly into J. P Morgan’s pockets, to satisfy war debts owed him by Great Britain. (Lundberg, America’s Sixty Families, p. 141)

Art was also used to depict the enemy as subhuman (animals are easier to kill).

C’mon, boys, look at that Spaniard trample Old Glory! You aren’t going to let him get away with that, are you?

Boys, see that damsel in distress? Are you going to let the kraut get away with that?

Moving pictures had arrived by World War I, creating a new venue for propaganda, such as The Cry of Peace (1915), which depicted invading Huns molesting New York City’s maidens:

C’mon, boys, are you going to let them get away with that?

Between the world wars, radio emerged as a new medium which, behind the bait of entertainment, could pump live propaganda directly into homes.

It is possible that Orson Welles’ The War of the Worlds – perhaps the most famous radio broadcast of all time – was intended to gauge public response to fake news. In an eery foreshadowing of today’s faux news and crisis actors, Welles simulated a newscast that “interrupted” a musical program to announce an invasion by Martians. Massive, horrific deaths from the aliens’ weapons were vividly described. As the “news story” progressively unfolded, “newsmen,” “witnesses,” and government and military “officials” all gave accounts as if the events were real. The broadcast led to widespread panic.

Although the program began with a brief explanation that it was fictional, a second disclaimer was not aired until 40 minutes later. The wily Welles knew that many people flipped their radios from station to station (just as they do now with TV). Having missed the first disclaimer, many would assume the news was real.

The program aired just one month after the famous “Munich Agreement” of 1938; the pressure for war had accelerated in Illuminist circles, and Americans were about to be inundated with renewed “German invasion” hysteria.

If that connection seems a stretch, the original novel The War of the Worlds had been written by arch-Fabian socialist H. G. Wells, who in 1914 published The War that Will End War, which became World War I’s propaganda slogan. And the radio script was written by Howard Koch, who later wrote the screenplay for the most flagrantly pro-Soviet film ever made, Mission to Moscow, which depicted the USSR as a bastion of freedom, and even justified Stalin’s show trials and invasion of Finland. Koch also wrote the script for Sergeant York, the story of a World War I soldier who had been reluctant to enlist but ended up a hero; “coincidentally,” that film was released six weeks before Pearl Harbor. Koch eventually served a stint on the Hollywood blacklist.

World War II used every propaganda venue: newspapers, radio, movies.

Newsprint had come far since the Spanish-American War. Photographs could now be printed, and the public too trustingly assumed that these, unlike Hearst’s drawings and World War I posters, were fake-proof (“seeing is believing”). The “Shanghai baby” went viral in 1937, reportedly seen by 136 million people, and had profound impact on American sentiments favoring China and against Japan.

The Japanese, however, charged that the photo was staged, and a number of American journalists, such as Arthur Rothstein, eventually concurred. The photographer, H. S. “Newsreel” Hong, was employed by the Hearst Corporation (“You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war”).

Radio fakery continued also. The war’s most famous broadcast was Winston Churchill’s “We Shall Fight Them on the Beaches” speech. However, this stirring oration, like many others credited to Churchill, was actually an impersonation by BBC actor Norman Shelley.

The ultimate opinion mover was, of course, movies.  Our Enemy: The Japanese, narrated by Joseph Grew (CFR), described the Japanese as obsessed with world conquest (while the footage showed Japanese harmlessly eating with chopsticks and boarding subways).

Hollywood’s vulgar racist stereotypes of the “enemy,” now generally acknowledged, need not be recounted here.

The disastrous Vietnam War, which should not – repeat, not – be confused with other wars, commenced just as TV ownership surpassed 90 percent of American homes. Known as the “first television war,” it was the only war in which the MSM turned its propaganda tools against the U.S. military. The coverage was instrumental in generating the chaotic divisiveness that launched the downward transformation of American culture and values.

Today’s media is more consolidated than ever. Six giant corporations own 90 percent of MSM, a point underscored by this footage of newscasters from various stations reading identical lines:

Politicians are no less centrally controlled. Watch the prime ministers of Australia and Canada giving identical speeches on Iraq:

The Illuminati know a prewritten script is more reliable than unrehearsed remarks. That’s why President Obama always reads from a teleprompter:

The President is similar to a movie actor, reading scripted lines as though “spontaneous.” But just like Obama’s teleprompter gaffs, the news media encounters its own scripting slipups. Many believe this happened on 9/11, when a BBC commentator reported the collapse of Building No. 7 twenty minutes before it happened:

Of course, the collapse of this 47-story steel frame structure, in 6.6 seconds, even though not hit by a plane, remains extremely controversial.

A script calls for actors. “Witnesses” can be quite effective, as when false testimony about Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators spurred American support for the 1991 Gulf War. It was eventually proven that the “anonymous” Congressional witness was Nayirah al-Sabah, the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the U.S., and had been coached on her tearful testimony by the global public relations firm Hill & Knowlton:

The Kuwaiti incubator hoax demonstrated that, once again, the Illuminati were “sticking with a winner.” The “Belgian children’s hands cut off” and the “Shanghai baby” had proven that baby atrocity stories are a tried-and-true, proven winner in the propaganda marketplace.

When the Powers that Be geared up for war on Syria’s Assad, the BBC and CNN used the same witness over and over: British-accented “Syria Danny,” who traveled around reusing the same props and fake sound effects of “shellings.” This video exposes Danny:

I am not suggesting that real atrocities do not occur. THEY DO, AND ON A MASSIVE SCALE. But the genuine atrocities are usually censored. If you want to see how a real bombing victim reacts, watch the Iraqi woman starting at 22:05 of this video.

Syria Danny’s fake pre-recorded “explosions” were reminiscent of CNN’s Charles Jaco’s broadcasts during the 1991 Gulf War, which this footage, including embarrassing outtakes, has called into question:

Lest anyone thinks CNN wouldn’t deliberately fool viewers, watch this clip exposing two newscasters pretending to converse via satellite when they’re actually in the same parking lot:

“Green screens” give reporters another means of pretending to be elsewhere, as is suspected of this recent CNN “on the water” reporting on the Ukraine crisis:

Collusion between media and government should surprise no one. Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s program of media recruitment and control begun in the 1950s, was widely admitted even within MSM. It has recently been reported that CIA payments to journalists continue. Watch correspondent Ken Herman question President George Bush, Jr. on government-produced footage presented as television “news”:

In George Orwell’s 1984, televisions continually broadcast fake news in accordance with government wishes. The “death” of Bin Laden on May 2, 2011, marked a major step in this direction. Just 17 days earlier, a Gallup Poll had shown President Obama’s approval ratings at an all-time low. Allegedly Bin Laden headed the world’s largest terror network. If so, capturing him alive should have been top priority, since he would have been a goldmine of information. Instead Bin Laden was reportedly shot dead, and the government immediately proclaimed it had dumped his body into the ocean – guaranteeing the body could never be viewed and its identity verified. Although “leaked” photos of Bin Laden’s bullet-ridden body quickly surfaced in the press, analysis demonstrated these were old pictures that had been Photoshopped.

The use of actors to fake reality is an emerging art. Politicians utilize them often, as shown in this compilation of people “fainting” during Obama’s (and Hillary’s) speeches, with Obama compassionately ensuring they are taken care of:

If those examples aren’t enough, this clip includes more with some repeats.

Just as Hollywood casting departments screen-test actors for specific roles, so can the government, whose budget dwarfs Hollywood’s. Most disturbing are allegations that actors are employed as witnesses and participants in false-flag events, a process satirized in the 1997 movie Wag the Dog:

CNN certainly appears to have interviewed the same woman as a witness to both the Boston Marathon bombing and the Watertown shootout with the suspects four days later:

Even more engaging is Betsy McGee’s video on Steve Silva as “super witness” to both the Boston Marathon bombing and 9/11:

Betsy has also produced a long but insightful video on Boston Marathon bombing notable Carlos Arredondo.

Of course, now we have war with ISIS. And public sentiment has been swayed to support it through the usual means: highly publicized atrocities, in this case viral beheading videos, whose authenticity many have challenged.

It was only last year that a previous attempt was made to bomb Syria. That was based on a different atrocity claim – that Assad was using chemical weapons on his own people. But many believed it was the Western-backed insurgents themselves who wielded the weapons as a “false flag,” a view thought credible by Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and many other responsible observers. The fake testimony of “Syria Danny” had proven unconvincing. Americans overwhelmingly opposed the air strikes Obama sought on Syria.

So it was back to the drawing board. Now we have ISIS beheadings, and Obama has air strikes on Syria. After the first video proved effective on public opinion, more kept appearing. “Stick with a winner”?

Question: If ISIS wants to consolidate its control in that sector of the Middle East, why would it upload viral videos showing beheadings of American and British victims, knowing this could only result in bringing the full might of the Anglo-American war machine against itself? Somewhere I hear William Randolph Hearst saying: “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”

The public needs to decide which media to listen to:

• corporate media, hired to produce propaganda that will advance geopolitical agendas; or
• unpaid alternative media, whose goal is to discover the truth.

My thanks to the many bloggers and investigators whose diligent research provided content for this article.

False flags do not stand alone. They are better understood – and more credibly explained to skeptics – when seen in history’s context.

On the morning of December 7, 1941, Japanese planes, launched from aircraft carriers, attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, sinking or heavily damaging 18 ships (including eight battleships), destroying 188 planes, and leaving over 2,000 servicemen killed.

The next day, President Franklin D. Roosevelt denounced this “day of infamy” before Congress, from whom he secured an avid declaration of war.

Up until then, however, Americans had overwhelmingly opposed involvement in World War II. They had been thoroughly disillusioned by the First World War:

• although they had been told they would be fighting for “democracy” in that previous war, taxpayers learned from the postwar Graham Committee of Congress that they’d been defrauded out of some $6 billion in armaments that were never manufactured or delivered¹;
• atrocity tales about German soldiers (such as cutting the hands off thousands of Belgian children) had turned out to be fabrications;
• the sinking of the Lusitania – the central provocation that ultimately led to the U.S. declaration of war – had been committed by Germany not to kill women and children (as propaganda claimed), but to prevent tens of tons of war munitions from reaching the European front. (Click here for a debunking of the Lusitania myth.)

When the Maine sank, the proactive Assistant Secretary of the Navy had been Teddy Roosevelt. After the 1898 Spanish-American War he became governor of New York, and by 1901 was President of the United States. When the Lusitania sank, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy was his distant cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt – who likewise went on to become governor of New York and then President.

Just as coincident: during the Lusitania affair, the head of the British Admiralty was yet another cousin of Franklin D. – Winston Churchill. And in a chilling déjà vu, as Pearl Harbor approached, these two men were now heads of their respective states.

In a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt stated typically: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”² But privately, the President planned just the opposite: to bring America into the World War as Britain’s ally, exactly as Woodrow Wilson had done in World War I. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him – there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power.”³ William Stephenson, who ran British intelligence operations in the U.S., noted that American-British military staff talks began that same month under “utmost secrecy,” which, he clarified, “meant preventing disclosure to the American public.”⁴

The President offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; occupying Iceland; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and having U.S. warships escort Allied convoys. Roosevelt and Churchill hoped to duplicate the success of the Lusitania incident. But the Germans gave them no satisfaction. They knew America’s entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repetition of that scenario.

As Admiral Karl Doenitz, commander of Germany’s U-boat fleet, stated during the Nuremburg trials:

A 300 mile safety zone was even granted to America by Germany when international law called for only a three mile zone. I suggested mine fields at Halifax and around Iceland, but the Fuehrer rejected this because he wanted to avoid conflict with the United States. When American destroyers in the summer of 1941 were ordered to attack German submarines, I was forbidden to fight back. I was thus forced not to attack British destroyers for fear there would be some mistake.⁵

After being pursued by the destroyer USS Greer for more than three hours, the German submarine U-652 fired at (but did not hit) the Greer. President Roosevelt bewailed this to the American public as an unprovoked attack:

But most Americans were unmoved. Not even another Lusitania would have motivated them to send their sons to die in another European war.

It was going to take a whole cluster of Lusitanias, and since this would not come from the cautious Germans, it could only come from Germany’s Axis partner, Japan. As Interior Secretary Harold Ickes put it in 1941: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.”⁶ This required three steps: (1) build anti-Japanese sentiment in America; (2) provoke Japan to the flashpoint of war; (3) set up an irresistible target to serve as a false flag.

Demonizing Japan

Americans were subjected to a stream of propaganda depicting Japan as bent on “world conquest” even though it is smaller than Montana. In the wartime government-produced film, Our Enemy: The Japanese, narrator Joseph Grew (CFR) told the public the Japanese believed it was the “the right and destiny of Japan’s emperors to rule the whole world . . . to destroy all nations and peoples which stand in the way of its fulfillment. . . . [Their] national dream is to see Tokyo established as the capital of the world . . . . world conquest is their national obsession.”

Grew neglected to mention that Japan had been a closed isolationist country until Commodore Perry compelled them to sign a trade agreement under threat of U.S. naval bombardment. Perry was the father-in-law of August Belmont, the Rothschilds’ leading financial agent in America during the 19th century.⁷

As proof of “Japan’s plot to conquer the world,” the American press played up Japanese troops entering Manchuria in the 1930s. But the fact that the Soviets had first seized Outer Mongolia and China’s northwestern province of Sinkiang drew no notice.  As Dr. Anthony Kubek, chairman of the history department at the University of Dallas, wrote in How the Far East Was Lost:

It was apparent to Japanese statesmen that unless bastions of defense were built in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, Communism would spread through all of North China and seriously threaten the security of Japan. . . . But the Department of State seemed not to regard Japan as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in North China. As a matter of fact, not one word of protest was sent by the Department of State to the Soviet Union, despite her absorption of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia, while at the same time Japan was censured for stationing troops in China.⁸

Dr. Kubek’s remarks highlight a policy consistent throughout the Second World War: condemn “fascist aggression” while tolerating – without limit – communist aggression. For example, when the Germans invaded Poland in September 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany. Yet when the Soviet Union invaded Poland that same month, the West . . . yawned.

Above: Japanese tank crew rests during 1939 fighting against the Soviets near Mongolia.

To those who might contend Japan had no right to enter China to oppose communism, let’s remember that the United States sent its troops around the globe to Vietnam on the principle that stopping communism was in its national interests. By what logic, then, could Japan not oppose communism on its doorstep? A glance at a map shows how close communism was drawing to Japan, having methodically enslaved all the nations embodying the Soviet Union, and it was now boring southward into China. In sending troops to Manchuria and China, Japan was invoking her own version of the Monroe Doctrine.

The Soviets, for their part, wanted war between the United States and Japan, knowing that with Japan neutralized, Communism would engulf Asia. In 1935, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William C. Bullitt sent a dispatch to Secretary of State Cordell Hull:

It is . . . the heartiest hope of the Soviet Government that the United States will become involved in war with Japan. . . . The Soviet Union would certainly attempt to avoid becoming an ally until Japan had been thoroughly defeated and would then merely use the opportunity to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China.⁹

Benjamin Gitlow, founding member of the U.S. Communist Party, wrote in I Confess (1940):

When I was in Moscow, the attitude toward the United States in the event of war was discussed. Privately, it was the opinion of all the Russian leaders to whom I spoke that the rivalry between the United States and Japan must actually break out into war between these two.¹⁰

Roosevelt Provokes Japan

On June 23, 1941, Interior Secretary Ickes wrote in a memo to Roosevelt:

There will never be so good a time to stop the shipment of oil to Japan as we now have. . . . There might develop from embargoing of oil such a situation as would make it, not only possible but easy, to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia. ¹¹

The memo’s date is significant: the day after Germany and her allies (Italy, Hungary, Romania, Finland and Croatia) launched Operation Barbarossa: the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Why did Ickes say an oil embargo would make it “easy to get into this war”? The answer lies in an eight-point plan of provocation toward Japan which had been previously drawn up by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum of Naval Intelligence. The eighth of the eight-step plan was: “Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.” McCollum’s next sentence was: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.”¹²

Ickes; McCollum

What McCollum, Ickes and Roosevelt envisioned was antagonizing Japan to the point that it would attack the United States. And thus – in the tradition of the Maine and Lusitania – America, as the “innocent victim of unprovoked aggression” – would go to war. Here is how War Secretary Henry Stimson (CFR, Skull and Bones) phrased it in his diary, after meetings with the President that autumn: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure that Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move – overt move.”¹³ “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot….”¹⁴

Between July 26 and August 1, 1941, FDR seized Japanese assets in America, closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, and enacted the sweeping trade embargo that McCollum and Ickes had urged. Britain and the Netherlands followed suit with similar embargoes. For the Japanese, this constituted a death threat. Japan heavily depended on imports for raw materials, for 88 percent of its oil and 75 percent of its food.

The timing of these measures was again significant. In July 1941, all reports indicated the Germans and their allies were crushing the Red Army. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers were surrendering; as they did, many shouted “Stalin kaput!”  Stalin himself was nearly paralyzed with fear. He had only fought wars of aggression and was unprepared for defense. If Japan, Germany’s ally, joined Operation Barbarossa from the East, Stalin would be trapped in a vise, and communism – which was an Illuminati creation – destroyed.

Roosevelt’s trade embargo guaranteed that Japan would not join Operation Barbarossa, but would instead turn its attention south. No nation can prosecute war without oil. Tanks, trucks, ships and aircraft require it. If Japan attacked Russia through Siberia, there would be no oil to be confiscated. But there was abundant oil to the south, in the Dutch East Indies. And Southeast Asia held many other resources the embargo denied Japan, such as rubber, tin and iron ore. 

Why Did Japan Go to War with America?

British historian Russell Grenfell, a captain in the Royal Navy, wrote In 1952:

No reasonably informed person can now believe that Japan made a villainous, unexpected attack on the United States. An attack was not only fully expected but was actually desired. It is beyond doubt that President Roosevelt wanted to get his country into war, but for political reasons was most anxious to ensure that the first act of hostility came from the other side; for which reason he caused increasing pressure to be put on the Japanese, to a point that no self-respecting nation could endure without resort to arms. Japan was meant by the American President to attack the United States.¹⁵

Grenfell; Lyttelton

On June 20, 1944, Oliver Lyttelton, Britain’s minister of production, said before the American Chamber of Commerce in London: “America provoked Japan to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty on history ever to say that America was forced into war.”¹⁶ Why did Lyttelton make this startling accusation (for which he was later compelled to apologize)?

Following the U.S. embargo, Japan’s representatives in Washington earnestly negotiated for the embargo’s repeal, to no avail.  On November 26, 1941, the State Department delivered an ultimatum to Japan: sanctions would only be lifted if all overseas Japanese troops were withdrawn to Japan. Although the ultimatum or “Hull note” was officially credited to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, it is now known that it was drafted by Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, a Soviet operative.

Harry Dexter White

The White/Hull ultimatum was a deliberate catch-22. If the Japanese refused it, the embargo would continue, and they would collapse from economic strangulation. If they complied, and withdrew all troops from the mainland, communism would sweep Eastern Asia (exactly as happened after the war, resulting in Communist China, and the Korean and Vietnam wars). The Japanese were thus given a two-headed coin: die by starvation, or die by communism. They decided to reject both options, and fight instead.

To have any hope of success in a war against the mighty USA, Japan would need an edge. Franklin D. Roosevelt made sure they got one in the form of attractive bait.

The Decision to Base the Fleet at Pearl Harbor

In 1940, President Roosevelt decided that the Pacific Fleet should be based indefinitely at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, instead of its usual berths on the U.S. West Coast. This was a bad idea for many reasons:

• In the middle of the Pacific, Hawaii is surrounded by uninhabited waters, making it susceptible to surprise attack from 360 degrees. By contrast, no surprise attack could have been launched if the fleet was kept on the West Coast; assailants would have encountered innumerable commercial vessels before reaching it.
• At Pearl Harbor, the fleet was boxed together like sardines, making them ideal targets for bombers.

• In Hawaii, oil and others supplies had to be brought across 2,000 miles of the Pacific.
• Pearl Harbor lacked adequate fuel and ammunition storage facilities, dry docks, and support craft (such as tugs and repair vessels). The fleet could have been maintained on a superior war footing if kept on the West Coast.
• 37 percent of Hawaii’s population was ethnically Japanese, rendering the fleet vulnerable to espionage and sabotage.
• Basing the fleet in Hawaii would separate sailors from their families, creating morale problems.

U.S. Fleet Commander Admiral J. O. Richardson was outraged by Roosevelt’s decision and met with him on October 8, 1940 to protest it. Richardson presented the President with a list of logical reasons why the fleet should not be based in Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt could not rebut these objections and simply said that having the fleet there would exert a “restraining influence on the actions of Japan.”¹⁷

Richardson said: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.”¹⁸

On February 1, 1941, Richardson was relieved of his command without any explanation. Richardson met with Navy Secretary Frank Knox to inquire about it, and related: “When I saw the Secretary, I said, ‘In all my experience in the Navy, I have never known of a flag officer being detached in the same manner as I, and I feel I owe it to myself to know why.’ The Secretary said the President would send for me and talk the matter over.” However, Roosevelt never sent for Richardson; the only explanation the admiral ever received were these words from Secretary Knox: “The last time you were here you hurt the President’s feelings.”¹⁹

Roosevelt’s sole pretext for basing the fleet in Pearl Harbor – that it would deter Japanese aggression – was resoundingly discredited on December 7, 1941. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Roosevelt was never held accountable for his action. All blame was instead leveled at the Navy, especially Richardson’s successor as Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Husband Kimmel, who accepted the position believing Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to a threat.

This trust proved misplaced. As Washington watched Japan prepare for the attack, it kept Kimmel and his army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, well out of its intelligence loop.

Kimmel and Short

The False Flag Foreknown (1): “Magic”

The Japanese used a code called “Purple” to communicate to their embassies and major consulates throughout the world. Its complexity required that it be enciphered and deciphered by machine. The Japanese considered the code unbreakable, but in 1940 talented U.S. Army cryptanalysts cracked it and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. As the result, U.S. intelligence was reading Japanese diplomatic messages, often on a same-day basis.

A U.S. Purple decoding machine

Copies of the deciphered texts, nicknamed “Magic,” were promptly delivered in locked pouches to select individuals, including President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall, and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. Copies also went to Harry Hopkins, FDR’s shadowy advisor who held no cabinet position.²⁰

(It is worth digressing for a paragraph about Hopkins, who lived in the White House; he has been aptly compared to Woodrow Wilson’s Wall Street controller, Edward Mandell House, who also lived in the White House. Like House, Hopkins acted as a special emissary, paying visits to Churchill and Stalin. After the war, it was revealed that as head of Lend-Lease, he secretly shipped both the materials and blueprints for the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was documented by Lend-Lease expediter George Racey Jordan in From Major Jordan’s Diaries. Some may find interesting John T. Flynn’s remarks in The Roosevelt Myth on the favors bestowed upon Hopkins by British press tycoon Lord Beaverbrook and bankster Bernard Baruch on the occasion of Hopkins’s third wedding.)

Although Hopkins had access to “Magic” intercepts, our commanders in Hawaii did not. And what did these intercepts reveal?

• that Tokyo had ordered its Consul General in Hawaii to divide Pearl Harbor into five areas and, on a frequent basis, report the exact locations of American warships there. Nothing is unusual about spies watching ship movements – but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication.
• that on November 29th (three days after the U.S. ultimatum), Japan’s envoys in Washington were told a rupture in negotiations was “inevitable,” but that Japan’s leaders “do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off.”
• that on November 30th Tokyo had ordered their Berlin embassy to inform the Germans (their allies) that “the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams.”
• that on December 1st, the Japanese had ordered all of their North American diplomatic offices to destroy their secret documents.²¹ (Once war breaks out, the offices of a hostile power lose their diplomatic immunity and are seized.)

In the 1970 movie Tora, Tora, Tora, a Hollywood depiction of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor, Japan’s ambassadors are shown presenting their message breaking relations (meaning war) to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, after the attack on Hawaii, and Hull reacts with surprise and outrage.

In reality, however, Hull was not shocked at all. On the previous day (December 6), he had already read the translated intercept of Japan’s declaration – 13 parts of the 14-part message – as had President Roosevelt.

The False Flag Foreknown (2): East Wind, Rain

An additional warning came via the so-called “Winds” message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations was forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was “Higashi no kaze ame,” meaning “East wind, rain.” “East wind” signified the United States; “rain” signified diplomatic split (war).

This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, “Higashi no kaze ame” was broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.

The False Flag Foreknown (3): Personal Warnings

During 1941, the Roosevelt administration also received several personal warnings regarding Pearl Harbor:

• On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, reported to Washington: “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength. . . .”²²
• Brigadier General Elliott Thorpe was the U.S. military observer in Java, then under Dutch control. In early December 1941, the Dutch army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting an attack on Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Thorpe, who considered it so vital that he sent Washington a total of four warnings. Finally, the War Department told him to send no further warnings.²³
• The Dutch Military attaché in Washington, Colonel F. G. L. Weijerman, personally warned U.S. Army Chief of Staff George Marshall about Pearl Harbor just days before the attack.²⁴
• Dusko Popov was a Yugoslavian double agent whose true allegiance was to the Allies. Through information furnished by the Germans, Popov deduced the Japanese were planning to bomb Pearl Harbor. He notified the FBI; subsequently FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover warned Roosevelt.²⁵
• Senator Guy Gillette of Iowa received information from Kilsoo Haan of the Sino-Korean People’s League that the Japanese intended to assault Hawaii “before Christmas.” Gillette briefed the President, who said the matter would be looked into.²⁶
• U.S. Congressman Martin Dies of Texas came into possession of a map revealing the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor. He later wrote:

As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services . . . I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.²⁷

Thorpe (on the left); Popov; Dies

The False Flag Foreknown: (4) Naval Intercepts

In his book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), Robert Stinnett proved, from documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches also.

It had long been presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This was not the case. The fleet observed discretion, but not complete silence. U.S. Naval Intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, which President Roosevelt had access to through his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had also authored the original eight-point plan of provocation. The most significant message was sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 25, 1941:

The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.²⁸

Here is more on the interception of this message:

Maximizing the Risks

MSM historians have traditionally censured the Hawaiian commanders, Admiral Kimmel and General Short, for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid: Washington denied them the means to do so.

During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific²⁹ – but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey less than one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the southwest.

There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft suffered from lack of spare parts. Repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. As George Morgenstern noted in Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War: “While the Hawaiian air commanders were clamoring for planes to safeguard the base, 1,900 patrol planes were being lend-leased to foreign countries between February 1 and December 1, 1941. Of these, 1,750, or almost ten times the number which would have rendered Oahu safe, went to Great Britain.”³⁰

Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, stated: “There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts.”³¹

Radar, too, was insufficient. And when General Short attempted to build a radar station on Mount Haleakala, Harold Ickes’ Interior Department withheld permission, stating that it would harm the beauty of the landscape.³²

Advance Damage Control: the “War Warning”

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous “war warning” to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: “This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.” However, it went on to state: “The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo.” None of these areas were closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii (that is further than the distance from New York to Moscow). No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: “Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage.” The message further stated that “measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population.” Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the “war warning” was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall’s adjutant general to Short warned only: “Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage.”³³

Short testifies before Congress after the war:

On December 1, Naval intelligence sent Kimmel its fortnightly intelligence summary entitled “The Japanese Naval Situation.” It stated: “Major capital ship strength remains in home waters, as well as the greatest portion of the carriers.”³⁴ Contrast that to the diary of Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America. Ranneft recorded that on December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, “This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East.” It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: “I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action. . . . I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I.”³⁵

Admiral Kimmel testifiying after the war:

Strange Activity on December 7

On the morning of the Sunday the 7th, the final portion of Japan’s lengthy message to the U.S. government (rupturing relations, effectively declaring war) was intercepted and decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its envoys. The first, which the message called “very important,” was to deliver the statement at 1 PM. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was not lost in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations (e.g., in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, it had attacked Port Arthur on the same day it notified Russia that it was declaring war). Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 PM in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii.

Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, arrived at his office at 9:25 AM. He was shown the message and important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a “higher authority.”³⁶ As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

In the War Department, where the statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of Army Intelligence’s Far Eastern section, understood the message’s terrible significance. But the head of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Chief of Staff General Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a very long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and explained the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn’t come to his office until 11:25 AM – an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall’s office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 PM EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.

Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch, which was not even marked “priority” or “urgent.” After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.

Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians – ignorant of that classified evidence – it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, “but alas, too late.” Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th.³⁷ It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack – but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made “a valiant, last effort.”

Marshall BUSTED

As for Marshall’s notorious “horseback ride” which allegedly prevented him from warning Pearl Harbor in time, that cover story was unintentionally blown by Arthur Upham Pope, in his 1943 biography of Maxim Litvinoff, the Soviet ambassador to the United States. Litvinoff arrived in Washington on the morning of December 7th, 1941 – a highly opportune day to seek additional aid for the Soviets – and, according to Pope, was met at the airport that morning by General Marshall.

The Coverup

Pearl Harbor’s secrets had been successfully preserved before the fact – but what about after? Many people around the nation, including some vocal congressmen, demanded to know why America had been caught off guard.

President Roosevelt said he would appoint an investigatory commission. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts – a pro-British internationalist friendly with FDR – was selected to head it. Also appointed to the group: Major General Frank McCoy, General George Marshall’s close friend for 30 years; Brigadier General Joseph McNarney, who was on Marshall’s staff and chosen on his recommendation; retired Rear Admiral Joseph Reeves, whom FDR had given a job in Lend-Lease; and Admiral William Standley, a former fleet commander. Only the last seemed to have no obvious fraternity with the Washington set.

The Roberts Commission. L-R: McNarney, Standley, Roberts, Reeves, McCoy

The commission conducted only two to three days of hearings in Washington. Admiral Standley, arriving late, was startled by the inquiry’s chummy atmosphere. Admiral Harold Stark and General Marshall were asked no difficult or embarrassing questions. Furthermore, all testimony was taken unsworn and unrecorded – an irregularity that, at Standley’s urging, was corrected.

The commission then flew to Hawaii, where it remained 19 days. When Admiral Kimmel was summoned, he brought a fellow officer to act as counsel. Justice Roberts disallowed this on grounds that the investigation was not a trial, and the admiral not a defendant. Because Kimmel and General Walter Short were not formally “on trial,” they were also denied all traditional rights of defendants: to ask questions and cross-examine witnesses. Kimmel was also shocked that the proceeding’s stenographers – one a teenager, the other with almost no court experience – omitted much of his testimony and left other parts badly garbled. Permission to correct the errors – other than adding footnotes to the end of the commission’s report – was refused.³⁸

The Roberts Commission laid all blame for Pearl Harbor on the Hawaiian commanders: they had underestimated the import of the November 27th warning; they had not taken sufficient defensive or surveillance actions; they were guilty of “dereliction of duty.” On the other hand, it said, Stark and Marshall had discharged their duties in exemplary fashion. Remarkably, the report’s section declaring this was first submitted to Stark and Marshall for revisions and approval. Admiral Standley dissented with the findings but did not write a minority opinion after being told that doing so might jeopardize the war effort by lowering the nation’s confidence in its leaders. Standley later called Roberts’s handling of the investigation “as crooked as a snake.”³⁹ Admiral Richardson, Kimmel’s predecessor as Pacific Fleet commander, said of the report: “It is the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office.”⁴⁰

Roberts brought a final copy of the report to FDR. The President read it and delightedly tossed it to a secretary, saying, “Give that in full to the papers for their Sunday editions.”⁴¹ The words “dereliction of duty” were emblazoned in headlines across the country. America’s outrage fell on Kimmel and Short. They were traitors, it was said; they should be shot! The two were inundated with hate mail and death threats. The press, with its ageless capacity to manufacture villains, stretched the commission’s slurs. Even the wives of the commanders were subjected to vicious canards.

There was great outcry for courts-martial – which was exactly what the two officers sought: to resolve the issue of Pearl Harbor in a bona fide courtroom, using established rules of evidence, instead of Owen Roberts’s personal methods. The Roosevelt administration, of course, did not desire that – in an orthodox courtroom, a sharp defense attorney might start digging into Washington’s secrets. So the issue was sidestepped by again invoking security concerns due to the war effort. It was announced that courts-martial would be held – but postponed “until such time as the public interest and safety would permit.”

Sufficient delay would also cause the three-year statute of limitations that applied in such cases to elapse. But that was the last thing Kimmel and Short wanted; court-martial was their only means of clearing themselves. Thus they voluntarily waived the statute of limitations.

Their Day in Court

By 1944, the Allies were clearly winning the war, and national security would no longer wash as a barrier to courts-martial. A joint Congressional resolution mandated trials. At last, the former Hawaiian commanders would have their day in court.

In August, the Naval Court of Inquiry opened. A source inside the Navy Department had already tipped Kimmel and his attorneys about the scores of Magic intercepts kept from the admiral in 1941. One of the attorneys, a former Navy captain, managed to get at the Department’s files, and authenticated the existence of many. Obtaining their release was another matter. Obstruction after obstruction appeared – until Kimmel tried a ploy. Walking out of the courtroom, he bellowed to his lawyer that they would have to tell the press that important evidence was being withheld.

By the next day, the requested intercepts had been delivered – 43 in all. The admirals on the Court listened to them being read with looks of horror and disbelief. Two of the admirals flung their pencils down. More than 2,000 died at Pearl Harbor because those messages had been withheld. Navy Department officers gave additional testimony. After nearly three months, the inquiry finished. The verdict of the Roberts Commission was overturned. Admiral Kimmel was exonerated on all charges. Admiral Stark — who had rejected pleas of juniors to notify Hawaii on the morning of the attack – was severely censured.

The Naval Court of Inquiry

News of the intercepts leaked to the Army Pearl Harbor Board, convening at the same time. The Board secured copies of Magic from War Department files. The Board’s conclusions still expressed modest criticism of General Short, but found overwhelming guilt in General Marshall and his Chief of War Plans, General Gerow. Its report bluntly concluded: “Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States.”⁴²

Direct criticism of the President was forbidden to these proceedings as beyond their jurisdiction. But FDR held ultimate responsibility for Pearl Harbor, and the warnings he had received – some of which only later came to light – far exceeded anything they might have dreamed.

The verdicts wrought dismay in the Roosevelt administration. But a solution was swiftly concocted. It was announced that, in the interest of national security, the findings would not become public until the war’s end. (This would give Washington time to conduct “new” investigations.) Navy Secretary Knox told the press that the Naval Court of Inquiry had marked its conclusions “secret,” and therefore nothing could be published. A stunned Admiral Orin Murfin, who had presided over the Court, protested to the Secretary. It was true that the breaking of Japan’s diplomatic code was not for public knowledge – but, he pointed out, the Court had only marked part of its determinations secret. Charles Rugg, Kimmel’s attorney, telegrammed Knox demanding to know how the “innocent” verdict granted the admiral could be deemed classified. Nevertheless, the reports were suppressed.

Damage Control

Washington now explained that it would conduct additional investigations supplementing the courts of inquiry. Henry Stimson picked Major (later Lieutenant Colonel) Henry Clausen – known to disagree with the Army Board findings – to carry out the War Department’s investigation. The Navy Secretary appointed Admiral W. Kent Hewitt. Hewitt’s role, however, was largely titular; most of the operation was carried out by Lieutenant Commander John F. Sonnett.

The ventures were without precedent: a major was to investigate (and overturn) a verdict rendered by generals; a lieutenant commander was to challenge a verdict of admirals.

The game rules were reminiscent of those of the Roberts Commission. Kimmel and his attorneys were refused permission to attend the Hewitt Inquiry, which operated under this directive: “Except that the testimony you take should be taken under oath so as to be on equal status in this respect with the testimony previously taken, you will conduct your examination in an informal manner and without regard to legal or formal requirements.”⁴³

Not surprisingly, witnesses who had testified against Washington now reversed themselves. Colonel Rufus Bratton had informed the Army Pearl Harbor Board that on December 6, 1941, he had delivered the first 13 parts of Japan’s terminative message to General Marshall via his secretary, and to General Gerow, Chief of the War Plans Division. Now in Germany, Bratton was flagged down on the Autobahn by Clausen, who handed him affidavits from Marshall’s secretary and Gerow denying the deliveries were ever made. Confronted with denials from the Army’s highest levels, Bratton recanted, signing a new affidavit.⁴⁴

Other officers, their memories similarly “refreshed,” retracted their statements about seeing the “Winds” message; now, it seemed, the message never existed. These individuals faced a dilemma. They were career military men. They knew telling the truth would pit them against the Army Chief of Staff and end all hope of promotion.

But one man wouldn’t bend – Captain Laurance Safford, father of naval cryptography. Safford had overseen that branch of naval intelligence for many years. He personally invented some 20 cryptographic devices, including the most advanced used by our armed forces. For his work, he was ultimately awarded the Legion of Merit.

Safford, who had testified before the Naval Inquiry that he had seen the “Winds” message, was confronted by Sonnett. Safford wrote of this meeting: “His purpose seemed to be to refute testimony (before earlier investigations) that was unfavorable to anyone in Washington, to beguile ‘hostile’ witnesses into changing their stories. . . .” In a memorandum written immediately after the encounter, Safford recorded some of Sonnett’s verbal prods, such as: “It is very doubtful that there ever was a Winds Execute [message]”; “It is no reflection on your veracity to change your testimony”; and, “It is no reflection on your mentality to have your memory play you tricks – after such a long period.”⁴⁵ Safford realized a colossal coverup was underway, but was not surprised. He had already discovered that all copies of the “Winds” message in Navy files, along with other important Pearl Harbor memos, had been destroyed. Just four days after Pearl Harbor, Rear Admiral Leigh Noyes, director of naval communications, told his subordinates: “Destroy all notes or anything in writing.”⁴⁶ This was an illegal order – naval memoranda belong to the American people and cannot be destroyed except by Congressional authority. Stories circulated of a similar information purge in the War Department. Some files, however, escaped destruction.

The Clausen and Hewitt inquiries pleased Washington. Equipped with fresh sophistries, the administration produced highly revamped versions of the Army and Navy inquiry findings. The dual Army/Navy announcement came on August 29, 1945 – the very day American troops arrived in Japan, when a rejoicing public was unlikely to care about Pearl Harbor’s origins. The War Secretary’s report shifted the blame back to Short, while saying of General Marshall that “throughout this matter I believe that he acted with his usual great skill, energy, and efficiency.”⁴⁷ It admitted the Army Board had criticized Marshall, but said this was completely unjustified. The Navy Secretary’s statement again imputed guilt to Kimmel, while asserting that Washington had not been negligent in keeping him informed. It did acknowledge that Admiral Stark should not be given a future position requiring “superior judgement.”

Consequently, Americans didn’t learn what the original inquiries had determined. Of course, anyone wanting to find out for himself could do so when the government released the official record of the hearings connected with Pearl Harbor – if he didn’t mind wading through 40 volumes.

Congress Enters the Act

Only one obstacle remained to burying Pearl Harbor. Congress had long made noises about conducting its own investigation; with the war over, it was sure to do so.

To nip any threat in the bud, the administration sent a bill to both the House and Senate forbidding disclosure of coded materials. It was promptly passed by the Senate, whose members had never heard of Magic and had no idea that the bill would hamstring their forthcoming investigation.

Admiral Kimmel read about the bill in the papers. He and his attorneys notified the press and congressmen about the measure’s implications. As a result, the House voted it down and the Senate rescinded it.

Capitol Hill’s Pearl Harbor probe began in November 1945, when the Joint Congressional Committee assembled. It comprised six Democrats and four Republicans. A split along party lines quickly emerged. The Democrats knew that, even though Roosevelt had recently died, a Pearl Harbor scandal could devastate them at the ballot box. But so long as all six Democrats maintained unswerving party loyalty, a majority decision favoring the administration was inevitable.

Admiral Richardson testifies before Joint Congressional Committee

The Democrats used their edge to jockey things their way. The counsel chosen for the committee was a Democrat who previously served with Henry Stimson; his assistant was a former New Dealer working for the law firm of Dean Acheson, the Under Secretary of State. A majority vote determined what evidence the committee would review. Several witnesses Kimmel wanted introduced were never called.

Coercion prevented others from testifying. Major Warren J. Clear, who had warned the War Department in early 1941 that the Japanese were planning to attack a series of islands including Hawaii, was ordered not to appear before the committee.⁴⁸ So was Chief Warrant Officer Ralph T. Briggs, the man who had originally intercepted the “Winds” message at a United States monitoring station. He was summoned before his commanding officer, who forbade him to testify. “Perhaps someday you’ll understand the reason for this,” he was told. Briggs had a blind wife to support. He did not come forward as a witness.⁴⁹

The treatment of Lieutenant Commander Alwin Kramer was cruder. Kramer, who had been in charge of the Navy Department’s Translation Section at the time of Pearl Harbor, and had once testified to having seen the “Winds” message, was confined to a psychiatric ward at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Representative Frank Keefe, a committee Republican, learned of this and vigorously protested.⁵⁰ Kramer was told that his testimony had better change or he’d be in the ward for the rest of his life. The officer went before the committee, but gave a confusing narrative that essentially denied existence of the “Winds” message.

Captain Laurance Safford, however, remained fearless in his revelations. A campaign to “nail” him was soon evidenced among committee Democrats. Congressman John Murphy, a former assistant DA, put him through a wringer of cross-examination. Safford’s personal mail was read aloud before the committee in an effort to humiliate him. Artful polemics made the captain – naval cryptography’s most eminent man – look forgetful on one hand, vindictive toward superiors on the other.

Safford was accused of being the only one to believe in the “Winds” message. In fact, no less than seven officers had acknowledged seeing it before having their memories “helped.” Perhaps the browbeating of Safford helped inspire Colonel Otis Sadtler of the Signal Corps. During the Clausen investigation, Sadtler had recanted his testimony about the message. Now he came forward and corroborated Safford. (Any doubts about the “Winds” affair have since been dispelled. As historian John Toland reported, both Japanese assistant naval attachés posted at the Washington embassy in 1941, Yuzuru Sanematsu and Yoshimori Terai, have verified that the message was transmitted on December 4th, exactly as Safford said.)⁵¹

Sadtler

The Congressional investigation battled on for over six months. In the end, all six Democrats held to the party. One Republican (Congressman Bertrand Gearhart) signed the majority report, reportedly for political reasons,⁵² and a second, Representative Frank Keefe, signed in exchange for modifications in the findings. An 8-2 majority decision was handed down on Pearl Harbor assigning most of the blame to the Hawaiian commanders, some blame to the War and Navy departments, and none at all to Roosevelt and his civilian administration.

That was the last major official inquiry into Japan’s attack. The lie of Kimmel and Short’s guilt was perpetuated and Washington’s secrets sealed. Congress did conduct a “mini-probe” in 1995, at the urging of the families of General Short (died 1949) and Admiral Kimmel (died 1968). The families hoped to restore the ranks of their libeled, demoted fathers. The 1995 probe requested that the Pentagon reinvestigate Pearl Harbor in light of new information. However, on December 1, 1995, Undersecretary of Defense Edwin Dorn concluded his own investigation with these comments: “I cannot conclude that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were victims of unfair official actions and thus I cannot conclude that the official remedy of advancement on the retired list is in order.”⁵³

Collaboration Pays

Those who cooperated with the Pearl Harbor coverup were generously rewarded. As to the men who served with Owen Roberts on the Roberts Commission:

• Though he had been retired since 1936, five months after signing the commission’s report Rear Admiral Reeves was advanced to full admiral for “eminent and conspicuous service in the Spanish-American war,” his gallantry discovered by Roosevelt 44 years after the fact.⁵⁴
• In January 1942, the same month that he signed the commission’s report, Brigadier General McNarney was promoted to major general, and subsequently lieutenant general, full general, and after the war commanding general of American occupation forces in Germany.
• After signing the report, Admiral Standley received the Distinguished Service Medal, and the following month (April 1942) was appointed ambassador to the Soviet Union.
• Retired General Frank McCoy became chairman of the Far Eastern Commission.

As to other major figures in the coverup:

• General Marshall was made America’s first five-star general (no such designation had previously existed). Subsequently he enjoyed stints as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.
• Brigadier General Gerow was made a lieutenant general and commander of the 15th U.S. Army.
• Lieutenant Colonel Henry Clausen, who oversaw the inquiry that revamped the findings of the Army Pearl Harbor Board, went on to spend 16 years as the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite in the Southern Jurisdiction, same position Albert Pike held. In other words, he became the highest-ranking Freemason in America. (Given that President Roosevelt was a 33rd degree Freemason, and that Marshall was a Freemason as well, it is perhaps not surprising that Clausen’s report absolved Roosevelt and Marshall of any wrongdoing. One would not be unjustified in wondering if Masonic handshakes and countersigns preceded the launching of the Clausen investigation.)
• Secretary of State Cordell Hull received the 1945 Nobel Peace Prize.

As to men who sought to tell the truth about Pearl Harbor, such as Captain Laurance Safford, Colonel Otis Sadtler, and Colonel Rufus Bratton, their careers did not advance.

Some postscripts

On May 25, 1999, the U.S. Senate approved a resolution that Kimmel and Short had performed their duties “competently and professionally” and that our losses at Pearl Harbor were “not a result of dereliction of duty.” “They were denied vital intelligence that was available in Washington,” said Senator William V. Roth, Jr.  Senator Strom Thurmond called Kimmel and Short “the last victims of Pearl Harbor.”⁵⁵

Former Justice Dept. official Daryl Borgquist discovered from examination of the drafts of Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” speech that work on it was begun on December 6, the day before the actual attack. And from Helen E. Hamman, daughter of Don Smith, who directed the Red Cross’s War Service before World War II, we have the following quote which appeared in the June 2, 2001 Washington Times:

Shortly before the attack in 1941, President Roosevelt called him [my father] to the White House for a meeting concerning a top‑secret matter. At this meeting, the president advised my father that his intelligence staff had informed him of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese. He anticipated many casualties and much loss; he instructed my father to send workers and supplies to a holding area. When he protested to the president, President Roosevelt told him that the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attacked within their own borders. . . . He followed the orders of his president and spent many years contemplating this action, which he considered ethically and morally wrong. I do not know the Kimmel family, therefore would gain nothing by fabricating this situation, however, I do feel the time has come for this conspiracy to be exposed and Admiral Kimmel vindicated of all charges. In this manner perhaps both he and my father may rest in peace.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11

Pearl Harbor begs comparison to 9/11:

• Both events were carefully orchestrated false flags (although Pearl Harbor differed in that the attack itself was genuinely undertaken by a provoked foreign power);
• Both involved massive death and violent destruction;
• Both resulted in war and transformed American society;
• Both were followed by official commissions that concealed the truth;
• Both inspired “truthers” who were ridiculed by mainstream media because, “after all, our own government would never do that to us.”

History is largely a continuum. This is because most of the world’s wealth is concentrated in a few hands: a satanic oligarchy that has progressively gained control over banking, industry, media and governments. This consolidation of power has enabled the oligarchy to generate geopolitical events which have served its agenda over many decades. For a comprehensive picture of the continuum that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 fit into, see my new book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.

Recommended Reading on Pearl Harbor

George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War (1947).

Robert A. Theobald, The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Contribution to the Japanese Attack (1954).

Husband E. Kimmel, Admiral Kimmel’s Story (1955).

John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (1982). (my personal favorite)

Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000).

George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (2007).

Percy L. Greaves, Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy (2010). (Despite the recent publication date, this 937-page book concentrates on earlier revelations; Greaves served on the staff of the joint Congressional Committee that investigated Pearl Harbor during 1945-46.)

Recommended viewing:

BBC, Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor (1989). Watch it on YouTube:

See also the Pearl Harbor Archive.

Notes

1. Ferdinand Lundberg, America’s Sixty Families (New York: Citadel Press, 1937), 190-201.
2. Robert Dalleck, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 250.
3. Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950), 23.
4. William Stephenson, A Man Called Intrepid (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976), 157.
5. George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War (New York: Devin-Adair, 1947), 94.
6. John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 318.
7. Deanna Spingola, The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power (Trafford, 2012), 337.
8. Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1963), 3, 25.
9. Ibid., xiv.
10. Benjamin Gitlow, I Confess (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1940), 485-86, as quoted in Kubek, 24.
11. Harold Ickes to Franklin D. Roosevelt, 23 June 1941, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/methbk/ickes.pdf.
12. Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Touchstone, 2000), 8-9, 275.
13. Toland, 262.
14. George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2007), 257.
15. Russell Grenfell, Main Fleet to Singapore (New York: MacMillan, 1952), 107.
16. Morgenstern, 116.
17. Ibid., 58.
18. Stinnett, 18.
19. Morgenstern, 63-64.
20. Ibid., 261.
21. For a summary of transcripts of these and many other relevant intercepts, see Robert A. Theobald, The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Contribution to the Japanese Attack (Old Greenwich, Conn.: Devin-Adair, 1954) 42-74.
22. Theobald, 43.
23. Victor, 48; Toland, 281-82; 290-91; interview with Thorpe, Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor, produced by Roy Davies (London: BBC, 1989); 41:48-42:56.
24. Toland, 317.
25. Victor, 35-36, 50-51.
26. Toland, 261; see especially the paperback edition (New York: Berkley Books, 1982), which contains an additional postscript, pp. 349-50.
27. Martin Dies, “Assassination and Its Aftermath,” American Opinion (April 1964): 33.
28. Stinnett, 46.
29. Husband E. Kimmel, Admiral Kimmel’s Story (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1955), 65.
30. Morgenstern, 77.
31. Edwin T. Layton, with Roger Pineau and John Costello, “And I Was There “: Pearl Harbor and Midway – Breaking the Secrets (New York: William Morrow, 1985), 217.
32. Morgenstern, 71.
33. Percy L. Greaves; Bettina Greaves, ed., Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2010), 174.
34. Kimmel, 51.
35. Toland, 282-83, 298.
36. Theobald, 26.
37. Stinnett, 179.
38. Kimmel, 147-48; Toland 33-35.
39. Toland, 321.
40. Stinnett, 255.
41. Toland, 37.
42. “Top Secret Report, Army Pearl Harbor Board,” Hearings before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office), 230. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/army/tsreport.html.
43. Kimmel, 165.
44. Toland, 141-42.
45. Ibid., 135-36.
46. Stinnett, 255.
47. Greaves, 609.
48. Toland, 261.
49. Ibid., 197-98.
50. Greaves, 764; Toland, 153.
51. Toland, Infamy, postscript to paperbound edition, 346-47.
52. Toland, 241.
53. Edwin Dorn, “Memorandum for the Deputy Secretary of Defense,” stamped Dec. 15, 1995, http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/dorn/dornmemo.html.
54. Morgenstern, 399.
55. “Walter Short,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Short; Philip Shenon, “Senate Clears Two Pearl Harbor ‘Scapegoats,’” New York Times, May 26, 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/26/us/senate-clears-2-pearl-harbor-scapegoats.html.

Who Really Fired “The Shot Heard Round The World”? 

FOREWORD: I do not expect this two-part article to be very popular among American patriots, many of whom are my dear friends. They are among the core of America’s best citizens; men and women who fight to protect constitutional liberties from the police state, and to preserve U.S. national sovereignty from the tyranny of world government.

The following article raises questions about the American Revolution, which many patriots regard as the foundation of their beliefs. It can be dangerous to shake a good man’s foundation – even if the foundation is flawed – because it might cause him to question his worldview, and weaken his resolve. However, no historical event should be held so sacred as to be immune to examination. Our country is in too much trouble to make truth secondary.

Many patriots say the solution to our problems is to return to the “principles of the Founding Fathers.” I strongly agree with this view in part; I certainly believe in limited government and the Bill of Rights, and that these fundamental doctrines have been eroded to the point of national peril. However, I also believe that much of the trouble actually traces to America’s founding. Despite ubiquitous descriptions of the Founding Fathers as Christians, revolutions are – with rare exceptions – contrary to Biblical doctrine. In Part II, we will explore this issue, and the revolution itself in depth. Right now, we focus on the flashpoint that ignited the war between Britain and her American colonies.

I grew up mostly in Lexington, Mass., where the famed “shot heard round the world” was fired. On my way home from high school each day, I would pass Lexington Green, where colonial militia had assembled on the morning of April 19, 1775, and encountered a force of British redcoats who were on their way to neighboring Concord to confiscate armaments. Shots rang out; eight militiamen died; nine were wounded; the Revolutionary War had begun. The redcoats suffered only one minor wound and continued to Concord, where they found fewer munitions than expected. They spent the rest of the day being routed by superior numbers of militia, on a long and bloody retreat back to their garrison in the city of Boston.

As I walked home, I would pass still-standing Buckman’s Tavern, where the militia had assembled before the battle; and continuing my trek up Hancock Street, would pass the Hancock-Clarke House, another historic site. It was here that Samuel Adams and John Hancock – leaders of the revolution in Massachusetts – had been staying the night before the battle. Paul Revere stopped there to see them on his famous “Midnight Ride.”

These historic matters were hardly on my mind at the time. However many years later, having written widely on political affairs, I took my son on a tour of historic Lexington at his request, and questions began troubling me.

Who fired the first shot has been controversial for over two centuries. Was it the British or Americans? Each side accused the other.

A patriotic friend of mine, who publicly lectures on the battle in a tricorn hat, told me, “Jim, the Americans would never have fired first. You’ve got 80 militia facing 700 British regulars. It would have been suicidal.”

“I see your point,” I said, “but it also seems to me that British troops, under tight discipline, would not have fired without provocation. It’s not like they were on a mission to start battles that day.”

So who did fire the “shot heard round the world”? The answer is important, because that shot ignited the American Revolution, which in turned engendered the world’s most powerful nation. I believe the answer was a dark secret, buried with the dead that April morning.

The Amazing Changing Lexington Portrayals

I direct the reader to the battle’s first artistic depiction, the engraving rendered by Amos Doolittle in the fall of 1775, just a few months after the event.

Note that all the militiamen are retreating or casualties. Not one colonist is firing his gun or even loading.

Next we have the lithograph produced by William S. Pendleton in about 1830:

While a number of militiamen are retreating, some are now shooting.

Next comes Hammatt Billings’s rendering of 1868:

Here very few men retreat; most are engaged.

And finally we have “The Dawn of Liberty,” painted by Henry Sandham in 1886:

Every man is now standing his ground.

Note the transition from Picture 1 to Picture 4 – from 100 percent retreat to 100 percent defiance. The credit for discovering this revealing sequence goes not to me, but to historian Harold Murdock, who expounded on it nearly a century ago. While the casual observer might dismiss these changes as artistic license or patriotic pride, the truth about Lexington’s “Picture of Dorian Gray” runs much deeper.

Doolittle’s 1775 picture very accurately represented how Massachusetts rebels wanted the event portrayed at that time. Here is how the newspaper Massachusetts Spy reported it in an article widely reprinted throughout the colonies:

Americans! forever bear in mind the BATTLE of LEXINGTON! where British Troops, unmolested and unprovoked wantonly, and in a most inhuman manner fired upon and killed a number of our countrymen  . . . It is noticed they fired upon our people as they were dispersing, agreeable to their command, and that we did not even return the fire. Eight of our men were killed and nine wounded; The troops then laughed, and damned the Yankees.

As you can see, the article denied that the militia fired any shots. This accords with the official report authorized by the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, A Narrative, of the Excursion and Ravages of the King’s Troops. It contained the depositions of many Lexington militiamen. All stated the king’s troops began firing on them. Not one deponent expressly admitted to firing a shot, even in retaliation, though they did not deny firing retaliatory shots.

It also agrees with the account by William Heath, the brigadier general who took overall command of the militias as they pursued the redcoats back to Boston. In his postwar memoirs, Heath described the British shooting at the Lexington militia, but made no mention of return fire.¹

So, what changed perception of the event? In 1824, as the revolution’s 50th anniversary was approaching, politician Samuel Hoar was giving a public address in Concord. The aging Marquis de Lafayette (who had been a general in the Revolution) was there; Hoar told him he was standing where “the first forcible resistance” to the British occurred. Concord residents affirmed that their town should be credited with firing, as Ralph Waldo Emerson would later phrase it, “the shot heard round the world.” After all, nothing on the official record indicated the Lexington militia had discharged even one round.

This prompted outrage in Lexington, whose denizens insisted the honor belonged to them. And to prove their case, they obtained depositions from 10 aged veterans and witnesses of the battle on Lexington Green. In a stunning variance from the original sworn statements, all deponents now vigorously insisted that the militia fired upon the British, though still claiming the redcoats began hostilities.

This inter-town debate raged for years, and was said to be symbolized in our annual Thanksgiving Day football game, played between Lexington and Concord high schools. Virtually all historians today concede that the Lexington militia fired; the controversy now is over who fired first. The Americans said it was the British; the British said the Americans.

Americans or British?

Though it may offend some U.S. patriots, I agree with Derek W. Beck, American author of the forthcoming book 1775, who concedes that the British reports were more credible. Why?

• The British freely admitted shooting first at the subsequent battle of Concord. Why would they tell the truth about Concord, but lie about Lexington?
• British soldiers said the Americans fired first in their personal diaries, which were not intended for publication. Why would the British lie to themselves in their diaries?
• As we have seen, in 1825 the Lexington militiamen amended the story given in their original 1775 depositions. This shows they were guided by political exigencies of the day, weakening their credibility.

But why would a militia force commence hostilities when outnumbered ten to one? The solution to this mystery requires understanding the historical context.

Freemasonry

Freemasonry deserves mention. In the late 18th century, two bloody anti-royalist revolutions erupted. One, of course, was the French Revolution. Few would deny Freemasonry played a major role in it. This was not only documented by contemporary writers such as Augustin Barruel in Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinsm (1797) and John Robison in Proofs of a Conspiracy (1798), but by Bonnet, orator of the Convent of the Grand Orient Lodge of France, who later declared:

During the 18th century the glorious line of the Encyclopedistes found in our temples a fervent audience, which, alone at that period, invoked the radiant motto, still unknown to the people, of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The revolutionary seed germinated rapidly in that select company. Our illustrious brother masons d’Alembert, Diderot, Helvetius, d’Holbach, Voltaire and Condorcet, completed the evolution of people’s minds and prepared the way for a new age. And when the Bastille fell, freemasonry had the supreme honor to present to humanity the charter which it had friendly elaborated. . . . On August 25, 1789, the Constituent Assembly, of which more than 300 members were masons, finally adopted, almost word for word, such as it had been for long elaborated in the lodges, the text of the immortal declaration of the Rights of Man. At that decisive hour for civilization, French masonry was the universal conscience . . . .²

Of course, many have noted a distinction between Grand Orient Masonry, practiced on the European continent, and Scottish Rite Masonry, practiced in Great Britain and North America, which they consider more benign. Nonetheless, it is difficult to deny Freemasonic components to the American Revolution.

Paul Revere was dispatched on his famous ride from Boston by Joseph Warren. Warren also sent a second rider, William Dawes, whom history has never glamorized like Revere. Revere and Dawes took different routes and both arrived at the Lexington house where John Hancock was staying. What history books usually omit is that Joseph Warren was Grand Master of St. Andrew’s Lodge in Boston; and that Revere, Dawes and Hancock were all members of that same Lodge. Thus the entire circuit of Revere’s ride, from beginning to end, consisted of Freemasons bound to oaths of secrecy. So we could reasonably ask if there was something to the ride beyond what history reports.

After the war, Revere became Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, which probably did not impair his subsequent rise to historic glory.

Above: Boston’s Green Dragon Tavern, headquarters of both the Sons of Liberty and St. Andrew’s Lodge

Many other Freemasons were involved in the Revolution. Benjamin Franklin served not only as Grand Master of Pennsylvania, but Grand Master of the Nine Sisters Lodge in Paris, as well belonging to Britain’s satanic Hellfire Club.

Nearly half the generals in the Continental Army were Freemasons – most famously, of course, George Washington, who was later sworn in as President by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York’s Grand Lodge.

If you visit Lexington today, at the National Heritage Museum you will see a statue of George Washington donning his Masonic apron. Not surprising, since the museum is run by the Freemasons (its legal name is Scottish Rite Masonic Museum & Library, Inc.). In fact, the entire Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States has its headquarters in Lexington. I do not believe this location was selected by chance.

None of this imputes anything sinister to the vast majority of Freemasons in America today. But it is difficult to dismiss, as coincidental, the influence of Freemasonry on these two revolutions that exploded just a few years apart on separate continents.

Brewers of Revolution

But by far the most important insights into Lexington’s secrets derive from examining the two men who Paul Revere rode to meet there – Samuel Adams and John Hancock.

When most Americans hear “Founding Fathers,” they typically think of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Hamilton. John Hancock is usually remembered only for his extra-large signature on the Declaration of Independence. If an Adams is recalled, it is John Adams, second President of the United States, rather than his second cousin Sam, whom most Americans today identify only as a figure on beer labels.

But Americans of the colonial era would be surprised to learn that Sam Adams has faded into semi-oblivion. Thomas Jefferson said “he was truly the Man of the Revolution.” When he died, the Boston press called him “Father of the American Revolution.” Indeed, the revolution was in many respects a “Massachusetts event” – here was the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the battle that started the war. Sam Adams was entangled in them all.

During the French and Indian War (1754-1763), colonists and British troops had fought on the same side. Samuel Adams, who biographer John Miller called “pioneer in propaganda,” was instrumental in abruptly changing Americans’ perception of British soldiers from “good guys” to “bad guys.”

Britain’s national debt had nearly doubled by the long war’s end, and Parliament felt the burden of paying it off should not be borne by British taxpayers alone, but by the colonists as well, especially since they were the main beneficiaries of the war’s victorious outcome. The result was the Sugar Act of 1764, which placed a tax on molasses of three pennies per gallon.

Sam Adams, a member of the Massachusetts state legislature, was the most outspoken opponent of the Act. Widely quoted in newspapers and pamphlets, he declared:

For if our Trade may be taxed, why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & everything we possess or make use of?. . . If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?³

This established two patterns to Adams’s rhetoric: (1) amplify a perceived wrong far beyond its actual boundaries – i.e., if you gave the king a penny today, tomorrow he would demand a pound; (2) equate British taxation policies with images of slavery.

The Sugar Act was repealed, but it was Britain’s next revenue measures – the Stamp Act of 1765 (repealed in 1766) and the Townshend Acts of 1767 – that catapulted Adams to power. (The Stamp Act would have placed tax on many documents, such as contracts, licenses, diplomas and newspapers, each to require a revenue stamp; the Townshend Acts placed duties on various imports from Britain.) These measures were protested throughout the colonies, but nowhere more violently than Boston. As historian William H. Hallahan notes:

Samuel Adams was gathering and organizing a collection of waterfront mobs who were controlled by his lieutenant, Will Molineaux, a draper; and on occasion even by Paul Revere. Henceforth, Boston was controlled by a “trained mob” glorified by its title: the Sons of Liberty. Sam Adams was its keeper. Adams fashioned another powerful revolutionary tool when he helped spread Sons of Liberty organizations elsewhere in the colonies, where they could be orchestrated into mobs for demonstrations, intimidation, and street violence coordinated with events in Boston.⁴

Adams became Boston’s political boss, running the city in an early Tammany style. Even before town meetings took place, Adams and his cronies would pre-select candidates at Adams’s private smoke-filled “Boston Caucus” room; votes were often bought at the price of a few tavern drinks, and his thugs ensured control of town meetings at Boston’s Faneuil Hall.

During this rise, Adams recruited the most important ally of his political life: John Hancock.

Both men came from prosperous families. But while Sam Adams turned all his father’s businesses – including a malt house for brewers – into ruins, Hancock became the wealthiest man in Massachusetts, primarily through smuggling operations. A peerless fop, Hancock rode about in a gilded carriage he had specially built in England. Before the revolution began, he even had tailors make him a collection of ornate military costumes he imagined he would wear as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. When this distinction instead went to George Washington, he bore a grudge that festered for years. Although his extra-large signature on the Declaration of Independence has been popularly ascribed to courageous defiance, it might also be seen as characteristic of his overbearing vanity.

Adams recruited Hancock to be financial angel of the revolution in Massachusetts. Playing to his ego, he allowed Hancock to take the most publicly prominent positions, but there was no doubt that Adams, the back-room intriguer, was the revolutionary mastermind. He soon brought political enemies to heel.

Andrew Oliver, who had been designated distributor of stamps in Boston, was hung in effigy by a mob, had his office vandalized and his home stoned. Adams then forced him to publicly resign before a mob on Boston Common.

Adams learned that terror tactics could be employed to intimidate elected officials as well – by filling the legislature’s gallery with hundreds of his “Mohawks” (Sons of Liberty) and posting the names of legislators considered Tories (British loyalists) on Boston Common’s “Liberty Tree.”

John Mein, who began Boston’s first circulating library, ran an opposition newspaper called the Boston Chronicle. While Adams was forcing Boston merchants to boycott British goods – at great loss to themselves – Mein published ships’ manifests proving that certain traders, including John Hancock, were secretly continuing profitable trade with Britain. A mob then ransacked Mein’s office, and he was attacked on the street by twenty thugs armed with clubs and spades. Orders were handed down for Mein’s arrest, and Sam Adams personally assisted in searching for him. Mein successfully escaped the city, but freedom of the press departed with him.

Home after home of “Tories” were set upon by Adams’s mobs at night. Before undertaking their tasks, they would first get “liquored up“ in Boston’s taverns (making it not inappropriate that Sam Adams is now immortalized on beer bottles). Summoned by bells, whistles, and a horn, the mobs would pour out of the taverns, and descend on the houses of their designated victims, first giving Mohawk “war whoops,” then terrorizing the families and ransacking their homes.

Looting became a “patriotic” act. Destroying the ledger books of creditors was not overlooked. Many loyalists were stripped naked and made victims of the gruesome act of tarring and feathering.

But Adams went too far when he singled out Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson. Adams roused passions by falsely proclaiming the Stamp Act had been Hutchinson’s brainchild. This was a glaring slander – the Massachusetts-born Hutchinson had opposed the Stamp Act. This mattered little to the drunken mob of some 500 that descended on the lieutenant governor’s house on the night of August 26, 1765. Hutchinson and his family barely escaped with their lives. The mob set upon the house for the entire night, breaking the windows, destroying the walls and furniture with axes, stealing all clothing, silverware and money, obliterating Hutchinson’s library (which contained priceless books and manuscripts) and even pulling down the house’s cupola.

The specter of Hutchinson’s destroyed home sparked an outcry in Massachusetts – Deacon Timothy Pickering, Sr. of Salem later compared the mob to the one that surrounded Lot’s house in the Bible. Throughout the colonies, shame fell on Boston. As a result, Adams was forced to publicly criticize the incident, but he blamed it on “vagabond strangers.”

Eight of the perpetrators were arrested in Boston, but another mob simply broke into the jail and freed them. They were never brought to trial.

Hutchinson minced no words about Sam Adams: “I doubt whether there is a greater Incendiary in the King’s dominions or a man of greater malignity of heart, or who less scruples any measure ever so criminal to accomplish his purposes; and I think I do him no injustice when I suppose he wishes the destruction of every Friend to Government in America.”⁵

In the manner of Orwellian Newspeak, Sam Adams espoused “liberty” while destroying it; he denounced “tyranny” while establishing it. Liberty is meaningless when granted only to people agreeing with those in power. Edward Bacon, the state legislator from Barnstable, Mass. – where an elderly widow named Abigail Freeman was tarred and feathered by a gang of young thugs for expressing “Tory” opinions – said he preferred the master 3,000 miles away to the one in Boston.⁶

By 1768, under Adams’s tutelage, Boston had become a bedlam of mob rule and violence. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and justice were perishing. At this juncture, British troops were sent to Boston to restore order. One Captain Evelyn would later write to his father, a clergyman in England: “Our arrival has in a great degree restored that liberty they [loyalists] have been so long deprived of, even liberty of speech and security to their persons and property, which has for years past been at the mercy of a most villainous mob.”⁷

Adams immediately sought to expel these troops. He began circulating to other colonies a “Journal of Events” which alleged that British soldiers were regularly beating small boys and raping the city’s virtuous maidens. Adams did not publish the “Journal” in Massachusetts, where its contents were known to be untrue; but other parts of the continent were easy prey for his atrocity tales. Francis Bernard, governor of Massachusetts, said of Adams’s journal that, even “if the Devil himself” had taken a hand, “there would not have been got together a greater collection of impudent virulent & Seditious Lies, Perversions of Truth & Misrepresentations than are to be found in this Publication.”⁸ In their own defense, the British soldiers said it would hardly be necessary to resort to rape in a city already so teeming with women of easy virtue.

Adams’s Sons of Liberty began picking fights with redcoats in Boston taverns. One of the trademark quotes of Sam Adams’s career was: “Put your enemy in the wrong, and keep him so, is a wise maxim in politics, as well as in war.” With this principle in mind, Adams sought to generate a catalytic incident – one that would be prelude to Lexington Green.

The Boston “Massacre”

On March 5, 1770, citizens of Boston found handbills posted around the city which read:

this is to inform ye Rebellious People in Boston, that ye Soldiers in ye 14th and 29th Regiments are determend to Joine together and Defend themselves against all who Shall opose them

Signed ye soldiers of ye 14th and 29th Regiments

If, in fact, the redcoats had planned violence against Boston’s citizens, it seems odd that they would broadcast their intentions in advance. Nonetheless, the handbill was used to stir passions among Bostonians.

That evening, summoned by bells, a huge mob, many armed with clubs and staves, descended on King Street. They surrounded the lone sentry on duty near the customs house, taunting him and pelting him with chunks of ice. The sentry called for help. Captain Thomas Preston, officer of the watch at the nearby barracks, came to the sentry’s rescue with seven soldiers. As the bells continued tolling, the crowd grew to some three or four hundred. They closed in on the nine soldiers, hurling rocks, ice and snowballs, and daring them with chants of “Fire!” for they knew the redcoats had orders not to shoot at citizens. As the crowd surrounded the soldiers, they began striking them, and hitting the muzzles of their guns, with cudgels. One soldier, knocked to the ground by a blow from a club, and hearing the word “Fire!” amid the chaos, jumped to his feet and shot at his assailants. Other soldiers fired as well. When it was over, three of the mob lay dead; two were mortally wounded.

The next morning, Sam Adams delivered a fiery speech, and appointed himself and John Hancock heads of a committee that demanded immediate removal of all British troops from Boston. Propaganda went full tilt. Adams’s lieutenant Paul Revere swiftly produced a widely reproduced print of the “massacre” (five deaths being a somewhat hyperbolic use of that term).

It has been noted that Revere’s print included numerous misrepresentations, the most distinct its depiction of the shooting as an orderly volley, given on an officer’s command, suggesting it was a premeditated expression of official British policy. Adams’s committee, which also included Joseph Warren – Grand Master of Boston’s Freemasons – and mob leader William Molineux, ordered publication of A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston. It contained dozens of collected depositions, depicting the incident as unprovoked wanton murder. Reading them, one is impressed that there was hardly a citizen of Boston who was not molested by Captain Preston and his men that night. The depositions read as though written by a seedy playwright of maudlin melodramas. Perhaps Adams had discovered that depositions, like votes and rioters, could be bought with a few tavern drinks (and possibly with Masonic countersigns, for anyone who considered an oath to the brotherhood to outweigh an oath to tell the truth).

Two samples:

Deposition number 31:

I, Nathaniel Appleton, of lawful age, testify, that on Monday evening the 5th instant . . . I went to my front door and saw several persons passing up and down the street, I asked what was the matter? was informed that the soldiers at Murray’s barrack were quarrelling with the inhabitants. Standing there a few minutes, I saw a number of soldiers, about 12 or 15, as near as I could judge, come down from the southward, running towards the said barrack with drawn cutlasses, and appeared to be passing by, but on seeing me in company with Deacon Marsh at my door, they turned out of their course and rushed upon us with uplifted weapons, without our speaking or doing the least thing to provoke them, with the utmost difficulty we escaped a stroke by retreating and closing the door upon them. I further declare, that at that time my son, a lad about 12 years old, was abroad on an errand, and soon came home and told me that he was met by a number of soldiers with cutlasses in their hands, one of which attempting to strike him, the child begg’d for his life, saying, pray soldier save my life, on which the soldier reply’d, No damn you, I will kill you all, and smote him with his cutlass, which glanced down along his arm and knocked him to the ground where they left him, after the soldiers had all passed, the child arose and came home, having happily received no other damage than a bruise on the arm.

Deposition No. 66:

I, John Wilson of lawful age testify, that on monday evening the 5th current, I . . . heard the bells ring and . . . I asked what was the matter? The people said the soldiers had insulted the inhabitants . . . . Then I came down King street opposite the custom-house, and saw a man with a light color’d surtout coming from the main guard go up to the centry, and lay his hand on his shoulder and speak some words to the centry, and then enter the custom-house door. On this the centry grounded the breech of his gun, took out a cartridge, primed and loaded, and shoulder’d his firelock. After this I drew back opposite Mr. Stone’s, & in a few minutes saw a party of soldiers headed by an officer coming down from the main guard, crying to the inhabitants, Damn you, make way you boogers! I not moving from my place was struck by one of them on the hip with the butt of his musquet, which bruised me so much that it was next day very sore, and much discoloured. The officer seeing the soldier strike me said to the soldier in an angry manner why don’t you prick the boogers? The party drew up before the custom-house door, and ranged to the west corner in a half circle, and charged their pieces breast high. Some small boys coming up made a noise to the soldiers, on which the officer said to them why don’t you fire? Damn you, fire! They hereupon fired, and two men fell dead in my sight.⁹

These depositions portrayed the soldiers “Adams style” – cowards who beat children, who shot without provocation, their conduct motivated by officers. (Note the claims of having received bruises, which fade away and, unlike wounds, leave no scar that could corroborate injury.)

The soldiers were tried for murder, and Sam Adams expected that, with a jury stacked with his “Mohawks,” he would soon see redcoats swinging from gallows on Boston Common. But the defense was led by Sam’s second cousin John – the future President – who, despite threats against himself, did a creditable job. He saw to it that the jurors came from outside Boston, and 38 witnesses testified that there had been a plot that night to attack the redcoats. The prosecution did not even enter into evidence the threatening handbill alleged to have been written by the soldiers.

The most crushing blow for Sam Adams came with the deathbed confession of one of the two mortally wounded men – Patrick Carr. Carr said the soldiers had been provoked into shooting; that they had shown far greater restraint than the British soldiers Carr had seen facing mobs in his native Ireland; and he forgave the soldier who shot him, as he had pulled the trigger in self-defense.

Outraged, Sam Adams publicly denounced Carr’s confession. Playing to the prejudices of the day, he said it should be disregarded because Carr was a “Papist.”¹⁰

The jury acquitted all but two of the soldiers, who were convicted of manslaughter. No redcoats swung from the gallows. Sam’s cousin John – tactfully without naming names – remarked of the incident: “I suspected that this was the explosion which had been intentionally wrought up by designing men who knew what they were aiming at, better than the instruments employed.”¹¹

The verdict stung Sam Adams, but taught him lessons that would prove useful. And he continued to play the massacre for all it was worth. As the master of melodramatic propaganda, it is believed he had a great hand in writing John Hancock’s torrid Boston Massacre fourth-anniversary oration, of which here is a small sampling. Bear in mind these words were being spoken more than three years after a Massachusetts jury rejected the murder charges brought against the troops:

But I forbear, and come reluctantly to the transactions of that dismal night . . . when Satan, with his chosen band, opened the sluices of New England’s blood, and sacrilegiously polluted our land with the dead bodies of her guiltless sons! Let this sad tale of death never be told without a tear . . . let every parent tell the shameful story to his listening children until tears of pity glisten in their eyes, and boiling passions shake their tender frames . . . let all America join in one common prayer to heaven that the inhuman, unprovoked murders of the fifth of March, 1770 . . . executed by the cruel hand of Preston and his sanguinary coadjutors, may ever stand in history without a parallel. . . . And though the murderers may escape the just resentment of an enraged people; though drowsy justice . . . still nods upon her rotten seat . . . . Ye dark designing knaves, ye murderers, parricides! how dare you tread upon the earth which has drunk in the blood of slaughtered innocents, shed by your wicked hands?

The Boston Tea Party

As it did with the Sugar Act, England had repealed the Stamp Act (from which it never collected one penny) in response to colonial protests.

In 1766, a frustrated Parliament, still seeking a practical means of raising revenues from the colonies, summoned Benjamin Franklin, the leading representative of American interests in Britain. The following exchange is of interest:

Q. What was the temper of America toward Great Britain before the year 1763?
A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of the Crown, and paid, in their courts, obedience to acts of Parliament. . . .

Q. Did you ever hear the authority of Parliament to make laws for America questioned till lately?
A. The authority of Parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce. . . .

Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763 that the Parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there?
A. I never heard an objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there. . . .

Q. On what do you found your opinion that the people in America made any such distinction?
A. I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every one that we could not be taxed by a Parliament wherein we were not represented. But the payment of duties laid by an act of Parliament as regulations of commerce was never disputed.¹²

Based on assurances, such as these from Franklin, that the colonies would respect Britain’s right to place duties on her own commerce, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, assigning duties on various British goods sold in America. Sam Adams then coerced Boston merchants to sign his “nonimportation agreement” on pain of being otherwise named a public enemy and subject to mob violence (this had been prior to the arrival of the British troops). As we have seen, while Boston merchants were going broke from the boycott, Adams looked the other way as his friend John Hancock continued profitable trade with Britain – to borrow Orwell’s phrase, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

In response to colonial protests, Parliament caved in – again. They removed duties on all goods except one: tea, via the Tea Act of 1773. The tea duty was nominal – three pennies on a pound. (It would be interesting to measure this against the 6.25% sales tax Massachusetts currently levies on its citizens.) Furthermore, the tea, which was surplus tea of the East India Company, was offered to colonists at half the price Englishmen paid for it.

In fact, the tea was so cheap that it was underselling the Dutch tea John Hancock’s ships were smuggling in. In the Boston Tea Party of December 1773, of course, the Sons of Liberty, after being customarily liquored up, hurled hundreds of chests of English tea into Boston Harbor. From Hancock’s perspective, this was largely cutthroat business tactics: to maximize your profits, destroy your competitor’s merchandise. Although I have friends in today’s “Tea Party” movement, I regret that its name is fashioned after an act of vandalism. This is our inheritance from Sam Adams, who, by semantics, transformed criminal deeds into patriotic ones.

While Hancock had an ulterior motive of profit in the Boston Tea Party, Adams’s motive was to push the nation toward revolution. The dependable Paul Revere was dispatched to New York and Philadelphia with the news. Moreover, the incident was bound to push England into reacting, as had been the strategy of the Boston Massacre – to, as Adams liked to phrase it, “Put your enemy in the wrong.”

The “Tea Party” sparked outrage in Britain. Parliament, feeling that they had tolerated enough from Boston, ordered the port closed until the damage was paid for. General Thomas Gage was sent as military governor.

This played right into Sam Adams’s hands. Many in Massachusetts wanted the East India Company compensated, but Adams blocked every move to pay for the tea.¹³ The prolonged port closure brought Boston commerce to a standstill, inciting sympathy for the city in the other colonies.

A reading of British newspapers and speeches in Parliament reveals that Britain considered Boston the source of more trouble than all the other colonies combined. But characteristically, Adams projected the measures, aimed solely at Boston, as aimed at all colonies. In a letter to the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondence, he wrote:

This attack, though made immediately upon us, is doubtless designed for every other colony, who will not surrender their sacred Rights & Liberties into the Hands of an infamous Ministry. Now therefore is the Time, when ALL should be united in opposition to this Violation of the Liberties of ALL.¹⁴

First Continental Congress

As Miller notes, “No American patriot had demanded more vigorously than Sam Adams a Continental Congress to unite colonial opposition to Great Britain.”¹⁵ The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1774, and into this city Sam Adams brought his Boston brand of politics. Quoting Hallahan:

Sam Adams’s first step on arriving at Philadelphia was to visit the docks and piers of the riverfront with a local politician, Charles Thomson, who liked to describe himself as the Sam Adams of Philadelphia. Adams spent some time on the docks and in the taverns talking with the workingmen there, pressing the flesh and preaching his incendiary politics. He quickly won many converts – and lined up some muscle.¹⁶

Although Joseph Galloway, moderate delegate from Pennsylvania, had proposed the Pennsylvania State House as the venue for the convention, Sam Adams pressed for meeting in the smaller, somewhat cramped quarters of the more populist, recently built Carpenter’s Hall because the workingmen of the city identified with it. . . . Galloway noted that it was no coincidence that workingmen from the docks were loitering on the grounds around Carpenter’s Hall in an intimidating manner.¹⁷

Sam Adams ran Carpenter’s Hall much like he did Faneuil Hall, doing back-room politicking before actual votes. Through such machinations, he had himself made temporary secretary of the convention, then Thomson permanent secretary.

Meanwhile back in Boston, by prearrangement, Adams’s lieutenant Joseph Warren hosted a meeting of radicals at Faneuil Hall; they passed a resolution called the “Suffolk Resolves” (Suffolk is Boston’s county). The resolves called for a boycott of all British goods, for all towns to raise militias, and for “the inhabitants of those towns and districts, who are qualified, to use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible, and . . . appear under arms at least once every week.” This was a radical step toward war. Warren then dispatched Paul Revere – as he would on the “Midnight Ride”– to Philadelphia with a copy of the resolves, which the Continental Congress officially endorsed.

Joseph Galloway, leader of the moderates, proposed a plan of reconciliation with Great Britain. Later, a gallows noose was delivered to his door, and the next night a message that read: “Hang yourself or we will do it for you.” Galloway said he lived “in the utmost danger from the mobs raised by Mr. Adams of being hung at my own door.”

Every night I expected would be my last. Men were excited by persons northward [Boston], by falsehoods fabricated for the purpose, to put me to death. Several attempts were made.¹⁸

Sam Adams’s climactic maneuver at the Continental Congress was procuring a pledge from the delegates that, should armed conflict erupt between Massachusetts and British troops, the other colonies would come to the aid of Massachusetts. However, the delegates, distrustful of Adams, attached an important condition to this pledge. They would only help Massachusetts if the British fired first. When Sam Adams returned home, he had one paramount goal: to produce just such an incident.

Lexington Coming

However, all during the winter of 1774-75, General Thomas Gage, commander of British forces in Boston, gave Adams no opportunity. As political flames raged, loyalists sought refuge in Boston, while many rebels evacuated the city. Boston became a loyalist stronghold, surrounded by a sea of hostile patriots, and Gage had no desire to venture his troops against the increasingly prepared – and mandatory – minutemen militias.

General Gage

In April 1775, the Second Continental Congress – at which Hancock would preside as president – was due to begin the following month. Sam Adams desperately needed a “British fired first” incident to bring before the Congress. Otherwise, the passion for revolution might wane, the moderates would prevail, and there would be no war.

At this juncture, what Hallahan calls “bait” was offered to lure Gage out. Adams and Hancock had been attending the Massachusetts Provincial Congress (the colony’s provisional independent government) in Concord. General Gage began receiving intelligence reports that large amounts of munitions, including cannons, were stored in Concord for an army the Provincial Congress planned to raise. Some of the reports exaggerated the quantity of munitions. A number of Gage’s reports came from Benjamin Church, the notorious double agent whose true loyalties have long been controversial.

Gage now made the fateful decision to send troops to neutralize the Concord munitions before they could be deployed against his own forces. En route, they would have a “date with destiny” in Lexington.

Can it only be coincidence that, on the night before the battle, Adams, Hancock and Revere – the apparent mastermind and leading propagandists of the “Boston Massacre” – were congregating in a house a few hundred feet behind Lexington Green? (The house, still standing, is called the Hancock-Clarke House.) It was owned by Reverend Jonas Clarke, Lexington’s firebrand patriot-preacher whose wife was Hancock’s cousin.

It has been traditionally reported that Revere rode to the house to warn Adams and Hancock that the British forces might be on a mission to arrest them. However, although England had authorized Gage to apprehend revolutionary leaders, including the famous pair, evidence repudiates that this was Gage’s intention that day:

(1) Gage’s orders to Lieutenant Colonel Smith, who commanded the expedition, only discuss securing the Concord munitions, and make no mention of arrests;
(2) A force of 700 foot soldiers would be an extremely inefficient instrument for performing an arrest;
(3) In Lexington, the British made no movements toward the Hancock-Clarke House;
(4) After his initial meeting with Adams and Hancock, Revere rode on toward Concord, but was captured by an advance British patrol at 1 AM. The British knew they had Adams’s famed lieutenant Paul Revere in their hands – but eventually turned him loose. Had they truly been after Adams and Hancock, they should have held on to Revere, for no one would better know their whereabouts. (After being released, Revere rejoined Adams and Hancock in Lexington.)

If, in fact, Adams and Hancock were worried about arrest by the British, they displayed little alarm, tarrying at the house long after Revere’s warning. Furthermore, examination of a letter written by Hancock reveals they had already received intelligence about the British movements at 9PM on the 18th – three hours before Revere’s arrival. See the New York Times article “Letter Deepens Doubt on Paul Revere’s Ride.”

Revere’s 1775 deposition, describing his midnight ride, makes little mention of alarming the countryside, or shouting that the regulars were coming, as is famously ascribed to him. He very probably did so, and he certainly discussed it in his postwar account many years later, but in the original deposition he emphasizes going straight from Joseph Warren to see Adams and Hancock – this, apparently, was his foremost objective.

In the wee hours of the morning of the 19th, Adams, Hancock and Clarke walked down to Lexington Green and had a discussion with the militia that had gathered at Buckman’s Tavern in response to the town’s alarm bells. Half a century ago, historian Arthur B. Tourtellot wrote:

Adams and Clarke unquestionably made up a policy between themselves. Adams knew the broad strategy of the resistance, because he was at this point its sole architect. Clarke knew the men of Lexington and, what is more, could control them as no outsider could. The policy determined upon between the time of Revere’s first alarm and of the minutemen’s first muster and the time of the actual arrival of the British troops, was for the minutemen, however outnumbered, to make a conspicuous stand but not to fire.¹⁹

The conversation between Adams, Hancock, Clarke and the militia at Buckman’s Tavern has never been revealed, but we know that:

• Adams urgently needed a “British fired first” incident to bring to the upcoming Continental Congress.
• Adams had famously said, “Put your enemy in the wrong, and keep him so, is a wise maxim in politics, as well as in war.”
• Adams had evidently orchestrated the “Boston Massacre.”

Boston Massacre/Lexington Massacre

Indeed, the Lexington affair was sometimes styled the “Lexington Massacre,” and uncanny parallels exist between the two events:

• Prints of each were made. Compare Revere’s notorious misrepresentation of the Boston Massacre to Doolittle’s depiction of Lexington:

In each picture, the colonists, who offer no provocation, are being slaughtered by a synchronous, orderly volley from redcoats upon an officer’s command. This in spite of British reports that shooting at both incidents was sporadic and not in response to orders. You might recall the words of John Wilson, a deponent, regarding the Boston Massacre:

“Some small boys coming up made a noise to the soldiers, on which the officer said to them why don’t you fire? Damn you, fire! They hereupon fired.”

Now look at the words of William Draper, a deponent regarding the battle of Lexington:

“The commanding officer of said troops (as I took him) gave the command to the troops, fire, damn you fire, and immediately they fired.”

Two separate incidents five years apart, two different officers. Was it standard practice for British officers to instruct their men to shoot with the words, “Fire, damn you, fire”? One gets the impression that these depositions were scripted by the same writer.

• Indeed, depositions were another common denominator to both events – collected, widely published, and claiming the colonists offered no provocation whatsoever. But as we have also seen, for the Boston Massacre, these claims did not stand up in court. In the case of the “Lexington Massacre,” Adams knew the depositions would not be tested by cross-examination, since war had commenced and there would be no trial. However, the Lexington depositions received their own taint 50 years later, when town pride demanded new depositions amending the first ones. (At that point, Sam Adams was long dead and no one feared his vengeance.)

• Both incidents were followed by intense communications with neighboring communities via dispatch riders. For the latter event, the History of the Town of Lexington notes:

The report of the bloody transaction at Lexington spread as on the wings of wind, and the fact that the regulars had fired upon and killed several citizens was known not only in the neighboring towns, but to the distance of forty or fifty miles in the course of the forenoon. The people immediately flew to arms. . . .²⁰

Other colonies were also rallied to arms by reports of the Lexington “massacre” from dispatch riders traversing the coast.

• Both incidents were the subject of vitriolic, dishonest depictions of the British troops’ behavior. Do you recall Hancock’s florid language in his Boston Massacre oration, and Adams’s claim that soldiers were regularly raping Boston ladies? Now let’s examine more closely the widely distributed report of Lexington, in the newspaper the Massachusetts Spy. Bear in mind that the newspaper’s publisher, Isaiah Thomas, met with Adams and Hancock in Worcester, Massachusetts, before printing this:

Americans! forever bear in mind the BATTLE of LEXINGTON! where British Troops, unmolested and unprovoked wantonly, and in a most inhuman manner fired upon and killed a number of our countrymen, then robbed them of their provisions, ransacked, plundered and burnt their houses! nor could the tears of defenseless women, some of whom were in the pains of childbirth, the cries of helpless babes, nor the prayers of old age, confined to beds of sickness, appease their thirst for blood!—or divert them from the DESIGN of MURDER and ROBBERY! . . . It is noticed they fired upon our people as they were dispersing, agreeable to their command, and that we did not even return the fire. Eight of our men were killed and nine wounded; The troops then laughed, and damned the Yankees.

The report speaks of “defenseless women, some of whom were in the pains of childbirth.” It is true that, during the bloody retreat back to Boston, the British burned a number of houses, especially those from which they were fired on. However, no historian has ever found a case where a woman in childbirth was in any way molested. The closest instance was Hannah Adams, who had an 18-day-old baby, and was forced to evacuate her home. Hannah was not injured, nor the child, who grew up and was herself married.²¹

As for those in “old age,” again, there is no known case except 79-year-old Samuel Whittemore. When the British were retreating through the town of Menotomy, Whittemore, a feisty old war veteran, fired at them from behind a stone wall with a musket and pistols – killing two redcoats and mortally wounding another. The British troops furiously shot and bayoneted him. Obviously one cannot plead “old age” when bearing arms, and clearly he was not, as the Spy put it, “confined to a bed of sickness.” Whittemore survived and died at 97 of natural causes.²²

The Hannah Adams/Whittemore incidents were inflated by the Massachusetts Spy into countless assaults upon the gentler sex and elderly. People reading the broadsides in other colonies had no way of knowing these tales were false. This helped establish a pattern – for the last two centuries, Americans have been provoked to war by fabricated atrocity stories spun in the press. In the Spanish-American War, it was Spaniards throwing Cubans to sharks and roasting Cuban priests; in World War I it was German soldiers bayoneting Belgian babies; in the 1991 Gulf War it was Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. Small wonder that Thomas Jefferson, himself later victimized by newspaper smears, wrote:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.²³

Oddities at Lexington Green

What really did happen in Lexington on April 19, 1775? My patriot lecturer friend had told me the militia would not have fired first, because they were outnumbered ten-to-one. But this begs another question: if hopelessly outnumbered, why stand on the green in the first place?

The Lexington militia behaved very distinctly from other militias that day. When the British reached Concord, the militia there wisely withdrew to the safety of a hill, then waited until strong reinforcements arrived from other towns. And all through the day, as the British retreated to Boston, the militias attacked, but from behind trees, walls, and house windows.

How different was the Lexington militia! They stood on an open green, holding their rifles in formation. Did this not invite confrontation? The redcoats could obviously not march past a hostile armed force on their flank, or leave it threatening their rear.

Adams and Hancock, who conferred with the militia before the incident, were the two most powerful figures in Massachusetts (after the war, Hancock became the state’s governor, with Adams his lieutenant governor). The Lexington militia was under the immediate command of Captain John Parker, an old French and Indian War scout. However, all Massachusetts militias fell under the authority of the Provincial Congress, of which Hancock was president, and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, of which Hancock was chairman. And since Hancock had already had several uniforms tailored for his self-envisioned role as commander of the entire Continental Army, he would hardly demur at giving orders to a local militia captain.

Although Adams and Hancock fled to neighboring Woburn before the shooting began, Paul Revere himself arrived at the green about a half-hour prior to the redcoats marching in at dawn. This bears comment.

Supposedly, Revere went to the green with Hancock’s clerk John Lowell (yet another Freemason from Boston’s St. Andrew’s Lodge), because Hancock had forgotten that he had stored, at Buckman’s Tavern, a heavy trunk containing important documents he feared the British would discover. This means Revere was mingling with the Lexington militia, who were also at Buckman’s Tavern, until the moment the British arrived – when, he said, he and Lowell then hurried along with the trunk on foot.

While this story may be entirely true, it presents peculiarities:
• Hancock himself had already been to Buckman’s Tavern that morning. If the trunk was so vital, one would think he would have remembered it then.
• It seems an unlikely concern that the British would have diverted from their expedition to search Buckman’s Tavern, which of course they didn’t.
• It seems strange that Hancock did not send his coach for the trunk, which could have spirited it away expeditiously. Surely having Revere and Lowell haul it on foot posed greater danger of its apprehension by the British.
• In case anyone thinks Hancock couldn’t risk sending his gilded coach back to Lexington – he did send it back, famously, to the Hancock-Clarke house, to fetch a salmon he wished for his breakfast. While Hancock was enough of a fop for such a vain stunt on the morning that a war was beginning, it begs the question of why he sent the carriage for the salmon, but not the all-important trunk.

The Shot(s) Heard Round the World

Early in this article, we listed reasons why British accounts of Lexington are more credible than American ones. So let’s reconstruct the event based on their reports. Bear in mind that the British were already under strict orders not to fire unless fired upon.

Lieutenant William Sutherland and Lieutenant Jesse Adair were riding ahead of the marching column. As they approached Lexington village, they heard shots to their left and right, but hearing no balls whistling, assumed it was a local alarm signal. Then they then saw a colonist aim his musket at them and pull the trigger – but it “flashed in the pan”; that is, the primer powder failed to ignite the charge in the musket.

Sutherland and Adair rode back and reported this incident to Major John Pitcairn, commander of the lead column. Pitcairn, who had already heard warnings along the road that a hostile force was waiting at Lexington, now told his troops to load their guns and fix bayonets. He then ordered them to advance, but not to fire under any circumstances without orders.

Here is a map of the disposition of the Lexington battle:

When the British troops spotted the militia on the green, they split left and right to flank them. At this point, the first shots at the green itself were fired. Quoting Lieutenant Sutherland:

We still went on further when 3 shot more were fired at us, which we did not return, & this is sacred truth as I hope for mercy These 3 shots were fired from the corner of a large house to the right of the Church.²⁴

The house Sutherland referred to is Buckman’s Tavern. (The “church” and the “meeting house” on the map are one and the same.) Since there were, of course, no repeating rifles then, this means three shooters. The first of these shots might technically be the “shot heard round the world.” But though the militias were noted for their marksmanship, all three shooters missed their targets.

Ignoring the shots, the British kept focused on the militia on the green. Major Pitcairn rode up toward them, and ordered them to throw down their guns and disperse. At this point, both British and American accounts concur that the militia began dispersing. However, according to the British, four or five of the militia suddenly dove behind a wall and fired:

Major Pictairn: “some of the rebels who had jumped over the wall, fired four or five shots at the soldiers.” Lieutenant Sutherland: “instantly some of the villains who got over a hedge [wall] fired at us which our men for the first time returned.” Ensign Jeremy Lister, writing an account several years later, reversed the sequence and said: “they gave a fire then run off to get behind a wall.” Since Pitcairn’s and Sutherland’s accounts were written shortly after the event, they can be assumed more chronologically accurate. Pitcairn’s report also noted that his horse was hit by shots fired from “some quarter or other” and “at the same time several shots were fired from a Meeting House on our left.”²⁵

(I would like to interject here that Major Pitcairn, who later died at Bunker Hill, was not a man to whitewash a report; he was widely known for his integrity and courage, such that even the Sons of Liberty paid him respect, a high compliment indeed.)

So, not counting the “flash in the pan,” we have three shots from Buckman’s Tavern, four or five shots by the men who jumped behind the wall, perhaps more from “some quarter or other,” and “several” from the meeting house. Based on the British reports, it appears that possibly upwards of ten shots were fired on the redcoats before they returned fire. According to all British accounts, their return fire was not based on orders given, but was a spontaneous, disorderly reaction to the multiple shots the Americans fired. The green now billowed with musket smoke, and the British officers had to restrain their men with considerable difficulty.

The three men who fired from the corner of Buckman’s Tavern surely knew they were jeopardizing the militia on the green. So must have the men who jumped the wall. It is noteworthy that Paul Revere – whose alarm brought the militia out in the first place – had been at Buckman’s Tavern only moments before the “shot heard round the world” was fired from that very place. The map details Revere’s path, which took him from Buckman’s right through the militia. Was he really there just to haul a trunk, or was he choreographing the incident, passing instructions as he moved along?

Buckman’s Tavern still stands across from the green.

Of course, I don’t believe for a moment that the Lexington militiamen were planning to sacrifice themselves as cannon fodder, any more than the mob at the “Boston Massacre.” I suggest that only a few were “in the know” – the individuals who fired the opening rounds from protected places, leaving the men on the green to absorb the fury of British retaliation.

But is there any evidence that there was a group separate from the Lexington militia? There is. Later in the day, as the redcoats were retreating from Concord, General Gage sent a relief column from Boston under Brigadier Hugh Percy. Riding as a scout for Percy’s column was an American loyalist, George Leonard. His statement is among General Gage’s papers:

George Leonard of Boston deposes that he went from Boston on the nineteenth of April with the Brigade commanded by Lord Percy upon their march to Lexington. That being on horseback and having no connexion with the army, he several times went forward of the Brigade, in one of which excursions he met with a countryman [fellow American] who was wounded supported by two others who were armed. This was about a mile on this side of Lexington Meeting House. The deponent asked the wounded person what was the matter with him. He answered that the Regulars had shot him. The Deponent then asked what provoked them to do it – he said that some of our people fired upon the Regulars, and they fell on us like bull dogs and killed eight and wounded nineteen. He further said that it was not the Company he belonged to that fired but some of our Country people that were on the other side of the road. The Deponent enquired of the other men if they were present. They answered, yes, and related the affair much as the wounded man had done. All three blamed the rashness of their own people for firing first and said they supposed now the Regulars would kill everybody they met with.

Boston, May 4, 1775
George Leonard ²⁶

Note Leonard’s report that the wounded man said “it was not the Company he belonged to that fired but some of our Country people that were on the other side of the road.” This indicated the Buckman Tavern area, across the street from the green. It shows that Lexington’s armed men were not one cohesive unit.

The phrase “not the Company he belonged to” adds interest to the wording of the Lexington militia’s depositions. 34 deponents signed a statement declaring that “not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the regulars to our knowledge before they fired on us.” Another 14 signed a statement that “the regulars fired on the company before a gun was fired by any of our company on them.” (Emphasis added.) These statements don’t exclude the first shots being fired by Americans – rather, they deny any such shots came from “our company.” This nuance may have been important in persuading some militiamen to sign the collective depositions. If anyone’s conscience gave him pause, men like Reverend Clarke could always assure him that the statement was, technically, true; and that one’s patriotic duty to avenge the dead outweighed considerations over exactness.

Who were these gunmen who fired the opening shots from protected places? It seems highly doubtful that they were members of the Lexington militia, who would not have willfully endangered their friends and kinsmen. Of course, some shots came from the four or five men who, having been on the green, jumped a wall and fired; but not every man that had assembled on the green was from Lexington; some told Parker they had come from neighboring districts, having heard the town’s bells tolling. William Draper (who signed the deposition saying the British officer cried “Fire, damn you, fire!”) gave his residence as the faraway town of Colrain. Is it possible that John Lowell was not the only Freemason from St. Andrew’s Lodge whom Revere brought to the green shortly before the British arrived? A number of Sam Adams’s “Mohawks” had fled Boston after its loyalist consolidation and would have been at large that April. Was the “Boston Massacre” strategy being replayed?

Though I will doubtlessly be accused of gross speculation, I would like to know a better reason why, with the militia hopelessly outnumbered, a few men fired on the redcoats from concealed locations, leaving the militia on the green to bear the consequences. And I would also like to hear why the town of Lexington kept its firing – of shots of any kind – essentially a secret for fifty years.

I now offer further speculation. You will recall that when lieutenants Sutherland and Adair, riding in advance, approached the green, they saw a colonist aim his musket and pull the trigger, but the powder “flashed in the pan.” The officers thought they had been spared by a lucky “misfire.”

Then we have three shots from Buckman’s Tavern that all missed. And with the shots from the wall and the meeting house, and any in the subsequent exchange, the British suffered only one wound; none were killed. This is quite a contrast to the rest of the day, when the redcoats suffered some 250 casualties. Remember, even 79-year old Samuel Whittemore killed three redcoats firing from behind a wall. Yet the Lexington men, with a multitude of shots from various locations, couldn’t inflict one significant hit on the troops amassed before them.

Perhaps there were no British dead at Lexington Green because Adams and Hancock wanted none. If redcoats had to be buried in the village, it might have cast doubt on the tale of an “unprovoked massacre.” I suggest that some shooters may have missed on purpose, perhaps even firing “without ball.” Perhaps the “flash in the pan” was not a misfire but an attempt to provoke without drawing blood.

What the British marched into was a trap. No matter the precise details, the outcome was virtually guaranteed:
• The militia standing in battle formation guaranteed the redcoats would confront it.
• Firing shot after shot at the British guaranteed that at some point a threshold would be reached, and the redcoats would fire reciprocally – very parallel to the “Boston Massacre,” where soldiers were pelted and clubbed to the point of shooting in self-defense.
• Firing but deliberately missing guaranteed the British would experience few if any casualties; there would be high colonist casualties by comparison. Thus statistics would corroborate the “Lexington massacre” story.

Perhaps John Adams’s comment on the Boston Massacre bears repeating here: “I suspected that this was the explosion which had been intentionally wrought up by designing men who knew what they were aiming at, better than the instruments employed.”

For John Hancock, the battle of Lexington, like the Boston Tea Party, was profitable; with the outbreak of war, some 500 smuggling indictments, pending against him in the courts, vanished.²⁷ But for Sam Adams, the picture was much broader. Upon hearing the distant Lexington gunfire, he turned to Hancock and famously said, “What a glorious morning is this!” As historian William Hallahan put it, “For the price of a few dead farmers, Adams could buy his war.”²⁸

Afterword

Obviously, Samuel Adams is “the villain of my piece.” Am I obsessed with hating him? Have I nothing good to say of the man?

To Adams’s credit, he was not, like Hancock, a materialist. He lived a simple, frugal lifestyle, and did not seek riches from his revolutionary agitations.

In fact, it has been said that he sought to emulate his Puritan forefathers. He prayed, read the Bible, and, after the war, even publicly opposed amusements such as clubs for card-playing. However, to oppose card-playing, while suborning mob violence and property destruction, and habitually engaging in “ends justify the means” lying and slander, is to mis-prioritize virtues, a practice that Jesus Christ condemned the Pharisees for.

To his credit, Adams opposed centralization of government under the Constitution unless amendments (i.e., the Bill of Rights) were appended. Yet many found Adams’s postwar views on liberty self-contradictory. For example, when rural Massachusetts farmers and veterans, finding their property confiscated for inability to pay state taxes and debts, began what was known as “Shay’s Rebellion,” Sam Adams (then president of the Massachusetts senate) called the rebels “traitors,” declared that their leaders should be executed (two were hung), and helped push through a senate bill suspending the right of habeas corpus during the crisis.

But my article raises a far more significant matter. It has concluded that the Massachusetts events, used to spark the Revolutionary War, were predominantly specious. What, then, does that say about the war itself, the American nation it spawned, and the Founding Fathers in general?  I will address these issues in Part II. However, since that will take time to write (I am still researching Part II and will probably post other articles before its completion), I am going to cast water at some fires I have already lit.

Some may accuse me of being an “anglophile” for writing the preceding article. But – other than enjoying old comedies with Peter Sellers and Alec Guinness – I plead innocent. I have never visited the UK, and no British blood flows in my veins. I have no motive other than seeking truth.

I am not, repeat not, seeking to bring America back under British dominion. In point of fact, a destructive Anglo-American political alliance, nurtured by banks and multinationals, has been in effect for over a century, and anyone familiar with my other writings knows how bitterly critical I have been of those interests.

As an American, I may also be accused by a few of being unpatriotic, perhaps even treasonably so. I would like to answer that potential charge.

I have lived nearly all my life in and around Boston. As is well known, Bostonians have long had a near-fanatical love of their baseball team, the Red Sox, a passion matched only by their hatred for the team’s nemesis, the New York Yankees.

At a sporting event, it is OK, if one wants, to imagine that the home team consists only of angelic heroes, while all of the opposing club’s players personify evil.

But history is not a game, nor is war. Patriotism is a virtue, that is very true. But truth is also a virtue. Of these two virtues, which ranks higher? Which is numbered in the Ten Commandments?

Where does my patriotism end? Only where it asks me to forsake the truth.

NOTES

1. William Heath, Memoirs of Major-General Heath, (1798; reprint, New York: William Abbatt, 1901), 5-6.
2. Vicomte Léon De Poncins, Freemasonry and Judaism: Secret Powers behind Revolution (1929, reprint; Brooklyn, N.Y.: A & B Publishers Group, 1994), 33-34.
3. Les Standiford, Desperate Sons: Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and the Secret Bands of Radicals who Led the Colonies to War (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 35.
4. William H. Hallahan, The Day the American Revolution Began: 19 April 1775 (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 234.
5. John C. Miller, Sam Adams: Pioneer in Propaganda (1936, reprint; Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1966), 239.
6. Ibid., 267.
7. Harold Murdock, The Nineteenth of April 1775 (1923, reprint; Cranbury, N. J.: The Scholar’s Bookshelf, 2005), 18-19.
8. Miller, 175.
9. A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston (Boston: Edes & Gill, 1770).
10. Miller, 189.
11. Paul M. Zall, ed., Adams on Adams (Lexington, Kent.: University Press of Kentucky, 2004), 38.
12. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 1 (London: British and Foreign Public Library, 1818), xxxv-xxxvi.
13. Hallahan, 54.
14. Standiford, 220-21.
15. Miller, 306-7.
16. Hallahan, 132-33.
17. Ibid., 133.
18. Ibid., 143.
19. Arthur B. Tourtellot, Lexington and Concord: The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1963), 112.
20. Charles Hudson, History of the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts, vol. 1, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1913), 155-56.
21. Murdock, 121-24.
22. Ibid., 125-27.
23. Letter to John Norvell, June 14, 1807, The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826.
24. Allen French, General Gage’s Informers (1932, reprint; New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 58.
25. Ibid., 53, 55, 59.
26. Ibid., 57-58.
27. Hallahan, 25.
28. Hallahan, 33.

This article was originally published, with slight modifications, in 2013 on Paul Noble’s website http://www.redcoat.me.uk/. Paul is a true gentleman, a British patriot active in the movement to keep his country independent of the EU. I am most grateful to Paul for hosting the article and for acquainting me with British perspectives on the Revolutionary War.

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union. This marked the beginning of glasnost and the end of the Cold War. Communism, we were soon told, was no longer a threat.

Many of us regarded the mysterious transition with skepticism. Why would communism, which had slain some 100 million people¹ during is ruthless conquest of half the planet, suddenly don a smiley-face, introduce freedoms, and abandon its sworn goal of world domination?

Mainstream media alleged the Soviet Union fell apart because, under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. successfully tested an anti-ballistic missile, demonstrating our capacity to put up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). If implemented, this system, nicknamed “Star Wars,” could have repelled a missile attack. The USSR allegedly collapsed because it couldn’t meet the cost of competing with SDI.

This explanation didn’t hold much water, however. As I document in Truth Is a Lonely Warrior (pp. 113-15), by 1985 the Soviet had achieved a decisive lead over the United States in virtually every category of nuclear and conventional weapon. Furthermore, Congress, then controlled by Ted Kennedy and the Democrats, vigorously opposed SDI. They were only willing to fund research, not deployment. Why would the Soviets cave in over such an improbable threat?

Skepticism was bolstered by discovery of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s remarkable book New Lies for Old. Golitsyn, the highest-ranking KGB officer to defect during the Cold War, had predicted glasnost with stunning accuracy five years before it started. He forecast everything from the rise of a Gorbachev-like leader to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Furthermore, he stated that the liberalization would only be a temporary deception. Ultimately, he said, “all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear.”²

Nevertheless, over time it became clear that the changes to communist nations were more genuine and durable than skeptics had anticipated. For example, although China remains statist, its economy has undeniably been overhauled and significantly Westernized since the days of Mao Tse-Tung’s Cultural Revolution.

However, with the disappearance of Communism as “the enemy,” a new one almost immediately emerged: Islamic terrorist threats. In 1985, Gorbachev came to power. Just one year later, 1986, Reagan launched air strikes on Libya, the first round in what would be a growing, never-ending conflict with the Muslim states of MENA (Middle East and North Africa).

In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into 15 republics. That same year, Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, oversaw the First Gulf War, America’s first land war in the Middle East. Since 9/11, the United States has been involved in so many wars, in so many Middle East regions, that they’ve become hard to keep track of.

Nearly all Truthers today know that 9-11 was a false flag. What is less widely known is that Reagan’s air strikes on Libya were also predicated on a false flag.

In 1986, U.S. soldiers were frequenting a Berlin discotheque called La Belle. On April 5, a bomb tore through it, killing two American servicemen and wounding well over 50 others. U.S. intelligence then intercepted radio messages, originating in Libya, that congratulated alleged perpetrators of the crime. President Reagan sent bombers which struck Libya. The adopted daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed in those raids. This was the first blood drawn in what the Reagan administration then called “war against terrorism,” meaning that America would punish not just terrorists, but any nation it believed guilty of sponsoring terrorism. (Based on this definition, the United States could have declared war on Israel several times, going back to the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, if we define that incident as terrorism.)

Victor Ostrovsky is a former agent of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service. In his book The Other Side of Deception, Ostrovsky revealed that the Mossad originated the radio signals from Libya, completely deceiving U.S. intelligence:

A Trojan was a special communication device that could be planted by naval commandos deep inside enemy territory. The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP [LohAma Psicologit – psychological warfare], and intended to be received by American and British listening stations. Originating from an IDF navy ship out at sea, the prerecorded digital transmissions could be picked up only by the Trojan. The device would then rebroadcast the transmission on another frequency, one used for official business in the enemy country, at which point the transmission would finally be picked up by American ears in Britain.

The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication, hence the name Trojan, reminiscent of the mythical Trojan horse. Further, the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad. The only catch was that the Trojan itself would have to be located as close as possible to the normal origin of such transmissions, because of the sophisticated methods of triangulation the Americans and others would use to verify the source.³

After detailing how the Mossad succeeded in planting a Trojan in a Tripoli apartment in 1986, Ostrovsky describes the results:

By the end of March, the Americans were already intercepting messages broadcast by the Trojan, which was only activated during heavy communication traffic hours. Using the Trojan, the Mossad tried to make it appear that a long series of terrorist orders were being transmitted to various Libyan embassies around the world . . . . As the Mossad had hoped, the transmissions were deciphered by the Americans and construed as ample proof that the Libyans were active sponsors of terrorism. What’s more, the Americans pointed out, Mossad reports confirmed it. . . .

Heads of the Mossad were counting on the American promise to retaliate with vengeance against any country that could be proven to support terrorism. The Trojan gave the Americans the proof they needed. . . .

Ultimately, the Americans fell for the Mossad ploy head over heels, dragging the British and the Germans somewhat reluctantly in with them. Operation Trojan was one of the Mossad’s greatest successes. It brought about the air strike on Libya that President Reagan had promised . . . . ⁴

Likewise, the 1991 Gulf War was contrived though deceptions. First, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie deceived Saddam Hussein by assuring him that the United States was indifferent to his conflict with Kuwait. Glaspie has been muzzled ever since. And when polls showed the American public divided on the prospect of the war, a story was fabricated about Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators:

Each of America’s Middle East wars has been based on false pretexts. The 14-year-old war on Afghanistan was predicated on 9/11, the false flag which spurred the nationwide Truth Movement, populated by responsible groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The War in Iraq was based on falsified claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell, Bush’s Secretary of State, who made such definite assertions of WMDs before the UN, has admitted his claims were based on faulty intelligence. Well before the UN speech, Scott Ritter, the UN’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, had confirmed that Saddam had no WMDs:

Perhaps most pathetic was George Bush joking about the missing WMDs while American soldiers were dying in Iraq:

Watch Reg Keys, father of a serviceman who died in Iraq, take down Tony Blair for misleading Britons on this matter:

In 2011, NATO attacked Libya on the pretext of supporting a “popular democratic uprising against a dictator.”

In fact, Gaddafi had turned Libya into the most prosperous nation in MENA, and had proposed a gold-backed currency for Africa, which was apparently the last straw for the banksters. The “popular uprising” consisted largely of mercenaries sent in by foreign intelligence services. For truth about Libya, I suggest this short article and this one, and the following video:

In 2013, it was Assad’s turn to get hit. The U.S. government claimed the Syrian leader had used chemical weapons on his own people. This seemed unbelievable since UN weapons inspectors had just arrived in Syria at Assad’s invitation. Many believed it was the Western-backed insurgents themselves who wielded the weapons as a yet another “false flag,” a view thought credible by Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and other responsible observers. Obama was unable to procure support for air strikes on Syria from a war-weary American public.

So it was back to the drawing board. In 2014, in a brazen paradox, the Obama administration sought air strikes on Syria again – this time not against Assad, but upon the very “rebels” the U.S. had backed the year before! Uploaded beheading videos proved more effective in garnering support than the previous year’s “chemical weapons” dud.

Watch as General Wesley Clark reveals that in 2001, a plan already existed in the Pentagon to “take out” seven MENA nations, including Iraq, Libya and Syria:

These same intentions were discussed by syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan (above), who was the Reform Party’s Presidential candidate in 2000. He wrote in 2004:

In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power” as an “Israeli strategic objective.” Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush’s foreign policy team on 9-11.

In 1998, eight members of Bush’s future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote President Clinton urging upon him a strategy that “should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein.”

On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks “to broaden the [Middle East] conflict to strike fatally . . . the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza . . . to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

“Crises can be opportunities,” added Wurmser.

On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.⁵

Clearly, an entrenched plan already existed, long ago, to attack the nations of the Middle East. To justify each of these attacks in the public’s view, false flags would be necessary. Thus 9/11, “weapons of mass destruction,” “chemical weapons attacks,” viral beheading videos, and, yes, the Charlie Hebdo incident:

What has all this to do with glasnost? As many students of realpolitik know, the Bolshevik Revolution, which created the Soviet Union, was financed by the same Rothschild-centered banking cabal that runs our world today. This support continued even during the Cold War through trade, financing, and technology transfers.  I will not elaborate all the details here, but for those who wish to learn more, see my article on this blog, chapter 9 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, and such books as Juri Lina’s Under the Sign of the Scorpion (now available in an updated 2014 edition), Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and Joseph Finder’s Red Carpet. What the banksters turned on, they could also turn off.

As many students of realpolitik also know, the cabal has supported a three-headed hydra of “isms”: globalism, communism and Zionism. Globalism expresses their ultimate goal of a tyrannical world government; communism, posing as a movement of “the people,” used revolution to overthrow governments to make way for that world government; and Zionism is the plot to create the seat of this government in Jerusalem – a city holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Need I mention that this plot is satanic?

Given the degree of design and planning that has gone into all of this, I make a radical suggestion: that the timing of the ostensible end of communism, coinciding with the beginning of America’s “war on terror,” was not by chance. Communism was being given a back seat to Zionism. To throw the entire weight of the American military machine against all of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East, Americans had to be persuaded that the threat of communism no longer existed. This, I believe, is the most probable solution to the riddle of glasnost.

NOTES

1. Stéphane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), 4.
2. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), 347.
3. Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda (New York: HarperPaperbacks, 1994), 143-44.
4. Ibid., 146-48.
5. Patrick J. Buchanan, “Have the Neocons Killed a Presidency?” WorldNetDaily, February 16, 2004, www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37139.

December 2nd, 2014:  the French Parliament passes a resolution asking that France recognize a Palestinian state.

December 30, 2014: France votes “Yes” on a UN resolution that would have required Israeli forces to withdraw to their pre-1967 borders by 2017.

“Ooh, those frogs!  I could choke every one of them with a baguette! NOBODY crosses BIBI and gets away with it!”

“Think, Bibi, think! What to do?”

“Of course! What we ALWAYS do!”

“Tamir, can you send me over five scriptwriters right away – the best Mossad has got! I need them to pitch me ideas for a new false flag!”

“OK, people. Now that you’re all here, no time for schmoozing! Right down to business!”

“Of COURSE I’m in a bad mood! It’s not just this France thing – I haven’t killed a Palestinian in almost a week!  You know I always get a humongous migraine when that happens!”

“Now, here’s what I’m thinking. We sucked the Americans in with 9/11, right?“

“Ah, yes, 9/11 – I get all goose-pimply just thinking about it!”

“So here’s my NEW idea – we have some of our guys dress up in the usual Arab costumes and plant a giant ‘Bugs Bunny blockbuster’ in the Eiffel Tower.”

“And then. . .  KER-BLOOEY!  No more Eiffel Tower!  They’ll be picking up the pieces in Cherbourg!  The frogs will be SCREAMING for war with Syria! They’ll be standing in line for hours, BEGGING for a chance to kiss my ass!  I should charge them for tickets maybe?”

“What’s that?  After the Mirage jet deal, we promised the Grand Orient we’d lay off the Eiffel and the Arc de Triomphe?”

“Oy vey!  Well. . .  a deal’s a deal!  We’ll have to SCRAP the Eiffel idea!”

“OK, people, let’s hear YOUR ideas!  That’s what you’re getting paid for!”

“All in favor of Izzy’s Charlie Hebdo idea, say ‘aye’!”

“But I want to play it safe – we’ll use the same plot elements that worked so well in OTHER false flags.”

“Let’s pin it on TWO Muslims who are brothers – that profile worked for the Boston Marathon.  Find me the usual patsy types who have no clue we’re setting them up. Just be positive neither one of them survives this time!”’

“To make sure the police know who they are, we’ll have them leave behind their ID. Worked like a charm for 9/11!”’

“Leave behind a Koran? Hmm. . .  well, Ilana, I know it’s worked really well in the past, but we’ve done it so many times now, I feel it’s starting to get a little schmaltzy, almost a cliché. Isn’t there something new the crisis actors could do that screams ‘I’m a Muslim’?”

“Have them shout Muslim phrases like ‘Allahu Akbar’?  Excellent!  But that means we’ll have to have it on videotape. Otherwise that putz ‘truth movement’ will claim there’s some question about what was really said!”

“So, we’ll put one of our guys from IBA Channel 1 up on the roof to film the whole thing.  If the French schmucks ask what an Israeli was doing there, we give them the usual explanation: sheer coincidence.”

“Next, I want to recycle a little something from that blown psy-op in Sydney.”

“But THIS time no screw-ups! I know that patsies have to be dimwits, but the guy you picked thought Lindt was an Israeli firm!  This time the hostages are taken in a KOSHER market, no ifs, ands or buts!”

“Now, for the final touch, we’ll borrow from the Ottawa psy-op!  Remember how bent the Canadian patriots got after bumping off a guard at the tomb of their unknown soldier?  Well, on their way out of Paris, we’ll have our guys do the same thing at the tomb of FRANCE’S unknown soldier!”

“What? Really?”

“Crap, we’ll have to ditch that one – I forgot that he’s buried at the Arc de Triomphe. It’s in that friggin’ ‘no false flag’ zone.”

“But, hey, you have to look at it philosophically – you can’t have everything!”

“I’m good with the plan.  I think we’ve got ourselves a false flag, people! That’s a wrap!  Now get to work on it!”

“Please, please! No applause!  I couldn’t have planned it without you all!  After all, spreading mayhem, misery, deceit and chaos throughout the world can only be achieved through collaboration and a true spirit of teamwork!”

This month I mark an anniversary that probably no one else will: the 50th anniversary of the release of Pierre Schoendoerffer’s The 317th Platoon. Very few Americans have ever heard of, let alone seen, this French film. Amazon doesn’t sell it unless you’re willing to settle for a Region 2 DVD with no subtitles. (Well, there is one used VHS cassette currently offered on Amazon for $10,000.)

Why does this movie, which won the award for Best Screenplay at the 1965 Cannes Film Festival, remain so inaccessible to the public?

Set in 1954, The 317th Platoon is about a French unit during the Indochina War’s final days. Ordered to destroy its installations on the Laotian border, it must make its way through a hundred miles of jungle to aid the French outpost at Tao Tsai, which is surrounded by Vietminh (communist) troops.

Preparing to launch a surprise on the Vietminh in The 317th Platoon.

Like the film’s cinematographer, Raoul Coutard, writer-director Pierre Schoendoerffer (1928-2012) was a veteran and ex-POW of the Indochina War. As an army cameraman, Schoendoerffer parachuted into Dien Bien Phu, the setting of France’s final, tragic battle of the war. For those unfamiliar with Dien Bien Phu, perhaps no one has encapsulated its memory more concisely than French patriot and musician Jean-Pax Mefret:

After destroying his camera and much priceless footage, Schoendoerffer surrendered with the rest of the garrison and was marched to a reeducation camp.

A decade later, he returned to Indochina to make The 317th Platoon. Filmed in the Cambodian jungle – not a Hollywood lot – the film captured that war’s grim reality as only its veterans could do. It does not glorify war, but neither does it suppress the genuine heroism that often occurs within war.

“Hats off [to the enemy]—the bastards know how to fight.”

Radio man (Manuel Zarzo) trying to direct a pilot for an urgently needed air drop.

Scene shot from the crest of a Cambodian waterfall.

Famed cinematographer Raoul Coutard (left) during the shooting of The 317th Platoon.

Schoendoerffer between lead actors Jacques Perrin and Bruno Cremer.

There are several scenes I personally find haunting in this film: elephants bearing the wounded through the jungle; a dying French soldier sharing a cigarette with a dying Cambodian soldier from his unit; the climactic moment when the platoon reaches the ridge overlooking Tao Tsai. True, “it’s only a movie,” but I don’t know any movie that has torn its scenes from war’s reality more closely than this one.

So why is there no DVD of this great film? I don’t know the answer, but I will venture that it is probably for the same reason It’s a Wonderful Life has been relegated to the virtual oblivion of one annual airing with so many commercials that few will sit through it. The 317th Platoon is politically incorrect and unacceptable to the oligarchy that controls both America and the EU, an oligarchy that rides a three-headed beast of socialism, globalism and Zionism.

• The film’s heroes are fighting against communists, who terrorized Southeast Asia just as the Bolsheviks terrorized Russia. I have said this before and will repeat it here: the wars in Vietnam should not be confused with other wars. I have elaborated this elsewhere, but as I see some young Truthers continuing to equate the 9/11 movement with the hippie movement of the sixties, I will be blogging more in clarification of this.

• Concerning globalism, The 317th Platoon is an unacceptable reminder that France was once a colonial world power. Destroying France’s national identity, and reducing it to a province of the EU, has long been part of the Illuminist agenda.

Saluting the French flag in The 317th Platoon

• But perhaps it is Zionism, ironically, that finds the greatest anathema in The 317th Platoon. Although the platoon is commanded by a young lieutenant, Torrens (Jacques Perrin), it is his adjutant Willsdorf (Bruno Cremer) who emerges as the film’s most powerful figure. He is a gutsy French-Alsatian who fought in the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. And one of the trade secrets of Establishment history is that Europeans of virtually every nationality fought alongside the Germans in what was not to them a war of conquest, but a war against communism and Stalin.

The 317th Platoon is entirely the creation of Pierre Schoendoerffer, and it is not my intention to impute my personal political views to his artistry. Nonetheless, one cannot but feel his love for the soldiers who fought alongside him.

Schoendoerffer in later years.

There is one scene in The 317th Platoon that I “take home” more than any other. It is the decision of Lieutenant Torrens, after learning that Dien Bien Phu has fallen (meaning the war is lost) to have his men attack. It is a lesson for today: no matter how bleak the outlook, we still fulfill our duty and do what is right.

I am well aware, of course, that the real heroes aren’t film actors. Countless real heroes lie in unmarked graves, forgotten by all except a surviving comrade, a widow, an orphan, and God. But The 317th Platoon preserves the memory of such men as closely to reality as art can achieve.

By the way, if you’d like to see this film, you don’t have to spend $10,000 for a copy through Amazon. The 317th Platoon can be purchased at ioffer.com for less than $20.

However, before anyone buys a copy just on my say-so, two cautions:

• The value of art is remarkably personal and subjective. What I find to be a significant film will be considered by some others to be “just a boring old black-and-white movie.”

• There is no known copy of The 317th Platoon with original, official English subtitles. You can only get a copy with homemade subtitles. I have two editions; one translation takes liberties by converting nearly every off-color phrase into extreme profanity – especially into the “F” word and its variants; the other keeps the language almost too clean; but in either case, the film’s strength still shines through.

YouTube has only the original trailer which, like many trailers, over-emphasized violence for marketing purposes. Hopefully someone will eventually get the complete gem onto YouTube:

Aliens/UFOs, Fallen Angels, Nephilim, the Flood, the Bible, Transhumanism, and the Illuminati. Yes, They All Tie Together.

Those familiar with my writing know I have never written an article or post on aliens and UFOs. In Chapter 22 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, I was pretty content to dismiss them as a high-tech government psyop.

Indeed, there were reasons to take that position. Report from Iron Mountain (1967) was an alleged and credible leaked report of a U.S. government thinktank, whose task had been to find methods of controlling populations in light of the possibility that nuclear weapons might render war impractical as a coercive threat. The group favored environmental threats as the way to go, and in their report’s wake, numerous environmental scares were raised: global warming, acid rain, overpopulation, ozone depletion, toxic waste, deforestation, endangered species, etc. However, the study had also explored the possibility of a simulated UFO attack, but did not think it practical given the existing technology at that time:

Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. . . . The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging.¹

Faking an alien attack is nothing new: in 1938, Orson Welles did just that. He made media history when he panicked the nation by broadcasting The War of the Worlds on radio as “news reports” of a Martian invasion.

The idea that an alien attack could unite mankind (i.e., accept world government) was voiced by President Ronald Reagan before the UN:

Former President Bill Clinton echoed that perspective on Jimmy Kimmel Live:

On CNN, economist Paul Krugman proposed a fake alien invasion to fix the economy:

Furthermore, the technology necessary to simulate an invasion, which the Iron Mountain group had rejected as inadequate in the 1960s, has obviously stridden far ahead in the half-century since, outlined in some detail by the late Serge Monast in his description of NASA’s Project Blue Beam, by which high tech (such as holograms projected from satellites) would convince people of an impending alien attack, as well as a returned Messiah and other deceptions. I realize Monast has been criticized for not substantiating his claims with hard documentation from NASA, but since he died in 1996 of an alleged heart attack, very shortly after going public with his revelations, I think this criticism itself lacks teeth. Had Monast been alive all these years, evading questions and never following through with a book, his critics would have a stronger platform.

Certainly one point is undeniable: Hollywood has produced a slew of films dramatizing aliens and space travel. The public has been acclimated to the degree that these things seem normal and real. The 1950s saw a rash of “creatures from outer space” B-movies that later went on to serve as unintentional humor for bored late-night TV viewers. All that changed in the 1970s as Hollywood invested countless millions to give the genre a makeover with epics like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Star Wars and ET, and numerous blockbusters since, such as Alien, Independence Day, and Men in Black.

Because Hollywood is governed by the same financial oligarchy that controls the government, I long believed this sci-fi explosion was probably a run-up to the postulated fake alien invasion. I believed the recent increase in UFO sightings was probably just a reflection of advances in high-tech fakery, funded by a military “black budget.” With all the false flags that have brought America into the interminable Middle East conflicts, why not an alien false flag, with human-zapping extraterrestrials replacing those ISIS beheading videos, to bring us – at last – into world government?

However, after a fellow 9-11 Truther introduced me to the work of L . A. Marzulli, my perspective has changed. Far too many credible witnesses, ranging from pilots to scholars, have encountered not only UFOs, but aliens themselves. A friend of mine who is an Air Force veteran told me of how he and his crew encountered a UFO while on a nighttime bombing mission during the Vietnam War. I do not believe that the UFO/alien phenomena can be dismissed as purely a psyop that has deceived gullible people. I believe we are dealing with a more complex picture, with significant implications for both history and the future.

The Flood and Fallen Angels

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” is a famous and valid maxim. Fully observing it sometimes requires searching the deep past. For our purposes, we start with the Flood of Noah. In my atheist youth, I regarded it as nothing more than a fairy tale for naïve Sunday School children. But when I began studying creationist literature in the 1990s, I was stunned by the scientific evidence supporting it.

About 75 percent of the rock in the Earth’s geologic column is sedimentary (deposited chiefly by water, like limestone or sandstone). Since the days of Charles Darwin’s close friend Charles Lyell (1797-1875), evolutionary geologists have argued that the geologic layers simply resulted from natural processes visible today – gradual erosion and sedimentation, from oceans covering Earth. This explanation supplied Darwin with the endless millions of years his theory of evolution required in order to work.

However, this claim is belied by the countless billions of fossils found throughout the geologic layers. Most fossils are remains mineralized by sediments. It’s not just bones we find, but soft body parts such as fishes’ fins and scales, jellyfish, worms, and tree leaves. We even have fossils of animals in the act of giving birth and eating each other.

These cannot have been generated by slow sedimentation. When an animal dies, it normally either (1) decomposes, or (2) is devoured by predators, before it can be buried under sediment. That is why so few fossils have been created in recent years. For example, millions of buffaloes were killed in the 19th century, but they left no fossils – scavengers and decomposing bacteria took care of that. Fossilization requires quick burial.

The epic worldwide flood described in the Bible, by churning up billions of tons of sediment, would have resulted in rapid burial of Earth’s living organisms, and explains why innumerable well-preserved fossils are found throughout the world. It also explains why most of the geologic column’s rock is sedimentary. Further reinforcing the Flood are the flood legends of more than 200 cultures.

The Bible says God brought the Flood on Earth, but does not, at first glance, seem to elaborate on why beyond the wickedness of man:

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)

However, much clarification is found in the preceding verses, which are among the Bible’s most controversial:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . . There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1, 2, 4)

Many theologians today teach that these “sons of God” were simply godly men who were from the lineage of Seth (the third son of Adam and Eve) and that “sons of men” refers to the “ungodly” line of Cain. However, this view was not taught until the 5th century AD.¹ Prior to that, it was understood that these “sons of God” were fallen angels. “Sons of God” was a term used for angels in the Old Testament (e.g., Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.”).

The book of Enoch makes the meaning of Genesis 6 unmistakable. (Enoch is not part of the Bible’s official canon, but the Bible does reference Enoch. The book of Jude, for example, references content of Enoch in verse 6, and verses 14-15 loosely quote Enoch 1:9. Likewise 2 Peter 2:4 references content from Enoch. The book of Enoch is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and is part of the Ethiopic canon of scriptures.)

Here is the relevant text – chapters 6 and 7 of the book of Enoch:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: “Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.” And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: “I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.” And they all answered him and said: “Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.” Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

Likewise, the non-canonical book of Jubilees says:

And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants. And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walketh on the earth – all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other. (Jubilees 5:1–2)

Yes, that was the understanding: fallen angels had sex with women and their offspring were giants. This is apt to trigger objections, so I’ll address two – one theological, the other scientific.

Would Angel-Human Hybrids Be Possible?

Some Christians say that this would be impossible because Jesus said, speaking of the resurrected dead: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30)

However, Jesus said angels in heaven do not marry. And he did not say sex was impossible for angels. Elsewhere in the Bible, angels manifest bodily functions. For example, in Genesis 18, Abraham prepared a meal for three angels, which they ate.

Likewise, Jesus did not deny that resurrected people have biological functions. When He appeared before his disciples in His own resurrected body, He ate fish and a honeycomb (Luke 24:42-43). Jesus had also told the disciples at the Last Supper, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29).

So apparently both angels and resurrected humans can eat and drink; they have functional digestive systems. Could they not also have functional reproductive systems?

The second objection: Would it be scientifically possible for an angel to mate with a human? This question is only loosely “scientific,” since we don’t know enough about angels to soundly answer it based on observations.

However, we know that, in the Bible, angels could assume the appearance of men – so much so that men of Sodom sought sex with the angels who visited Lot (Genesis 19). Thus sexual attraction could occur between the two.

But to reproduce, the angels would require DNA. Is that possible? The question might seem unanswerable. However, all known living organisms have DNA. Like the rest of the world, angels are part of God’s creation. Psalm 8:5 says God made mankind “a little lower than the angels.” That He used DNA in designing angels does not seem that far-fetched.

If angels mated with humans, creating a race of giants, there should be physical remains of giants. In fact, many have been discovered.

L, A. Marzulli, in his book On the Trail of the Nephilim, vol. 1, quotes dozens of newspaper accounts of discoveries of these giants, dating from the 18th to the mid-20th century. In many cases, the bones were sent to the Smithsonian Institution and then . . . never seen again. As Fritz Zimmerman told Marzulli:

A literal army of Smithsonian agents were sent out across the country following up on historic and newspaper reports where giant skeletons were found. These giant remains were gathered up and sent back to Washington, where they were to disappear forever. There have been reports that many of these giant skeletal remains were dumped into the ocean.³

This interview with Richard Dewhurst, author of The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America: The Missing Skeletons and the Great Smithsonian Cover-Up is as good a summary as I’ve heard:

When I wrote Tornado in a Junkyard in 1998, I discovered that much fossil evidence had been suppressed. In that book I quoted, for example, Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton: “Heretical and non-conforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed.”⁴

A prime reason for concealing “non-conforming fossil men” was that they clashed with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Giants, in particular, flew against the theory, which claimed we had gradually evolved from much smaller tree-dwelling creatures such as lemurs.

However, I now realize there was another reason for destroying the remains of giants: to discredit the specific Biblical texts, which often mention giants. Goliath, who stood well over nine feet tall, is the most famous example, but there are others.

Deuteronomy 3:11 says: “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits (13 ½ feet) was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.”

2 Samuel 21:19-20 relates:

And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. . . And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

The above passage is interesting, because a number of discovered giant remains have had six fingers on their hands and six toes on their feet.

Above: a giant skeleton with six fingers, found by L. A. Marzulli in Ralph Glidden’s collection from many decades ago. Marzulli does not Photoshop his work.

Of course, when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to enter the Promised Land, they feared to go in because of the giants there:

And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:32-33)

For refusing to enter the Promised Land, of course, God made the Israelites wander in the wilderness for forty years.

The Bible Revisited

The existence of Nephilim may explain archaeological mysteries, such as how the great pyramids, Stonehenge, and other massive structures were built: a workforce of Nephilim. The union between fallen angels and men also gives us insights into the Bible.

Why did God bring the Flood upon the Earth? Apparently it wasn’t just man’s evil. God’s creation was being corrupted. Not only were humans genetically altered (which today we call transhumanism; more on that shortly), but apparently animals were affected as well. The non-canonical book of Jasher says (chapter 4, verse 18) that “the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.”

Previously we quoted the book of Jubilees: “all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walketh on the earth – all of them corrupted their ways and their orders.”

Clearly, God did not erase life forms with the Flood simply out of anger; it was necessary in order to remove the genetically warped creation and start over – i.e., to reboot the planet.

This also clarifies why, when Joshua and the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God commanded them to wipe out the Canaanite tribes there. Some have called this genocide on God’s part. However, besides the demon worship and child sacrifices these peoples were engaged in, the report of giants occupying the land indicates that, once again, God was removing transhumanized people.

How did these post-Flood Canaanite giants arise? Probably the same way as pre-Flood giants: sexual union between fallen angels and people. Genesis 6:4 reports that “There were giants in the earth in those [pre-Flood] days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. . . .”

This has a spiritual dimension to consider. The Bible says God created man in His image. We know that God’s enemy, Satan, persuaded many angels to follow himself, and that he wants to reign as a counterfeit god.  It appears that the mating of fallen angels with women was, at least in part, an attempt by Satan to remake man in his own image.

We also know that before this mating occurred, Satan had lured Adam and Eve into sinning. This is described very early in the Bible (Genesis 3). God then told Satan: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15) Christian theologians widely understand this prophecy to mean the seed of the woman (Jesus Christ) would ultimately destroy Satan (bruise his head), even though Satan would “bruise his heel” (the Crucifixion).

One reason Satan subsequently wanted fallen angels to mix with humans was to eliminate the “seed of the woman” and thus, he hoped, avert his own prophesied destruction. Note that Genesis 3:15 referred to “thy seed” (Satan’s seed).

Since the savior, Jesus Christ, was to be born in the Promised Land (Palestine), it’s apparently no coincidence that when the Israelites arrived there, they found Nephilim (giants) occupying the territory. Once again, Satan was attempting to forestall his own destruction.

The relationship between fallen angels and humans sheds light on yet another controversy: demons, also referred to in the Bible as “evil spirits” and “unclean spirits.” Jesus, of course, cast many demons out of people, and to this day, demonic possession and exorcism are subjects of considerable discussion.

Where did demons come from? Again, the non-canonical book of Enoch sheds light:

But now the giants who are born from the [union of] the spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. Evil spirits have come out of their bodies. Because from the day that they were created from the sons of God they became Watchers: their first origin is the spiritual foundation. They will become evil upon the earth and shall be called evil spirits. (Enoch 15:8)

Like humans, Nephilim giants had spirits. But when the Nephilim died, God did not allow their spirits to proceed in the same way that a human soul does upon death. Instead, they became evil spirits, roaming Earth until the final day of God’s judgement.

Sometimes the terms “fallen angel” and “demon” are used interchangeably, and confusion results. They are not the same. Fallen angels mated with humans; demons are the spirits of their offspring, the Nephilim giants. An angel is considerably more powerful than a demon. For those who would like to explore this issue more, I suggest reading the article “The Origin of Demons,” by Pastor Tom Brown.

Today, “As in the Days of Noah”

So what does all this mean for us today, and for the future? And how does it relate to the UFO/alien phenomenon?

Jesus’s disciples asked Him (Matthew 24): ”What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?” Part of Jesus’ response was: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39, NIV)

Current events suggest that the phrase “as in the days of Noah” may carry additional significance. As we’ve noted, before the Flood, species – both animals and men – were being altered.

Today, we have genetic engineering on a massive scale. Corporations like Monsanto have changed the genetic makeup of foods, making corn, soy, rice, potatoes and beets into GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

In addition, grotesque experimentation is altering the genetic makeup of animals, as seen in this CNN clip on “glow in the dark” cats:

The hybridization of humans genes with animals genes is widely occurring, as related in this NBC News article, “Scientists Create Animals that Are Part-Human.”

It is increasingly clear that we are revisiting what occurred before the Flood. Very possibly the creatures of Greek mythology, such as the centaur (part human, part horse) were not products of imagination, but products of genetic engineering.

Greek mythology may be far less mythological than traditionally believed. Hercules was said to be the son of Zeus and a mortal woman (Alcmene). It’s no leap of logic to see this is a retelling of the union of celestial beings with humans, resulting in Nephilim, whom the Bible also called “mighty men” (Genesis 6:4).

Hollywood seems to be acclimating us for a return of the Nephilim, making countless films about “superheroes.” There is a lot of transhumanism in these characters. Spider-Man, of course, was a teenager genetically modified after a spider bite gave him spider abilities. The Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman received superhuman powers from bionic surgical implants. DARPA’s plans to create genetically enhanced “super soldiers” prove these concepts are no longer fictional.

The public is being sold genetic engineering on the pretext that altering our genes will improve our health. Actually, we could have better health simply by reducing /eliminating our exposure to: processed foods, GMOs, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, chemtrails and radiation from wi-fi. The Illuminist financial oligarchy, which is obsessed with population reduction, is also funding geoengineering. This reveals that modifying the human genome will ultimately impair our health, not improve it.

Genetic engineering presupposes that God didn’t know what He was doing when He created human beings, animals, and the food we eat. We are supposed to “trust in man,” and let lab scientists rewrite Earth’s gene pools. Of course, this activity is largely founded on the notion that there is no God, that life on Earth arose from a random amalgamation of chemicals which then evolved via Darwinian mechanisms.

So scientists are truly playing God. It is worth pointing out that once they modify the genetic makeup of a creature, and the results eventually prove horrific, there may be no turning back, i.e., no way of restoring the genome to what it originally was. Truly, we are “as in the days of Noah,” corrupting God’s creation. The current heavy promotion of transgenderism (sex change) fits in with this.

Aliens

Above: one of my favorite cartoons from The New Yorker, 1966

What about aliens? I don’t believe these are creatures traveling here from, as Star Wars put it, “a galaxy far, far away.” I believe we are dealing, once again, with phenomena seen “in the days of Noah.”

The Bible says (Ephesians 6:12): “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Satan and his fallen angels were a bane to mankind before the Flood, and so they are today.

I realize there is a vast body of discussion about aliens, UFOs, abductions, Roswell, the Dulce Base, cattle mutilations, crop circles and other phenomena. Some people have spent many years researching these areas. I have not, so will confine myself to a few matters that I find especially relevant to this post.

I suggest that when fallen angels descend collectively on this planet again, they will present themselves not as fallen angels, but as extraterrestrial beings. This will be relatively easy to do after the wave of Hollywood movies conditioning us to accept the reality of ETs from “other civilizations.”

The pre-Flood angels were able to impress mankind with their knowledge of new technologies. Enoch, Chapter 8:

Moreover Azazyel taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors, and the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and of all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered. Impiety increased; fornication multiplied; and they transgressed and corrupted all their ways. Amazarak taught all the sorcerers, and dividers of roots; Armers taught the solution of sorcery; Barkayal taught the observers of the stars; Akibeel taught signs; Tamiel taught astronomy; And Asaradel taught the motion of the moon. And men, being destroyed, cried out; and their voice reached to heaven.

If fallen angels return, they will again attempt to win over mankind by impressing us with technology, but they will claim it is merely from another planet that is more highly developed than ours.

I further suggest that when fallen angels arrive as ETs, they will insist that they – not God – created life on Earth (during a previous visit). Fallen angels are, like their leader Satan, enemies of God; destroying people’s faith in God is intrinsic to their agenda.

They will claim they started life on Earth using genetic engineering. With all the genetic engineering now going on, that claim might not seem so far-fetched, would it? (But there is a vast difference between creating life and simply splicing existing genes.) Forty years ago, I was in a New Age cult where it was suggested that aliens designed every feature of life on Earth using computers. This idea remains very trendy. Even Richard Dawkins, probably the leading spokesperson for Darwinism today, has suggested aliens seeded life here, as in this clip (note the hostility he simultaneously expresses toward God):

Those who study realpolitik know that the Powers that Be, in planning their “New World Order,” are after more than money and power. There is a Luciferian agenda at hand, as witnessed by their mock (?) human sacrifices before a 40-foot owl at the annual Bohemian Grove ceremonies.

The Illuminati control the world of arts and entertainment, which is becoming increasingly satanic. As just one example, the annual Super Bowl halftime shows reek of satanic symbols. Madonna dressed as Baphomet for the 2012 show:

The Bible’s book of Revelation speaks of the whore of Babylon: “I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy. . .”  Katy Perry’s performance at the 2015 Super Bowl may have been intended to mimic the whore of Babylon, even though it didn’t match all the specifics the Bible mentions. She wore a flaming suit, riding a beast with demonic red eyes:

Remember how pre-Flood angels had sex with humans? Check the lyrics to Katy Perry’s song “E.T,” where she sings about having sex with an alien who “could be an angel”:

You’re so hypnotizing
Could you be the devil, could you be an angel
Your touch magnetizing
Feels like I’m floating, leaves my body glowing

They say be afraid
You’re not like the others, futuristic lovers
Different DNA, they don’t understand you

You’re from a whole other world
A different dimension
You open my eyes
And I’m ready to go, lead me into the light

Kiss me, k-k-kiss me
Infect me with your love and fill me with your poison
Take me, t-t-take me
Wanna be a victim, ready for abduction
Boy, you’re an alien, your touch so foreign
Its supernatural, extraterrestrial

(Complete lyrics at http://www.metrolyrics.com/et-lyrics-katy-perry.html. Thanks to L. A. Marzulli for spotting this.)

Note that Perry’s song refers to “abductions.” There are increasing reports, from credible witnesses (not just rednecks who drank too much moonshine) of being abducted by “aliens.” A very common denominator to these abductions is that the individuals undergo forced sexual experiments, including the harvesting of sperm or eggs. There is some sort of breeding program going on; some abductees have reported seeing human-alien hybrids. It appears that fallen angels again have an agenda of creating transhumans, but they are going about it in a different way than before the Flood.

Would an angel have the capacity to abduct a human being? Marzulli draws an astute comparison to the books of Acts, chapter 12, where a good angel supernaturally brought Peter out of prison, making the chains fall off his wrists and the prison door open by itself. At the time, Peter thought he was seeing a vision. It’s an example of what we might call a “beneficent abduction.”

Abductees report seeing three basic types of aliens: (1) the “greys,” small creatures with almond eyes who resemble the alien in the movie ET; (2) reptilians, who look like reptiles, but who can, for limited time periods, “shape-shift” and appear as something else, including humans; and (3) beautiful Nordic types, tall with blond hair and blue eyes.

There are many theories about these types. While I have not studied this deeply and have no firm opinion, I appreciate the suggestion of theologian Gary Stearman: that when angels fall, they initially retain the beauty they had in God’s presence. These would be the Nordics (and it is easy to see how they could have induced women into sexual relationships). However, Stearman believes that as these fallen angels commune with Satan, they gradually degrade and start assuming the appearance of Satan, who the book of Genesis described as a serpent (reptilian).

As to the grey/“ET” types, these are reportedly subordinate to the Nordics and reptilians, and quite different from them. The greys are evil, but they are small, rather weak and vulnerable, and walk robotically. It is to be remembered that while demons (spirits of the deceased Nephilim) are part of the satanic hierarchy, they are not the same as fallen angels. Demons have no body, but are always seeking one to enter. Marzulli believes the grey aliens are actually demons, inhabiting a type of biological body suit that has been developed for them. I will add that once inhabiting these suits, not having angelic power, they would require a craft (UFO) to travel.

Why have there been so many more UFO sightings recently? Angels and demons belong to a different, spiritual dimension. Marzulli believes people on Earth have been “opening a portal” to that dimension, and I must agree. Abortion (which is a type of human sacrifice); sexual immorality; rejection of God and his commandments; genetic engineering; genocidal wars; usurious banksterism; the rise of Satanism and satanic worship and rituals. All these things are separating us from God’s image and protection, and inviting the intrusion of these beings from the evil dimension. This is unsurprising since the Illuminist “Powers that Be,” who widely control governments, banking, industry and media, are themselves Luciferians who seek a world government, ruled by Satan from a throne in Jerusalem.

The long-awaited Antichrist will be a counterfeit Christ. He might be the ultimate Nephilim: the result of sexual union between Satan and a woman. In this way, the fallen one would counterfeit the birth of Christ, which resulted from the holy union between God and Mary.

I hope this post will, for some of my readers, add a new dimension to their understanding of spiritual phenomena, history and even the Bible itself.

A 9/11 Truther sent me a link to the following video discussion between Gary Stearman, L. A. Marzulli and Tom Horn. As it was what first stimulated my interest in the Flood-Nephilim-Alien relationship, I share it with my readers:

NOTES

1. Leonard C. Lewin, Report from Iron Mountain (1967, reprint; New York: The Free Press, 1996), 80-81.
2. L. A. Marzulli, The Cosmic Chess Match (Spiral of Life, 2011), 29.
3. L. A. Marzulli, On the Trail of the Nephilim, Vol. 1 (Spiral of Life, 2013), 103.
4. Earnest Albert Hooton, Apes, Men and Morons (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1937), 107.

This is another long post, but I believe the potential for immediate danger to the American people warrants it.

Internet traffic is buzzing about Jade Helm, a U.S. military exercise scheduled to begin July 15 (but according to latest reports in June) and end on September 15. It is to take place across a number of states, especially in the Southwest, and involves several branches of the military, including the 82nd Airborne, Navy Seals, Green Berets, and other Special Ops.

There is broad concern that the drill will transition into the onset of martial law. Some factors fueling the alarm: (1) No drill this extensive has ever occurred before; (2) it includes nighttime activities, air drops near towns, and attempts to infiltrate and “blend in” with civilian populations; (3) the exercise is unlawful as it violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits domestic deployment of federal troops in civilian areas (section 4 of the Constitution allows it in cases of “domestic violence,” but that is clearly not the situation here); (4) the operation’s field map has labeled Texas, Utah, and certain Southern California counties as “hostile” territory – troubling, since these areas also happen to contain populations especially known as constitutionalist, religious, and/or patriotic.

Nor does the caption on the Jade Helm logo, “Master the Human Domain,” inspire confidence.

Unsurprisingly, mainstream media dismisses concerns about Jade Helm as ravings of “conspiracy nuts.” This is unedifying, since mainstream media, owned and controlled by the same oligarchy that constitutes America’s shadow government, also says this of those who critically analyze 9/11, the Federal Reserve, GMOs, chemtrails, and any other blight that serves the global elite’s interests.

However, there is also a split over Jade Helm within alterative media, in particular at Veterans Today. Editor Kevin Barrett, whom I greatly respect as a fellow Truther, and whose radio show I have guested on several times, had this to say in a May 2 post, from which I repeat a few extracts:

Recently I have been seeing a whole lot of fear-addled responses to the Jade Helm exercises. While we should always be suspicious of military drills and exercises, which are sometimes used to launch false flags, suspicion is one thing and rampant delusional paranoia is another. . . .

The whole JADE HELM panic is based on one document describing the exercises. Nothing in that document suggests that exercises involving 1200 people are going to impose martial law on a nation of 300 million. . . .

Here at VT we have seen certain people go completely off the deep end about JADE HELM. They have gone from “sane paranoia” (realistic assessment of actual plots and threats) to “crazy paranoia” (egocentric delusional thinking, minus fact-checking and common sense). . . .

So my sane-paranoid assessment of Jade Helm is as follows: Yes, there may very well be a devious plot at work, but it isn’t what you think. They aren’t going to use 1200 game-playing troops in a handful of southwestern states to impose martial law on the whole country. They aren’t going to lock us up in Wal-Mart. They aren’t going to lock down the borders.

Instead, Jade Helm is being used (and may have been designed) to inject fear into the populace. The tangible benefits of this manufactured fear epidemic include:

*Burning the alternative media. Already VT has been damaged by a schism provoked by fear and attendant ego-bloating. And it isn’t just VT. Average Joe Citizen sees all the JADE HELM hysteria and says, “Jeez, these kooks who imagine they’re going to be interned in Wal-Mart must be the same crazies who think 9/11 was an inside job, Boston and Sandy Hook and Charlie Hebdo were false flags, the Zionist bankster freemasons run everything. . . what a bunch of loons.”. . .

I understand where Kevin is coming from, especially regarding the last paragraph. In late August 2013, I saw several Internet alerts suggesting that, in order to create a pretext for Obama’s desired air strikes against Assad in Syria, a deadly false flag attack on American soil appeared imminent (these posts can still be viewed, here, here, and here – scroll down on the last one).

Concerned by these warnings about a chemical weapons attack and FEMA preparations, I sent a general alert to people on my email list. Of course, nothing came of the predictions, which was good for America, and might have indicated plans were cancelled, but it also left me looking like a gullible alarmist. In future months, more “imminent false flag” predictions appeared on the Web, such as an anonymous “insider” letter claiming a major false flag would be staged at the 2014 Super Bowl. However, I resolved I would no longer go into “alarm mode” on such warnings; we were clearly being played, either by pranksters or intelligence-agency trolls.

One of the best-known children’s tales is “the little boy who cried wolf.” Cry wolf enough times, no one believes you when the real wolf arrives. In the geopolitical world, there are real wolves: 9/11 was a huge one. Most of us in the truth Movement believe that, sooner or later, the Zionist-Luciferian plotters of 9/11 will try hitting us with another false flag, one big enough to take the police state to the next level and perhaps usher in their ultimate goal of world government. In the meantime, they’ve been trolling is us with “cry wolf” warnings of nonexistent false flags, hoping all the decoys will lull us to sleep until the authentic moment arrives.

The question on the table: is Jade Helm wolf or merely cry wolf? With greatly due respect for my friend Kevin Barrett, I’m calling it wolf. Since trying to predict future geopolitical events is as risky as trying to forecast the stock market, I do this with full acknowledgement and disclaimer that I may be wrong.

Let’s start with what may appear to be Kevin’s strongest argument: How in the world are 1,200 men going to impose martial law on 300 million Americans? Sounds absurd, doesn’t it?

I consider this argument flawed. First, it assumes the government is telling the truth about the numbers. But the government often lies about numbers – for example, after years of tweaking the way it figures the Consumer Price Index, it tells us the rate of inflation is 1.5 to 2 percent, whereas the true rate is around 9 percent. It claims we have a rather healthy unemployment rate of 5.5 percent, while the true rate is over 20 percent. It’s reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984, in which the Ministry of Plenty spewed out falsified statistics:

The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen. As compared with last year there was more food, more clothes, more houses, more furniture . . . . ¹

Would the government also lie about military figures? Yes. In 2012, mainstream media reported that 22 Russian Spetsnaz soldiers were training with the U.S. Air Force. However, I have recently been a guest on Restore the Republic, a blog show hosted by Air Force veteran Kevin Blake, as upright a young Christian patriot as you’ll ever meet. Blake’s contacts reported to him that the actual number of Spetsnaz soldiers inside Fort Carson were between five and six hundred – more than twenty times the figure the government publically admitted.

Let’s just say, hypothetically, that the troops participating in Jade Helm were to be more than twenty times the announced number – i.e, not 1,200, but 30,000. Would the government come clean about that? Probably not, just as it minimizes other numbers to allay public concerns.

But have we evidence that Jade Helm will exceed what the government says? I invite my readers to watch these YouTube clips of massive convoys of military equipment moving through America over the past three years (not bound for the Iraq war, which technically “ended” in 2011).

From 2012:

From 2013 (24 minutes long, but worth watching for the variety of information about what is happening in the military):

From 2015:

More from 2015:

Some comments on the above. I realize some footage may be “unprofessional,” but I prefer the honest American amateur to mercenaries of the corporately controlled media. I also realize that in a couple of clips, photographers might have overreacted to a relatively routine exercise or movement of equipment. But I don’t believe all the clips can be dismissed that way. Clearly, an unprecedented domestic military buildup is occurring.

Two segments referenced nighttime helicopter activity. In that regard, a personal account: I live west of Boston, and was recently awoken during the middle of the night by regular (about hourly) helicopter noise above our home. This is unprecedented where I live. In past years, the only helicopters we’d normally seen had been commercial choppers doing traffic reporting during rush hour (which this was clearly not), and – very rarely – a helicopter used for an emergency medi-evac.

Here’s a recent clip from Texas residents who report the same:

Here are Blackhawk helicopters and Chinooks buzzing Long Island (you can find lots more clips like these on YouTube):

The Army “in Transition”

Those familiar with my book The Shadows of Power know that the Council on Foreign Relations (the American oligarchy’s chief instrument of policy control) has a flagship journal Foreign Affairs, whose articles have, for decades, foretold policy changes. (Some of these articles have been ghost-written.)

In the May/June 2012 Foreign Affairs, Raymond T. Odierno, the new U.S. Army Chief of Staff, published an article entitled “The U.S. Army in a Time of Transition: Building a Flexible Force.” Here are some key selected quotes:

After six months as chief of staff, I can see clearly that the coming decade will be a vital period of transition for the U.S. Army.

The need for U.S. armed forces, and the army in particular, to provide planning, logistical, command-and-control, and equipment support to civil authorities in the event of natural disasters continues to be demonstrated regularly and is unlikely to diminish.

The final major transition the army must manage is that from a force focused on counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and advising and assisting to one that actively prepares to effectively conduct a fuller range of potential missions.

In the future, it will be increasingly common for the army to operate in environments with both regular military and irregular paramilitary or civilian adversaries, with the potential for terrorism, criminality, and other complications.

In addition to combat of all kinds, possible operations in the next several years will include everything from helping victims of a flood to restoring order in a collapsed state with large-scale criminal activity, violence, and perhaps even unconventional weaponry.²

While most of Odierno’s readers probably understood these remarks as applying to foreign countries, a re-contexting of “civilian adversaries” and “a collapsed state” to America would have significant implications. In 2011, the Iraq War had “ended,” and most American troops came home. Was this to re-focus their mission into a domestic one?

Control of criminal activity has traditionally been a function of local police. There is evidently a plan to supplant police with the military, who answer to the federal government. Allow me to suggest that the recent anti-police rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore, egged on by the mainstream media and to a large extent funded by CFR billionaire George Soros, were designed to produce this change. Local police, excessively portrayed as racist by the MSM, become unpopular in the public mind, and get overwhelmed by the orchestrated riots, necessitating military intervention.

Here is footage of U.S. marines practicing internment of citizens:

There are several other troubling features to Jade Helm.

• A Jade Helm press release stated that “The diverse terrain in these states replicates areas Special Operations Soldiers regularly find themselves operating in overseas.” This explanation seems disingenuous. The U.S. army has been operating in the Middle East continuously for the past 13 years. It has had plenty of experience in foreign desert terrains. Why does it suddenly need the American Southwest’s desert to “replicate” what it already has had at hand in places like Afghanistan?

• The May 21 Houston Chronicle reports:

Among the planned exercises, soldiers will try to operate undetected amongst civilian populations. . . “They’re going to set up cells of people and test how well they’re able to move around without getting too noticed in the community,” said Roy Boyd, chief deputy with the Victoria County Sheriff’s Office. “They’re testing their abilities to basically blend in with the local environment and not stand out and blow their cover.”

There’s a serious issue with this. If Jade Helm is, as advertised, meant to train soldiers for overseas operations, why are they “blending in” with Americans? How will that help them blend in with foreigners? There’s a literal world of difference between Red’s Bar and Grill and a Syrian mosque.

• Further affirming this self-contradiction is the army’s building in Virginia of a $96 million replica of, not a foreign town, but an American town, to conduct martial law exercises. Here is Infowars’ expose:

• According to Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Jim Garrow, Obama has a new litmus test for retaining military commanders: whether or not they will fire on American citizens. This “litmus test” has been confirmed by former Navy Seal Benjamin Smith. Blog show host Kevin Blake told me that while in the Air Force in 2012, he received a Defense Department survey asking if he was willing to fire upon American citizens. Blake says the men in his unit were sickened by the survey question, to which they resoundingly answered “No!” He theorizes that the military may be using the answers to this question to determine the disposition of certain soldiers.

Here another former Navy Seal tells Infowars that he and his comrades were threatened with losing their positions if they refused to sign papers pledging, if so ordered, to disarm American citizens:

• Jade Helm was initially to be confined to the Southwest. Now, Mississisipi and Florida have been officially added. Combined with the heightened convoys and helicopter activity throughout the country, this raises the question if the military is “boiling the frog” (turning the heat up so gradually that the frog doesn’t know he’s being boiled).

Here is a new news report that Colorado will see the state’s largest convoy since World II: more than 4,000 troops and 300 vehicles will be coming out of Fort Carson. (Whatever happened to “it’s only 1,200 men”?)

The Wal-Marts

Mainstream media is heaping derision on anyone connecting dots between Jade Helm and the mysterious Wal-Mart closings. I will not belabor this issue, but any critical thinker can see that multiple Wal-Marts should not suddenly and simultaneously close due to “plumbing problems,” which, we are supposed to believe, will take six months to repair. A business is inherently interested in maintaining its profits. It cannot do so by prolonged closure. Clearly Wal-Mart has sufficient funds to hire plumbers to promptly resolve any alleged issues. The closings and “plumbing problems” were a complete surprise to its thousands of laid-off workers. Researchers have stated that the closed Wal-Marts are strategically located close to entrances for the government’s Deep Underground Military Bases (DUMBS). CNN Money reported in 2004 that Wal-Mart had received about $1 billion in government subsidies, so there is a definite kinship.

I think it logical that, in a martial law state, these Wal-Marts would make ideal army supply depots (the military would need resupply at locations outside the limitations of its current bases). We already linked to a video showing massive numbers of military vehicles parked next to a Wal-Mart. Here’s another relevant clip:

How Citizens May Be Targeted

It has been reported that, in martial law, some citizens would be prioritized for assassination (thus the need for Special Ops to initially infiltrate communities unnoticed), while lower-priority citizens would eventually be rounded up and placed in FEMA camps. On the Alex Jones Show, Steve Quayle talks about the “red, blue and green lists” (and other significant Jade Helm information):

Dave Hodges of the Common Sense Show gives a slightly different take on the prioritization of targets: that the “red list” will be veterans with the ability to counter-attack militarily against a takeover. Reinforcing Hodges’s view is the revelation that COUNTER Jade Helm operations are already being organized by patriotic veterans.

What Will Be Used to Justify Martial Law?

Obviously, President Obama cannot simply declare martial law without an excuse. Otherwise, even average, under-informed Americans would resist it. Ideally, he needs a situation where citizens beg for martial law, and thus he can claim he’s only responding to the will of the people. So what will the pretext be? In the above clip, Steve Quayle stressed economic collapse. That will unquestionably be part of it, but I believe two other elements should be watched for.

Scenario No. 1: ISIS

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the “devil” only in order to drive the “TV watcher” to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US. . . . – Pierre-Henry Bunel, former French military intelligence agent.³

After the alleged “killing” of Osama Bin Laden in 2011 (right after polls had shown the President’s popularity at an all-time low), Americans no longer perceived Al Qaeda as a substantial threat. Then, in March 2013, Rand Paul filibustered against domestic drone strikes, and a Gallup Poll showed Americans overwhelmingly supported him. That same month came outcry over reports that the DHS was planning to purchase 1.6 billion ammunition rounds (enough to kill every American five times over) as well as over 2,700 armored vehicles.

With Americans stubbornly resisting further expansion of police-state powers, the cartel reverted to the threat that had been so successfully utilized to justify initial establishment of those powers: Islamic terrorism. What had worked on 9/11 would work again. Patriotic Americans opposed unconstitutional demolition of their own freedoms, but could be counted on to “rally round the flag” if they believed America was again under foreign attack. And so the following month – April 2013 – came the Boston Marathon bombing.

But with the Obama administration already having played its “kill Osama Bin Laden” card, it needed a new bogeyman to replace him. Certainly, it is not my intention to understate the reality of ISIS, but do not Bunel’s revelations about Al Qaida apply equally to ISIS? Like Al Qaida, ISIS received U.S. financing and military training, allegedly to help overthrow Assad in Syria. Ron Paul made new revelations about this in his May 25 Liberty Report:

The viral beheading videos proved a great button-pusher for public opinion. I invite my listeners to view one minute from the following interview with Robert David Steele – a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, once the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer. Steele explains that every recent terrorist incident in the U.S. has been a false flag or government-induced, and that “Jihadi John” is most likely a joint Saudi-CIA production and “theater.” Watch from about 15:55 to 16:45.

Several ISIS false-flag events have been staged around the world to usher in a global police state, including Ottawa, Paris (Charlie Hebdo), Copenhagen, and Garland, Texas. Not one shooter in any of these incidents lived to go on trial; in Garland, the alleged shooters were dead just 15 seconds after the incident began.

Given the huge investment that has been made in conditioning the American public to fear ISIS, it seems likely that ISIS might be used to usher in martial law by staging multiple false-flags attacks, probably simultaneously, across America. It would be claimed that ISIS had gradually infiltrated America from Mexico (which would be credible given our lax border and immigration policies). And believe it or not, the DHS is bussing at least 100,000 Muslims into America annually (I’m not making this up):

Once “ISIS” launched nationwide terror attacks, the country could become a full-scale police state. Many Americans would be persuaded to accept it under the illusion that it was “for their own protection.” But the focus would quickly switch from ISIS to American patriots who resisted martial law. A few of those Jade Helm Specials Ops who “infiltrated” and “blended in” with the locals might even lead militias into deadly traps.

Scenario No. 2: Natural Disasters

There is, however, another possibility. Today, weather events are being geo-engineered. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 (published in 1996) laid out the military’s plan to weaponize the weather. The following year (1997), William S. Cohen, U.S. Secretary of Defense, stated at a Defense Department briefing:

Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real.⁴

This had already been foreseen in 1970 by top CFR insider Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book Between Two Ages:

Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storms, thereby weakening a nation’s capacity and forcing it to accept the demands of the competitor.⁵

Geo-engineering is why we have seen a massive increase in the frequency and ferocity of weather disasters. The Illuminati know if they level a town with a bomb, people will ask “Who dropped the bomb?” But if they level it with a hyper-energized, directed tornado, people will call it “Mother Nature” or “an act of God.”

Because many of my readers are familiar with geo-engineering, I will not elaborate the subject in general further, but those wanting additional introductory information may employ search engines like http://sigtruth.com/, using the terms “HAARP” and “weather modification.”

How could weather disasters figure in Jade Helm and martial law? First, let’s remember General Odierno’s comments on “the need for U.S. armed forces, and the army in particular, to provide planning, logistical, command-and-control, and equipment support to civil authorities in the event of natural disasters” and “possible operations in the next several years will include everything from helping victims of a flood to restoring order in a collapsed state.”

Weather disasters have increasingly become the federal government’s province. During Hurricane Sandy, I was initially stunned watching a news briefing at which local authorities turned the matter over to a Homeland Security spokesperson. I said, “Homeland Security? I thought their role was fighting terrorists.” But FEMA is now under Homeland Security.

People would not normally abandon their homes due to government orders, but we are increasingly seeing mandatory evacuations under weather-event pretexts. It is not hard to foresee a massive national disaster forcing large-scale transfer of populations into FEMA camps.

Before staging a major false flag, the Black Ops of the Illuminati usually practice. It has become increasingly clear to researchers that the 9/11 planes were electronically hijacked (just like MH370). Career flight attendant Rebekah Roth, in her bestseller Methodical Illusion, has pretty well put the final nails in that one. But was there practice for the electronic hijackings of 9/11? Yes: Egypt Flight 990, which inexplicably crashed into the ocean in 1999, killing all 217 aboard, the incident publicly blamed on “suicide by the copilot,” the exact same claim made about Germanwings 9525.

I personally believe the 2010 HAARP-induced earthquake that devastated Haiti (the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation, and thus “expendable”) was practice for a higher priority target: the independent people of Japan and the 2011 earthquake targeting Fukushima.

We have just seen Nepal ravaged by earthquakes. I believe this may have been a rehearsal for America in the near term. How convenient if HAARP targeted either the San Andreas or New Madrid faults right in the middle of Jade Helm. The public would then be told “how fortuitous” that the military was already deployed throughout the land to assist with “relocation” and “disaster relief.”

On May 29, Hollywood – ever reliable for programming public opinion – will release the new movie San Andreas, about a massive earthquake on that fault. Watch the trailer, and note the 9/11-like building collapses and special emphasis on heroics of helicopter pilots.

When disasters of this magnitude strike, it is usual to see international relief efforts. Is that why we now have United Nations vehicles being hauled down our roads?

The Obama administration has an agreement with Russia to use their troops to assist FEMA during disasters. Some have speculated that the reason for using foreign troops in martial law is that they can be counted on to be far more ruthless toward Americans than our own troops would be.

Let’s remember that when President George H. W. Bush announced “the new world order,” he said it would be “ushered in” by the United Nations:

Bush’s mention of the “UN’s founders” is a reference to the elitist Council on Foreign Relations, whose goal since its 1921 inception has been a single world government controlling the planet.

Scenario X

Other Jade Helm scenarios have been proposed, of course, such as a World War III “Red Dawn” invasion by foreign armies, an orchestrated Ebola outbreak, or invasion (or faked invasion) by “aliens.” But I believe the pattern of recent events most likely points to ISIS false flags, geo-engineered catastrophes, or both.

The collapse of the dollar and economy, which has been threatening for years, will probably occur after one of these other events. That way, the bankers and their media whores can blame the economic collapse entirely on the “war” or “terror attack” or “earthquake,” rather than the decades of debt and Federal Reserve-induced inflation that have brought America’s economy to the precipice. You would probably even see Janet Yellen and Alan Greenspan on CNN as “experts,” telling us how to fix the whole thing (hint: they’ll say we need a single global currency).

Fear-mongering or Reality?

Perhaps the concerns expressed in this article are, as my friend Kevin Barrett might phrase it, “rampant delusional paranoia.” As I acknowledged from the top, I may be wrong. Some believe Jade Helm is simply an incremental step toward martial law, designed to probe how the nation will respond.

But the massive convoys of equipment are concrete evidence of concrete intentions. Information about these convoys, helicopter deployments, etc., is coming from concerned patriotic citizens. If the oligarchy was simply trying to gauge public reaction, they should be publicly reporting these activities via mainstream media.

I believe America is on the Illuminati “hit list” because it has more Truthers and constitutional activists than anywhere else in the world. And the Illuminati are getting nervous, because through the Internet and social media, more people than ever are awakening to their plan for the world. The oligarchy fears the awakened masses, and knows its time may be short. The solution? As Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the CFR’s British counterpart): “In earlier times it was easier to control a million people, literally, than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people”:

Remember, it was Brzezinski who wrote of weather weaponization more than 40 years ago.

What Should We Do?

First, I think we should be sounding alarms. Contacting legislative representatives and local MSM broadcasters – as unresponsive as they may be – could at least force a more public discussion of Jade Helm’s risks.

I also believe families who have loved ones in the military should share their concerns with them. Let me be clear: Nothing in this article should be construed as antipathy toward the rank-and-file men and women serving in our armed forces. It is the planners at the top who want martial law, and it is conceivable that heightened public awareness and protests may make them think twice about their plans.

Second, I believe we should err on the side of caution and be prepared for the worst. I am not a survivalist expert, but I think everyone would be prudent to try to be ready for: shortages of food and fuel; a government-engineered EMP (falsely blamed on ISIS, or perhaps even on Iran or North Korea), with its attendant crises: the electrical grid down; loss of cell phone and Internet access; ATMs not working, etc. If you haven’t already done so, please do some research and be prepared for an emergency scenario. And if catastrophe strikes, that includes our spiritual outlook and relationship with God.

Continuous updates on Jade Helm developments can currently be found at: http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2015/05/01/decoded-jade-helm-aarpunebolachina-predictive-programming/.

Thank you.

UPDATES

I believe I should keep this post updated myself.

May 27. At 11:30 PM, my neighborhood was “buzzed” by a helicopter. My wife was upstairs and said all the windows were shaking. My son, who was outside, said the chopper was only about 100 feet in the air and was flashing a spotlight on the ground. This is unprecedented where I live. I inquired of the local police, who said they were unaware of any civil helicopter activity in the area.

May 29.  A new post at “Dare to Read It” says Jade Helm strongly relates to China’s demands on America. I cannot vouch for the article’s accuracy, but no one can deny that China is holding a huge amount of U.S. debt, or that it has been purchasing massive quantities of gold. The article claims that, as our gold is now depleted, U.S. lands held as collateral for China will be seized. The exercise’s strange name “Jade Helm” does suggest China is “at the helm.” The article says that in Jade Helm, militias will be tricked into firing on U.S. troops, and the situation will escalate, culminating in martial law and nationwide gun confiscation. Since Jade Helm Special Ops have been instructed to ‘infiltrate” and “blend in” with local populations, I suspect that Timothy-McVeigh types might insinuate themselves into local militias in order to lead them intro traps. The government, “corroborated” by corporate media, would claim that any skirmishes were started by the “paranoid right-wing” militias.

June 3. According to this new post at All News Pipeline, a convoy has been spotted in Colorado carrying large quantities of razor wire, commonly used in fencing to prevent human passage, as in detention camps.

June 4. Two days ago in Boston, an alleged terrorist named Usaamah Rahim was shot dead by the police and FBI after allegedly approaching them with a knife in order to perform an ISIS beheading. I’ve noticed that in all recent attacks (Ottawa, Paris, Copenhagen, Garland, and now Boston), all the alleged terrorists were killed by police. In Garland they were dead within 15 seconds of the incident beginning. Apparently part of the paradigm today is that no patsy survives.

I gather that someone at the top was really ticked off that one of the Tsarnaev brothers lived, necessitating a trial. As rigged as that trial was, the approach now seems to be kill instantly. In the grave, the accused has no chance to present his side of the story.

Are we supposed to believe that, with all the technologies at its disposal today, law enforcement has no means of restraining a terrorist besides killing?  Has “Shoot first and ask questions later” been replaced by “Shoot dead and never ask questions later”?

With ISIS psyops continuing, and chemtrails massively increasing, I suspect the following could be the intended sequence for Jade Helm:

(1) During the exercise, staged ISIS attacks would result in troops being deployed everywhere, similar to what France experienced after Charlie Hebdo. . .

and the lockdown Watertown, Mass., underwent during the Tsarnaev search:

Once this happened across the nation (perhaps with help from foreign NATO troops to counter the “widespread ISIS attacks”), there would then be:

(2) a geo-engineered event, such as an earthquake at the New Madrid fault or at the seething volcano under Yellowstone. With troops already deployed nationwide, it would be comparatively easy for them to enforce massive mandatory evacuations into FEMA camps. Possibly the movie San Andreas, mentioned above, whose release so nearly coincided with the Nepal quakes, is designed to acclimatize American public opinion to the idea that earthquakes are simply, like Caitlyn Jenner, a “new normal” that we should expect.

In short, martial law and population reduction would be achieved through what is called, in boxing, a “one-two punch”: left jab (ISIS), right cross (earthquake).

I hope I am wrong. My intention is not to spread gloom but avert it. Whether Jade Helm leads to a doomsday scenario or not, America needs to awaken to the Luciferian oligarchy running the country, before we are struck by a 9/11 on steroids.

June 5.  Do you recall how last year, Obama strangely sent troops to Africa to fight Ebola, instead of sending doctors? It didn’t occur to me at the time, but apparently this was part of what General Odierno meant by the Army being “in transition” and giving “support to civil authorities in the event of natural disasters.” The troops were sent to enforce quarantine; i.e., impose martial law on citizens.

Also, you may have noticed that President Obama recently drew chuckles around the world by proclaiming climate change as our greatest “national security threat.” On April 7, speaking at Howard University, he said “The Pentagon has already said that climate change is a primary national security threat that we’re going to face, and we are working with the Department of Defense to start preparing for that and mitigating for that.”⁶ Then on May 20, he told the Coast Guard Academy’s graduating class: “I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.”⁷

This isn’t a laughing matter. The President was instructed to make these remarks for a reason. Linkage is distinctly being made between military action and climate change – more “writing on the wall” indicating that martial law will coincide with a geo-engineered event.

Notes

1. George Orwell, 1984 (1949; reprint, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1983), 52.
2. Raymond T. Odierno, “The U.S. Army in a Time of Transition: Building a Flexible Force,” Foreign Affairs (May/June 2012), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2012-05-01/us-army-time-transition.
3. Pierre-Henry Bunel, “The Origins of al-Qaeda,” World Affairs, April-Jun. 2004, as quoted at http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738.
4. William Cohen, Department of Defense Briefing, April 28, 1997, en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Cohen.
5. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1970), 57.
6. “Obama: ‘Climate Change Is a Primary National Security Threat,’” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/obama-climate-change-primary-national-security-threat.
7. “Obama to Coast Guard Grads: Climate Change the Biggest Threat to National Security,”  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/20/obama-to-coast-guard-grads-climate-change-the-biggest-threat-to-national-security/.

DISCLAIMER: I was not in Charleston and did not witness the event. I am not asserting that Dylann Roof did not commit the crime attributed to him. If the tragedy occurred just as the media has said, my heart goes out to the victims’ families, and nothing here is intended to disparage the memory of the dead.

However, those who realize America has long been run by a shadow oligarchy know our country has experienced many false flags. Some have been used to attempt to bring us into wars, such as the sinking of the Maine, the sinking of the Lusitania, the foreknown attack on Pearl Harbor, the artificially contrived Korean War, the Tonkin Gulf-induced Vietnam War, the attack on the USS Liberty, 9/11, and the various pretexts used for multiple Middle Eastern wars that General Wesley Clark says were foretold to him at the Pentagon in 2001. We have also seen false flags used to advance gun control and a domestic police state, as in Oklahoma City, Sandy Hook, and France’s Charlie Hebdo. So we would not be injudicious to examine the Charleston incident closely, and we do find that reasonable questions are being raised. I am especially indebted to Redsilverj, one of YouTube’s top alternative media analysts, for so many insights, several of which I have embedded here. Hats off to you, Redsilverj.

(1) Why do the family members interviewed here show little sorrow and emotion just one day after the incident? I am a Christian, and I understand that forgiveness is inherent to Christ’s teachings. Nevertheless, it is usual even for Christians to go through the normal grieving process. Calmness might occur after the death of a terminally ill loved one, where death had been long anticipated, but not typically in the case of sudden death, especially where one has seen the shock of a parent’s bloodied corpse:

(2) Redsilverj asks: why is this family member repeating the same lines in two different media interviews, as if scripted?

(3) Why is the U.S. government giving $29 million to the families? People die in shootings every day, and the government doesn’t give them a nickel. Some are asking if this could be actor reimbursement:

(4) Why was the church already re-opened for services on Sunday? Isn’t cleanup from a bloody massacre a time-consuming process? And isn’t this a crime scene?

(5) Why was only one person reported wounded? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting How was Dylann Roof able to get nearly a 100 percent kill ratio (similar to Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook). Roof allegedly did this using a single handgun. One must be a good shot to fire lethal shots with a handgun. According to news reports, Roof reloaded five times. One would think some people should have had time to flee.

(6) As with Charlie Hebdo, there are no pictures whatsoever of bodies or carnage. Is this from good taste and respect for the victims, or possibly because the incident differs from what we were told?

(7) Why did the media already have such a detailed profile of Dylann Roof, including sound bites from a relative, just hours after his arrest?

(8) Is it only a coincidence that the Department of Homeland Security had an “Active Shooter Threat Training Program” scheduled for Charleston at the very time of the shooting?

Time and time again we have seen drills and military exercises coinciding with false flag events, including 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing.

(9) Although Roof’s Facebook page has been removed from the Web, why does the Wayback Machine show it was created only days before the shooting? (View from about 1:00 to 2:30 of the video):

(10) Is it possible that Roof, as some believe, is actually John Christian Graas, who was a child actor in the 1990s (Kindergarten Cop; Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman) and who was in the United States Marine Corps in 2010 according to his IMDB biography?

(11) Is it a coincidence that the incident occurred as Jade Helm is getting under way, an event that many believe is intended to transition America into martial law, and which mandates that Special Ops forces infiltrate local communities disguised as civilians? As the May 21 Houston Chronicle reported of Jade Helm: “Among the planned exercises, soldiers will try to operate undetected amongst civilian populations.” Could this possibly be a clue to Dylann Roof’s excellent marksmanship?

(12) Is it only coincidence that “Mother” Emanuel A.M.E. Church has long ties to Freemasonry and that Charleston is an historic center of Freemasonry?

(13) Is it only coincidence that South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union before the Civil War, and thus Charleston symbolizes the Confederate flag now being targeted for banning?

(14) Is it only coincidence that this event distracted public attention from the critical TPP Fast-Track vote occurring in Congress on the same day?

(15) Is the incident actually a psy-op intended to conveniently push several agendas:

• Advance gun control and ultimately repeal of the Second Amendment?
• Generate the racial tensions already fanned by the media-hyped Zimmerman case and the George Soros-funded rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore which followed police shootings of Afro-Americans?
• Shut down Internet sites and freedom of speech, which is being touted as responsible for actions such as Roof’s?
  
• Start reclassifying American citizens as “terrorists” to pave the way for detaining them without trial?
  

• Ban the Confederate flag, degraded in the media as simply racist, but actually a symbol of state resistance to the federal government?
• Enhance the President’s ratings in polls by having him deliver the slain pastor’s eulogy?                                             

UPDATES

June 26. I believe I should keep this post updated. As would be expected, more observations are coming in from alternative media:

–This video points out that Dylann Roof was wearing a bullet-proof vest in the photo of him entering the church. Since such vests are expensive, how did this unemployed kid afford it? Is this another detail suggesting that Roof might be a covert military asset like Timothy McVeigh?

–This blog post reports that Dylann Roof was a gentle Christian and asks if the arrested perp might be a different person:

–A post at Global Research notes that forensic analysis indicates the Apartheid-era patches seen on Roof’s jacket may have been digitally added to the photograph.

June 29.
–If the widespread attack on the Confederate flag is a “spontaneous” response to the Charleston incident, this YouTuber wants to know why “Dukes of Hazzard” toy cars…

.
are already missing the confederate flag:

–Aaron and Melissa Dykes (Truthsteam Media) think the gentle, guns-holstered arrest of Dylann Roof was for the same purpose that Redsilverj believes the cops took Roof to Burger King for lunch: enflame racial tensions with an in-your-face double standard: Afro-American criminals we shoot in the back, but white criminals we take to lunch. This seems like more of the same emotion button-pushing seen in Ferguson and Baltimore, intended to provoke civil disorder and lead ultimately to martial law.

June 30.
–On June 18, the day after the Charleston shootings, Obama privately dined in California with Hollywood moguls Stephen Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Jim Fetzer asks if the government may have employed Hollywood professionals to help stage the incident. Let’s not forget the famous movie Wag the Dog, in which the U.S. President hired Hollywood to create a fake war in Albania to distract public attention from a White House scandal:

July 1.
— I was Joyce Riley’s guest today on the great The Power Hour to discuss Charleston. My appearance was shifted around at the last minute, but we still got it done. The show is archived, with my entering 14 minutes in.

— With all this controversy raging over the Confederate flag, perhaps it’s a good time to revive my tribute to that flag, and what it really meant.  I wrote the song “The Lost Cause,” recorded in 2003 in Salem, Mass. (Leave it to us Yankees to stick up for the South.) The entire album can be heard on this website.

July 2.
–A reader named Debbie emailed me with a good observation. According to mainstream news reports, after police responded to the reported shooting at Emanuel A.M.E. Church, a bomb threat was called in to the church, requiring that the media be cleared away. She notes this could have been done for staging purposes: covering things up, ensuring that actors be put in place, etc.

— Dr. James Tracy published a relevant article by a guest contributor today, “Charleston Church Shooting: The Roving Body of Rev. Clementa Pinckney.”

July 5.
Resilverj has put together a 51-minute video on the Charleston incident that incorporates several of his clips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsA66EtYahg

In our rapidly declining republics, even the elite still have to answer questions once in a while.

All clips are from YouTube, from which they are linked. My profound thanks to all YouTubers who found these and posted them.

Watch as the Federal Reserve’s own Inspector General can’t answer Representative Alan Grayson’s questions about Fed transactions amounting to trillions in unaccounted-for dollars:

Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman of great integrity (which is perhaps why she’s no longer in the House) takes on Rumsfeld and Defense Department officials. (Note General Myers’ remark that the war games occurring on 9/11 “enhanced” the response to the attacks of that day; this seems disingenuous, given that the military failed to stop any of the attacks.)

Grayson confronts Bernanke. “It’s a coincidence!” Classic! I notice that the Fed guys get nervous when they encounter a congressman who really understands money and actually reads the reports.

Correspondent Ken Herman questions Bush on government-created “news” clips:

Grayson (is this guy good or what?) grills Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit on bailout:

Bereaved father Reg Keys shames Tony Blair over the fraudulent Iraq War:

Ron Paul gives Bernanke a lesson on inflation, using a silver dollar:

Student asks John Kerry about his membership in Skull & Bones, then gets tasered (good guys don’t always win, especially unempowered ones):

Grayson questions the Fed’s attorney on stock market manipulation:

Rand Paul makes a point about choices and freedom to Kathleen Hogan of the Department of Energy:

A classic moment from history. Congressman Lawrence McDonald, then the newly appointed head of the John Birch Society, takes on sarcastic questions from Tom Braden (CIA, CFR) about being a “conspiracy” theorist. This 1983 clip from Crossfire, co-hosted by Pat Buchanan, aired shortly before Dr. McDonald was lost on the ill-fated KAL Flight 007:

Grayson again! Questions AIG CEO Edward Liddy on $100 billion loss:

Ron Paul asks Bernanke if gold is money:

Monsanto lobbyist says glyphosate is safe to drink, then refuses to drink it:

I’ve been working on an extensive blog post called “9/11 for Beginners.” Although my 2013 book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior has a long chapter on 9/11, I have not written a blog post on it, because so much good material is already available from other online sources.

However, since fresh insights and information have emerged in recent years, and because we can never really say too much about this devastating crime, I felt I should contribute what I can to the discussion, in hopes of awakening additional people.

In the course of writing, I discovered a single piece of research that is so thorough, objective and edifying that I believe I should devote a post to it. The research is contained in a forum thread called “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls.” The URL is http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls.

The author of this remarkable thread, which might be better termed an essay, is known to me only by his or her forum moniker: loopDloop.

Of course, I can hear someone saying, “Oh, great, James! It’s so academically reassuring to know that your work has, as its chief citation, loopDloop.” I can only suggest that people visit the thread and judge for themselves. The essay, written with extensive documentation over a two-year period (2012 to 2014), punctuated by a few forum comments, runs for seven forum pages. I am going to bullet-point some highlights here, along with my personal thoughts, plus insights from other 9/11 analysts. In the meantime, hats off to you, loopDloop.

Let’s start with the official version of American Airlines Flight 11. This is the flight said to have been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and four other Al Qaeda terrorists, and was the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center (North Tower). Almost all information about what occurred on Flight 11 is based on phone calls from two flight attendants, Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney. The pilots never sent any mayday communications, and like all pilots that day, never punched in the hijack code as they were rigorously trained to do. Also, there were no calls from any Flight 11 passengers. In the official timeline, Flight 11 departed Boston’s Logan Airport, bound for Los Angeles, at 7:59 AM; the transponder was turned off at 8:21; Ong made the first connecting call at 8:21; and the plane crashed at 8:46.

There is no audio of the calls that Sweeney made to American Airlines Flight Services at Logan Airport, although notes were kept. Of Betty Ong’s 25-minute call to American Airlines Reservations, allegedly only an early four minutes were recorded. This is rather incredible, given that it was an emergency call about a hijacking; nonetheless, those four minutes are all the public and even the 9/11 Commission have ever heard. The following clip contains those 4 minutes; Ong speaks with Vanessa Minter, an AA reservationist in Raleigh, North Carolina, to whom the call was randomly routed; as well as AA resolutions agent Winston Sadler and supervisor Nydia Gonzalez.

Let’s now review some of the Flight 11 story’s problems. Nothing in this post is intended to dishonor the dead; rather it is intended to honor them by seeking the truth about their fate.

False flags are often planned to coincide with drills. This occurred with the Boston Marathon bombing (which happened during a bomb drill) and the recent Charleston massacre (which coincided with a DHS “active shooter threat” drill). The reason for coordinating false flags with drills is that if anything goes wrong, and the false flag cannot be carried out, the authorities can attribute any strange events the public witnessed to “a drill.”

Our thesis will be: Ong and Sweeney believed they were participating in a hijacking drill. Those familiar with 9/11’s backstory know that NORAD and the Air Force were engaged in military exercises that day, including simulated hijackings. Information about this can be found abundantly on the Internet.

The “Flight 12” controversy

In the clip, Betty Ong originally says she is on is “Flight 12” and later corrects this to “Flight 11.” Here’s how this has usually been explained: Flight 11 was a regularly scheduled Boston-to-Los Angeles flight; on the return trip to Boston it was known as “Flight 12”; Ong, in her nervousness over the hijacking, simply made a mistake and called it “Flight 12.”

But the situation is more complex.

If you listen to the clip, when Ong speaks at 0:12, there are distinctly two voices saying “Flight 12.” This has been explained away as Ong and Minter speaking at the same time, but it seems hard to believe that they would speak so identically.

Furthermore, if it is really Minter speaking, this means Betty had already identified the flight as “12” to Minter in a previous, unrecorded part of the conversation. That would mean Ong mistakenly identified the Flight as “12” at least twice.

This still might not seem controversial until we turn to Madeline Amy Sweeney. She called American Airlines and reached passenger service agent Evelyn Nunez. According to FBI records, Nunez reported Sweeney said that “Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight attendants stabbed. In addition, there was a passenger in row 9 who had their throat cut by a passenger in seat 10B. Nunez also learned the hijackers said they had a bomb. The flight attendant was talking fast and then got disconnected.”¹

So Sweeney, just like Ong, mis-identified the flight as “12.” When Sweeney called back a second time, she spoke to Flight Services Manager Michael Woodward, who kept notes of the conversation. Here is the first page:

Woodward initially wrote “12,” but corrected it to say “11.” Apparently Sweeney once again mis-identified the flight as “12.” What are the chances of both flight attendants making this mistake twice?

Allow me to suggest that Ong and Sweeney were following the script of a hijacking drill, but the scriptwriter had mistakenly labeled the flight “12,” the Los Angeles-to-Boston run. In the course of communications, Ong and Sweeney spoke to whoever was directing them, and corrected this error.

Did I say “scriptwriter”?” Look at the official version Flight 11’s seating:

Although a strong case has been made that there were no Muslim terrorists at all on the 9/11 flights, look who’s beside “Mohamed Atta” in row 8. It’s Emmy Award-winning screenwriter David Angell and his wife Lynn. Angell was co-creator of the hit TV series Frasier and Wings (about a Massachusetts-based airline). Seated directly behind them in row 9 is Daniel Lewin, a former captain in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), and who served in the Sayeret Matkal, which specializes in counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, and assassination. It was said that Lewin could bench-press 315 pounds and “was trained to kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands.”²

Let’s just say, “the plot thickens.”

The Mystery of Gate 32

One of the lesser-known controversies surrounding Flight 11 is that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has no record of its departing that morning, as the Bureau should. Such data is automatically recorded electronically when a flight takes off. There is debate about the significance of this, and I have no settled opinion, but those who wish to learn more can consult Peter Meyer’s article. I wouldn’t say Flight 11 “did not exist”; there is certainly a record of flight-control conversation with the departing pilot, as well as radar records. But was the plane what we’ve been told?

Deepening the controversy is that mainstream media accounts give two different gates as Flight 11’s departure point: 32 and 26. In early accounts, The Boston Globe, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, and other publications said Gate 26. However, Gate 32 was the scheduled gate, the flight controller transcript said Gate 32, and that is what the 9/11 Commission accepted.

Adding fuel to the mystery is a detail noticed by loopDloop. Flight attendant Sweeney, in her first aborted call, had said “Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight attendants stabbed.” This confusing message prompted Michael Woodward and his colleague Elizabeth Williams to proceed directly to Gate 32. According to the FBI’s interview of Williams:

WILLIAMS stated on September 11, 2001, at approximately 8 a.m., she was working in her office at LOGAN AIRPORT when MICHAEL WOODWARD, Manager of Flight Services for AMERICAN AIRLINES AA, advised her that they needed to go to Gate 32 because two flight attendants had been stabbed. Upon arrival at the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane. WOODWARD then got on the phone and contacted EVELYN NUNEZ, an employee of AA at LOGAN AIRPORT. While WOODWARD was on the phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32.³

Although Woodward never mentioned it, Williams candidly said an empty plane was at Gate 32. Had another aircraft really pulled into the gate and emptied itself of persons in the half hour since Flight 11 departed? What seems more likely: the plane never left. This would resolve why the BTS data base has no record of Flight 11 ever taking off. Did a “ringer” plane, perhaps with no passengers aboard, depart Gate 26? I’d like to quote loopDloop at this point:

Here’s a possible scenario: the doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains to the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac. They are taken somewhere. . . Sweeney and Ong are selected, and convinced, to play roles within the simulation, pretending to phone in the details of the imaginary hijacking. It is impressed upon them that they must not give the game away. Betty Ong does pretty well, but in the end, there is really only four minutes near the beginning of the call which could conceivably ever be released into the public domain, so they make up the story about the four minutes of recording. . . Amy Sweeney’s first call is a complete botch up, and the controllers have to pull the plug on the connection after about a minute, because she is taking too much creative license with the script. They give her a quick pep talk, and then she reconnects for the second phone call . . . .

More Problems with Ong’s Call

For convenience, I’m re-embedding it here:

— At 0:15 you will hear the people in Raleigh ask Betty what seat she is in. She avoids the question. She is asked four times before responding that she’s in her jump seat. The question’s answer had obviously not been in the drill script and had to be improvised.

And “jump seat 3R,” an attendant seat at the plane’s rear, doesn’t pass muster. A jump seat has no airphone by which to make an outside call. Betty would have been facing the last row of passenger seats, which have no airphones behind their backrests. This seemingly reduces her options to a cell phone. It is generally conceded that, in the technology existing in 2001, connecting a cell phone call in an airliner at high speeds and altitude was very difficult, though not impossible. It stretches credibility that Betty maintained a cell connection for 25 minutes without once getting “dropped.”

By tracing Flight 11’s airphone records, LoopDloop makes a strong case that Betty was wearing a headset plugged into a Claircomm box (Claircomm was the company that supplied AA with its airphone equipment). LoopDloop’s explanation is a bit long to repeat here, but may be found in the first two posts of his outstanding thread.

— Although it’s not heard in the available audio, according to the FBI transcript of Ong’s call, she said a hijacker “stood upstairs.”⁴ Former flight attendant Rebekah Roth, author of the bestselling 9/11 novel Methodical Illusion, has picked up on this important discrepancy. Flight 11 was a Boeing 767. Although Boeing 747s have stairs, Boeing 767s do not. Here are the stairs of a 747:

The “scriptwriter” for Flight 11’s drill had evidently traveled on 747s and had these in mind. Small wonder that Ong’s description of the hijacker being on the stairs was deleted from the audio made publicly available.

— The FBI reports also reveal that Winston Sadler (who can be heard in the Ong call’s audio) said “Ong also stated that she did not believe that the coach passengers were aware of the hijacking.”⁵ Likewise, just some three minutes before the North Tower’s explosion, supervisor Nydia Gonzalez, who can also be heard in the Ong clip, said in her own recorded conversation: “Okay. It seems like the passengers in coach might not be aware of what’s going on right now.”⁶

This seems unbelievable. According to the Sweeney and Ong calls, three people had been stabbed: two flight attendants (one requiring oxygen) as well as the passenger in 9B (fatally). There would have been great commotion and shouting. Ong further stated: “We can’t breathe in business class, so somebody’s got mace or something. . . . we can’t even get up to business class right now, cause no one can breathe.”⁷

Let’s think this through. If it was “impossible to breathe” in business class, the business class passengers would have retreated to the plane’s rear to breathe better (as well as escape the bloody violence they were witnessing). The coach passengers would surely have asked what was happening; the retreating business class passengers would surely have told them. Yet no passenger shrieks are heard during Ong’s call. Nor is there any record of any of the 81 passengers attempting to place phone calls (unlike other 9/11 flights).

And as airline professional Roth points out, if mace had made the business class air unbreathable, in a pressurized cabin the mace would drift into coach. But you never hear Ong coughing.

— Finally, why in the world did Ong place her call to American Airlines reservations? Not only was this contrary to hijacking protocols, reservations is the last place you’d want to call for an emergency, because of the long hold times typically experienced there.

Additional Problems of the Sweeney Call

— Let’s recall that after Madeline Amy Sweeney’s first (disconnected) call, Michael Woodward and Elizabeth Williams proceeded to Gate 32 and found an empty plane. While they were gone, Sweeney again called Flight Services, and reached Jim Sayer (name redacted in the FBI Reports, but deduced to be Sayer in loopDloop’s analysis⁸). According to the FBI’s interview with him, Sweeney said “they were in the air over New York City.”⁹ The call was quickly taken over by Woodward when he returned to the office. In the timeline established by loopDloop, this could not have been later than 8:34 AM. As he notes, “They weren’t anywhere near New York City when Amy claimed to be in the air, above it.”¹⁰

— In the FBI report, Sayer stated that Sweeney said “A doctor and a nurse, on board the plane, were caring for the injured man [Lewin, the passenger in 9B].”¹¹ Yet according to supervisor Nydia Gonzalez, Ong said no doctor was on board,¹² which the passenger manifest confirmed.

What was the purpose of the flight attendants calls? The same as all the 9/11 calls: to provide the government with the narrative required to begin the never-ending “War on Terror.” Since none of the four planes had any survivors to describe what happened, reconstruction of events, proving a hijacking by men who looked “Middle Eastern,” was based entirely on the calls. In Flight 11’s case, Ong and Sweeney reported the hijackers’ seat numbers. Although the numbers they gave were sometimes contradictory, it was enough for the government to match those passengers to people on its terrorist watch, as well as a list of names found in Mohammed Atta’s luggage, which conveniently didn’t make it onto Flight 11. Of course, 9/11 Truthers have always asked why Atta would bother bringing luggage for a trip on which he planned to commit suicide.

LoopDloop has a good insight into why the script had Israeli Special Op Daniel Lewin getting killed. Naturally people would have asked why this veteran anti-terrorism expert, who could “kill a terrorist with a pen or credit card,” didn’t lead a recapture of the cockpit. So the narrative transformed him from handler to heroic victim – one more feather in the Zionist cap, Lewin being just one of many Zionists linked to 9/11.

Sara Low’s Calls

A little-known Flight 11 fact is that a third attendant, Sara Low, also made four attempted airphone calls. All these calls failed to connect; they were made to the number of a childhood home she hadn’t lived in for ten years. This has been attributed to Low not being able to remember her current home phone number due to stress from the hijacking. However, loopDloop, with his usual excellent detective work, has established that Low’s current home number would have been on the ATT Phone Card she was using to bill the calls.¹³ His deduction: Low was being instructed to call home to describe the “hijacking.” But Low, sensing something very wrong with the “drill,” refused to disturb her family, and kept dialing the number of her childhood home, which she knew was defunct.

If this was a real hijacking, it seems unreal that three flight attendants would keep making calls. The cabin crew was by now seriously undermanned. Two of their fellow attendants had allegedly been stabbed and would have needed help; a passenger had had his throat cut; the pilots were never mentioned, but by default would probably have been dead or wounded. Panicking passengers would have needed reassurance. Yet somehow Betty Ong was able to stay on the phone 25 minutes, and Sweeney likewise spent extensive time on the phone.

Never did the ladies request help. The calls’ sole purpose seems to have been to document what occurred. Ong’s calm demeanor has been attributed to professionalism; her voice reveals little anxiety despite fellow crew members being stabbed and the cockpit being controlled by murderous hijackers. It is no slur on Ong’s professionalism to ask: Was she this calm because she thought “it’s only a drill”?

American Airlines’ Restrained Response

When the hijacking became known about, a remarkable number of American Airlines employees were told to “keep quiet,” “don’t spread it around,” “don’t mention it,” etc. Although one could put a sinister spin on this, it may indicate that some suspected they were only dealing with a drill/exercise. For a full review of AA’s muzzling of the hijacking news, I recommend the article “’Don’t Mention This to Anyone’: Why Did American Airlines Suppress News of the First Hijacking on 9/11?” at 9/11 Blogger.

The FBI Arrives a Little Early

When Betty Ong made her call, it was answered by reservationist Vanessa Minter, who states that the FBI arrived about five minutes later and took her off the phone. Watch starting at the 2-minute mark of this interview (I can’t embed this clip, so click on the link):

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/10111135/

Since Ong’s call was the first alarm that Flight 11 was hijacked, one wonders how the FBI was able to respond so quickly, even allowing for some exaggeration by Minter. As loopDloop notes, it “makes no sense. Unless they were monitoring the whole thing from the beginning, and realised that Minter was making a hash of the whole thing and had to be whisked out of the frontline as quick as possible.”¹⁴

The FBI Arrives a Little Late

And who was American Airlines’ Managing Director of Corporate Security on 9/11? Larry “Mandrake” Wansley, a veteran deep undercover FBI agent, co-author of the book FBI Undercover: The True Story of Special Agent Mandrake.

In a 2002 article in the Dallas Observer, Wansley’s FBI Undercover co-author Carlton Stowers wrote:

It began as a bright, promising September morning on the sixth floor of the Dallas-based American Airlines headquarters. Staff members were sipping coffee and mingling as they anticipated the morning’s operational meeting. . . . Larry Wansley, managing director of corporate security, had arrived early, pleased that on that day he would not be jetting off to San Francisco or London or Rome to address some new crisis. . . . At 7:45 a.m [Central], however, the leisurely atmosphere changed dramatically. From the airline’s nearby command center came an urgent call. American Flight 11, carrying 92 passengers from Boston’s Logan Airport, Wansley was told, had been hijacked. Betty Ong, a 45-year-old flight attendant on board, had managed to phone her company supervisor, reporting at least three hijackers with weapons and several passengers injured. From the vice chairman’s office, Wansley phoned Danny Defenbaugh, special agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office. It was the first step in the well-researched, secret hijack-response plan all commercial airlines have in place.¹⁵

Defenbaugh, we’ll note, had been in charge of the FBI’s investigation of the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing, recognized in alternative media as a false flag. Here’s how Wansley explained things to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:

On 9-11 Wansley was walking into Baker’s office for the morning phone call (7:45am) and the secretary told Wansley that “we have a hijacking.” He called the SOC but they didn’t have much information. Wansley then called Danny Defenbaugh who was the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Dallas Field Office. Wansley informed Defenbaugh about the hijacking with the little information that he had which was that Flight 11 had been hijacked. Defenbaugh did not know anything about it. Defenbaugh told Wansley to hold and got a couple of other people together which Wansley said “started the ball rolling.” ¹⁶

So according to Wansley, his FBI colleagues had no clue about the hijacking at 8:45 AM Eastern. What a contrast to the statement of Vanessa Minter, who received Betty Ong’s call at 8:20, and said FBI agents took her off the call just five minutes later.

Flight 11 and the North Tower: Exclusive Coverage

President George W. Bush has long been ridiculed for saying he saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center on live TV. But some wonder if this slip means he had a private showing:

This seems reinforced by a similar slip in Stowers’ article on Wansley:

As he began relaying the information, Wansley heard a sudden chorus of muted screams from an adjacent conference room. Several female employees, eyes fixed on a television, had just watched a plane fly into the North Tower of New York’s World Trade Center.

Phone still in hand, the security director emerged in time to see a cloud of black smoke billowing from the building. In downtown Dallas, Defenbaugh’s secretary had entered his office and turned on his TV. “Did you see that?” the FBI agent asked Wansley.

Neither, however, connected the gruesome images they were watching with their own immediate concern. The initial television reports were suggesting that it had been a small, private plane that had flown into the Trade Center. What they had to focus on was how to deal with American’s hijacked Boeing 767. Someone else, they agreed, would have to deal with New York’s problems.

Then, in a mind-numbing moment as the two longtime friends continued discussing plans, a second plane appeared on their respective TV screens, banking sharply as it headed directly for the South Tower. “Oh, my God,” Wansley said.¹⁷

Were both Bush and this writer making silly mistakes? Perhaps. But if 9/11 was an inside job, it makes sense that the orchestrators had a private live-camera view to ensure everything was going as planned.

Spinning through Splicing

Credit goes to loopDloop, not only for spotting the above Stower article on Wansley, but for discovering that two different versions exist of Betty Ong’s taped call – one generated on 9/11 and one on 9/12. The changes occurred immediately following Wansley’s interview of supervisor Nydia Gonzalez, which can be seen in the opening pages of the FBI’s documents on Flight 11. Gonzalez plays the tape for Wansley. Not only does it differ in minor respects from the tape we hear today, but in the original Ong repeated some of the exact same phrases over as though she was on a loop, strongly suggesting that rehearsed lines were being repeated. The clip we hear on YouTube is highly edited.

What Did Happen to the People on Flight 11?

Regrettably, loopDloop’s posts on his two-year thread stopped in 2014, just when he had indicated he was going to address this question. I would rather defer to his consistently good insights, but in his absence, I’ll take my best shot, acknowledging that most of what I say is speculation and most certainly may be wrong.

Let’s pick it up from loopDloop’s original proposal:

The doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains to the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac.

I suggest that something like the above did happen. Flight 11’s crew may have moved to a specially prepared plane with handlers on board, at Gate 26. The passengers were told they weren’t needed for the exercise, and that they and their luggage would be moved to United Flight 175, which would be shortly departing for the same destination as Flight 11: Los Angeles. In this way, they were told, they would lose no time. Flight 175, another Boeing 767, had only 56 passengers, and could easily have accommodated Flight 11’s passengers. (Of course, Flight 175 was the plane alleged to have struck the second tower.)

Alternatively, if the BTS reports, Gate 26 reports, and Gate 32 “empty plane” report are all wrong, perhaps only the passengers disembarked, and the original plane did depart Gate 32 with crew and handlers aboard.

In either case, a plane took off as “Flight 11,” turned off its transponder at 8:21, while “Mohamed Atta” spoke threateningly in the cockpit for the benefit of flight controllers back in Boston. Ong and Sweeney played their parts, guided by cue cards. Sara Low smelled something wrong and wouldn’t play ball. In the meantime, at 8:14 Flight 175 had departed Logan.

This post is about Flight 11. However, because I believe its passengers likely boarded United 175, I will discuss both planes in the ensuing remarks. There are many theories about what happened; since speculation is shaky ground for investigation, I’d like to restrict myself to some established facts.

Fact Number 1. In 1962, the U.S Joint Chiefs of staff developed a never-implemented plan called Operation Northwoods to stage “false flags” in order to justify invading Cuba. In addition to hijackings, the plan included swapping a drone mid-air for a passenger plane; the drone would be destroyed by radio signal, but the public would hear that Cuba had shot down the actual passenger plane. We’ll quote the original declassified document; a PDF can be read here.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

Fact Number 2. One of 9/11’s remarkable details, acknowledged even in the official account, is that Flights 11 and 175 came close to colliding. See, for example, this article from USA Today. It occurred when they crossed paths very close to Stewart International Airport, which Wikipedia describes as a “public/military airport.” Further, Wikipedia notes, “In 2000 the airport became the first U.S. commercial airport privatized when United Kingdom-based National Express Group was awarded a 99-year lease on the airport.”

Flight 11 took a circuitous route, almost as if waiting for 175 to catch up. Here is an excerpt from a Pilots for 9/11 Truth documentary proposing that the 9/11 planes may have been swapped for drones in an updated version of Operation Northwoods:

With transponders off, detection of the planes was primarily from radar, which could have been more easily tricked by a swap. (Some have suggested that missiles instead of drones may have been launched.)

Fact Number 3. Flights 175 and 93 – which, of the four 9/11 flights, were the only two that officially took off according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics records – were not de-registered as planes until four years later. As Greg Syzmanski notes:

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never “deregistered” and remained on the “active” flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to “deregister” the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.¹⁸

Fact Number 4. Affirming the above, Pilots for 9/11 Truth made a significant discovery through the Freedom of Information Act. Airborne planes receive regular messages, similar to text messages, via the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). It is possible to track a plane by checking which ACARS stations it received messages from. Twenty minutes after it allegedly crashed into the South Tower, Flight 175 was still receiving messages from ACARS, proving that it was heading west over western Pennsylvania. (ACARS also demonstrates that Flight 93, the “Let’s Roll” flight, was heading west over Illinois well after it supposedly burrowed into the hole in Shanksville leaving only tiny bits of debris.) A detailed discussion of what ACARS proves is in this two-part article by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Some who are less familiar with the 9/11 Truth Movement may ask: Am I really saying 175 didn’t hit the South Tower as claimed? Yes. Some of the best evidence you’ll find is in this affidavit by John Lear, son of Learjet inventor Bill Lear, and one of America’s most expert pilots. Besides the impossibility of a Boeing 767 sustaining a speed of 540 mph at an altitude of 1,000 feet, Lear presents many other facts that demolish the 9/11 story.

Let Pilots for 9/11 Truth show you why poorly trained hijackers couldn’t have hit the World Trade Center at the claimed speeds, a feat which, as you will see, seasoned Boeing pilots couldn’t achieve on a flight simulator:

Finally, first watch this CNN clip of Flight 175 striking the South Tower:

Then watch this breakdown of the video by Ramon Dockins:

A plane’s aluminum wings and tail could not sail through steel, no matter how fast they were going. This type of phenomenon happens only in Looney Tunes cartoons. As Russian analyst Dimitri Khalezov has pointed out, during World War II the front armor of a Soviet T-34 tank was impervious to explosive enemy shells traveling far faster than the speed of sound, even though the steel armor was much thinner than the World Trade Center’s steel girders. If aluminum could pierce steel, we’d be using it to manufacture artillery shells.

I have an opinion about what people really saw hit the Towers, but we’ll stay on course. There’s so much more we could say about the Towers (e.g., how they collapsed) and 9/11, but right now let’s ask: What really happened to Flights 175 and 11?

Conclusion

If 175 never hit the North Tower, was still airborne 20 minutes later, and not de-registered for four years, it almost certainly must have been landed somewhere.

One possibility is Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, which was evacuated on the morning of 9/11 because a plane was ordered to land there which was suspected (falsely) of having terrorists and a bomb on board. This was Delta Flight 1989, another Boeing 767 en route from Boston to LA. It landed in Cleveland; its passengers remained on board for well over two hours before being uneventfully interviewed by the FBI at FAA headquarters.

In the meantime, however, a second large plane touched down on a runway far from Delta 1989. While the Delta passengers still waited, some 200 passengers were reportedly brought from this second plane to the airport’s NASA Glenn Research Facility, which had been evacuated earlier. This second aircraft has been called Cleveland’s “mystery plane,” and there is speculation that it could have been United 175. Adding some credibility to this is ACARS putting 175 over western Pennsylvania headed for Ohio. Subsequently a NASA Glenn spokesman told a Cleveland Free Times writer that the aircraft had been a NASA plane carrying visiting scientists, who were bussed to local hotels. It remains a point of controversy. (Those who wish more information may consult the article “The Cleveland Airport Mystery” with an update here.)

In its own playbook, Operation Northwoods had called for the swapped plane to land at an Air Force base and there evacuate passengers. I think this is a reasonable scenario for all of the 9/11 planes, because of the tighter security and secrecy that military installations maintain. With all the war games going on that day, confusion initially reigned at NORAD, and one can see how the planes could have landed undetected. Covert landings might also have been facilitated by the absence of the numerous warplane crews engaging in the exercises.

While the locations remain a guarded secret, I feel confident in saying landings did occur.

Which leaves a final question: What happened to the passengers after landing? There are two schools of thought: (1) they were exterminated; (2) they had been hired to take part in the plot, were paid handsomely, and were then “disappeared” under new identities.

The latter view has gained support in more recent years due to heightened awareness of the use of crisis actors in false flags, as well as the low number of passengers that turned up on the Social Security Death Index and the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. It also more closely corresponds to the plan laid out in Operation Northwoods.

However, I am skeptical that the Illuminists could have found that many people, including complete crews of pilots and flight attendants, who would agree to assist in 9/11’s mass murder for the right price; or that they would risk having someone with second thoughts come forward, “resurrected,” and expose the plot. Those who planned 9/11’s slaughter wouldn’t have hesitated to extend the carnage to unwitting helpers who thought they were only participating in a drill.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. In a plot of this caliber, wouldn’t a few accomplices be in the passenger mix? Daniel Lewin and Barbara Olson come to mind. Perhaps when the passengers disembarked, they were separated into two groups, in a black reversal of the “sheep and goats” which Jesus Christ described in Matthew 25. I believe Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney were among the innocent.

NOTES

1. “T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 57, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
2. Paul Sperry, “Lewin: Flight 11’s Unsung Hero?” WorldNetDaily, http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13281/.
3. T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 40, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
4. Ibid., p. 3.
5. Ibid., p. 42.
6. “9/11 Passenger Phone Calls,” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls.
7. “T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 12, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
8. “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls,” loopDloop post of March 2, 2012, http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls
9. “T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 28, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
10. “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls,” loopDloop post of March 2, 2012, http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls.
11. Ibid., post of August 2, 2012.
12. “9/11 Passenger Phone Calls,” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls.
13. “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls,” posts of July 29, July 30, and August 30, 2014, http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls.
14. Ibid., post of August 2, 2012.
15. Carlton Stowers, “Rough Skies,” Dallas Observer, November 21, 2002, http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/rough-skies-6392004.
16. “Memorandum for the Record, Interview, Mr. Larry Wansley, Director of Security, American Airlines,” January 8, 2004, p. 4, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00012.pdf.
17. Stowers.
18. Greg Syzmanski, “Are Both Jetliners Still Flying in United’s ‘Friendly Skies’?” http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm.