Chapter 9
The Cold War
We are much beholden to Machiavelli and other writers of that
class, who openly and unfeignedly declare or describe what men do,
and not what they ought to do. For it is not possible to join the
wisdom of the serpent with the innocence of the dove, except men be
perfectly acquainted with the nature of evil itself; for without
this, virtue is open and unfenced; nay, a virtuous and honest man
can do no good upon those that are wicked, to correct and reclaim
them, without first exploring all the depths and recesses of their
malice.-Francis Bacon
Political treachery took on a new meaning in Western civilization
as the Cold War took hold of our civilization. We need to look into
the background of this confrontation to see clearly the problem it
represented. We must remember that the horror of World War II
together with the shadow of nuclear holocaust provided the ideal
soil of fear and terror that spawns such a mindset as was required
for the Cold War.
The opposing ideologies of communism/socialism and capitalism
would ensure that the war would rage for more than four decades. On
the one hand, we see the Marxist inspired-communist and socialist
mindset; on the other hand we see the capitalist-inspired Industrial
Military Complex of the West. Each side of this ideological war was
determined to become victorious. The communists had an extra weapon
— the socialists who were busy undermining Western democracy. This
treachery, more than anything else, was responsible for the Cold
War's protraction until the end of the 1980s.
Under the guise of "national security," both sides were able to
introduce all manner of malice and deceit against unsuspecting and
innocent citizens. The old adage "power corrupts and total power
corrupts totally" would become internationally recognized. This
period of political and social treachery will be recorded in our
planet's history as the most idiotic and despicable. The irony is
that the masses of our planet remained totally ignorant of the
hijacking of long-held and treasured foundations of civilization —
liberty and virtues. The mind-controlling elements of the mass media
set out and achieved a dumbing-down of the masses, using the newly
acquired technologies of indoctrination through brainwashing. The
electronic media played a major role in this mass brainwashing
exercise.
In 1946, Sir Winston Churchill gave an address on foreign affairs
at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. In it he uttered this
ominous sentence: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the
Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent [of
Europe].” This marked the beginning of the Cold War. The term refers
to the strategic and political struggle that developed after World
War II between the United States and its Western European allies, on
one hand, and the USSR and Communist countries, on the other. The
expression was coined by the American journalist Herbert Bayard
Swope in a 1947 speech he wrote for financier Bernard Baruch. It may
be defined as a condition of competition, tension, and conflict
short of actual war.
Churchill’s words referred to the fact that the Soviet Union,
from 1945 to 1948, strengthened its hold on Poland, Hungary,
Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. But the Cold
War was marked by other effects: the policies surrounding the two
superpowers' possession of nuclear weapons; the attempt to establish
spheres of interest and alliances with other nations; the division
of Europe into two military alliances, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact; attempts to start or
prevent revolution in smaller nations; and several less-than-total
confrontations between the superpowers such as the Berlin Blockade
of 1948 to 1949 and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The most
potent visible symbol of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War was the
Berlin Wall, a barricade begun in 1961 to discourage defections from
the East to West Germany.
The American response to the perceived Soviet threat of world
domination has varied since 1946. In the beginning, U.S. policy was
one of “containment,” first stated by U.S. diplomat and Soviet
expert George F. Kennan in a 1947 article in Foreign Affairs
entitled “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.”
Under President John F. Kennedy, American policy began to shift
toward negotiations on arms control and reduction of nuclear
stockpiles. But great increases in military spending by the United
States during the Ronald Reagan administration worked to the
disadvantage of the Soviet Union. With the Soviet economy in deep
trouble, it was no longer possible to keep up with American defense
expenditures.
The Cold War initially centered on the use of USSR military
forces to install Communist governments in Eastern Europe. These
Soviet actions ran counter to the U.S. government’s insistence upon
the right of self-determination for the peoples of Eastern Europe
and raised fears that the USSR, after gaining control of Eastern
Europe, would try to communize Western Europe. The USSR had suffered
enormous losses in the war against Nazi Germany and looked upon
Eastern Europe as a bulwark against another invasion from the West.
The Soviet leaders considered U.S. objections to Soviet actions in
Poland, Hungary, and Romania as a betrayal of wartime understandings
about spheres of influence in Europe. Thus, they placed Eastern
Europe behind a military and political barrier known in the West as
the Iron Curtain.
Political differences were exacerbated by ideological conflict.
The Marxist-Leninist Soviet leaders believed that capitalism would
inevitably seek the destruction of the Soviet system. In the United
States, a long-standing suspicion and dislike of communism
strengthened the view that the USSR was intent on expansion and
world conquest.
Meanwhile, competition began for control of Germany and other
strategic points such as the Dardanelles, the straits linking the
Black Sea with the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Soviet pressures on
Greece and Turkey led President Harry Truman to declare in March
1947 that the United States would give economic and military aid to
those countries and would also “support free peoples who are
resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside
pressures.” The announcement in June 1947 of the U.S. Marshall Plan
to restore the faltering economies of Western Europe — including
that of West Germany — prompted a series of ripostes from the
Kremlin.
In February 1948, the democratic government of Czechoslovakia was
overturned by a Communist coup. In May 1948, Soviet authorities
severed all Western land-access routes to Berlin. Only the success
of air cargo planes in supplying West Berlin, isolated within the
Soviet zone of occupation that later became East Germany, permitted
the United States to resist the Soviet pressure.
In 1949, the Western powers entered into a military agreement
that led to the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), designed to establish a military counterweight to the Soviet
forces in Europe. Meanwhile, in China, a long civil war ended with
the victory of Communist forces under Mao Tse-tung in 1949.
The first phase of the Cold War culminated in the North Korean
invasion of South Korea on June 26, 1950, resulting in U.S.
involvement in a land war in Asia. The initial reverses of the
Western forces, the subsequent introduction of Chinese troops into
the conflict on the side of North Korea, and the inability of the
Truman administration to bring the war to an end froze American
public opinion in a state of hostility that made normal relations
with any communist government impossible.
To meet these challenges, each side fashioned a strategy. As
stated above, the U.S. strategy was called “containment,” a term
coined by George Kennan. He argued that Soviet expansionism might be
contained by a strategy of responding to Soviet pressures and probes
wherever they occurred. Kennan’s thesis was strongly supported by
Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who called for increased military
power for NATO. This policy appeared to the USSR as one more Western
effort to isolate and undermine the Soviet system. The Kremlin
adopted a strategy of retaliation against U.S. containment.
During the 1950s, Washington’s policy was shaped by the more
militant John Foster Dulles. The United States sought to anticipate
and prevent further Communist gains by maintaining overwhelming
military superiority, by forming new alliances in Asia (the
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) and in the Middle East (the
Central Treaty Organization), and by extending economic and military
assistance to any country thought to be in danger of attack or
subversion by Communist forces.
Relations between the two powers improved somewhat following the
death of Joseph Stalin in 1953. The wars in Korea and French
Indochina were brought to an end, and the first postwar summit
meeting of Soviet and Western leaders was held in Geneva in July
1955. But no more than a surface thaw was achieved.
After the consolidation of power by Nikita Khrushchev in 1956,
the USSR embarked on two new strategies. The first involved economic
and military competition with the United States for influence with
Arab and Third World countries such as Ghana, Egypt, India, and
Indonesia. This strategy evolved into Soviet support for colonial
revolutions, or “wars of national liberation,” and for left-wing
governments in Guatemala and Cuba.
The second strategy, based upon Soviet development of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, was to divide the Western
powers by renewing Soviet pressure to eject the West from Berlin. In
1955, the Warsaw Treaty Organization was established as a response
to the rearming of West Germany. A new round of Soviet-American
confrontations ensued, all the riskier because now both sides
possessed nuclear weapons. The risks were underscored by the Berlin
crisis of 1961 and by the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
The conclusion of World War II had ended the drive by Germany,
Italy, and Japan for world domination; but the seed of smaller
conflicts had already been planted. Even as Japan was evacuating
Southeast Asia, Vietnam, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, was
planning to get rid of French colonialism for good. Vietnam’s effort
resulted in a long war, a conflict that ended in 1975 with a
communist victory. Instead of rebuilding the region, however, the
victors went on to fight among themselves and to leave Vietnam,
Cambodia, and Laos in desolation.
McCarthyism
Taking advantage of public frustration with reverses in the Cold
War, U.S. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (1908-1957) launched a campaign
to expose alleged communists in the State Department in 1950. Early
in his second term, McCarthy became chairman of the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. This gave him the platform he needed
to conduct wide-ranging investigations into alleged communist
influence in government.
McCarthy contributed to the anti-communist hysteria of the early
1950s with wide-ranging accusations and sensational tactics. He
attacked alleged communist subversion within the administrations of
Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. His activities
gave rise to the term "McCarthyism," referring to the use of
sensational and highly publicized personal attacks, usually based on
unsubstantiated charges, as a means of discrediting people thought
to be subversive. The term will probably long endure as a synonym
for “witch-hunt,” for making serious but unsubstantiated charges
against people in public life.
At first an undistinguished legislator, McCarthy captured
national attention in February 1950 by arguing that the State
Department was riddled with card-carrying members of the communist
party. Shrewd at public relations and media manipulation, McCarthy
moved from one charge to another, subjugating his opponents and
evading demands for tangible proof as he developed a large and loyal
following. Encouraged by many Republicans, he accused the Franklin
D. Roosevelt and Truman administrations of "twenty years of
treason."
Re-elected in 1952, McCarthy leveled similar charges at members
of the Eisenhower administration from his new post as head of the
Senate’s Government Operations Committee and its permanent
investigations subcommittee.
McCarthy’s undoing began in 1954, when he conducted thirty-six
days of nationally televised hearings investigating the U.S. Army.
For the first time, the whole American public was able to watch him
work. By this time he had already broken with many members of his
own party. (He included President Dwight D. Eisenhower on his list
of “traitors.”) In 1954, after the mid-term elections, he was
removed as chairman of the subcommittee. On December 2, he was
censured by the Senate on a vote of 67 to 22, and his popularity
rapidly declined.
In the late 1950s, a group of graduate students at the University
of Chicago wanted to have a coffee-vending machine installed outside
the Physics Department for the convenience of people who worked
there late at night. They circulated a petition, but their
colleagues refused to sign. They did not want to be associated with
the allegedly radical students whose names were already on the
document.
This incident is a prime example of the kind of timidity that
came to be seen, even at the time, as the most damaging consequence
of the anticommunist furor. Since political activities could get you
in trouble, cautious people avoided them. Instead, disheartening as
it was to intellectuals, middle-class Americans embraced social
conformity. A silent generation of students populated the nation’s
campuses, while their professors avoided teaching anything that
might be construed as controversial. Meaningful political dissent
had all but withered away.
Was McCarthyism at fault? Certainly the congressional hearings
and blacklists impacted many lives, but beyond that, it is difficult
to tell. The statistics are imprecise. As many as ten thousand
people may have lost their jobs. Should this be seen as a lot or not
that many? Earlier historians’ analyses of sanctions point
toward “the apparently low number of whippings administered under
slavery," showing that it may not be necessary to whip many slaves
to keep the rest of the plantation in line.
In addition to quantifying the situation, it may be helpful to
look at the specific portions of American society affected by
McCarthyism. This may afford some understanding of the extent of the
damage and ways in which the anti-communist crusade influenced
American society, politics, and culture. We should keep in mind,
however, that the main impact may well be in what did not
happen rather than in what did — the social reforms that were never
implemented, the diplomatic initiatives that were never taken, the
workers who were never organized into unions, the books that were
never written, and the movies that were never made.
In the U.S., the Communist Party dwindled into insignificance and
all the organizations associated with it disappeared. With their
collapse, the nation lost the institutional network that had created
a public space where serious alternatives to the status quo could be
presented. Moreover, with the disappearance of a vigorous movement
on the left, moderate reform groups were more exposed to right-wing
attacks and thus were less effective.
In the realm of social policy, McCarthyism may have nullified
much-needed reforms. As the nation’s politics swung to the right
after World War II, the federal government cast aside the unfinished
agenda of the New Deal. In many cases, popular social reform simply
fell by the wayside. The left-liberal political coalition that might
have supported health reforms and similar projects was torn apart by
the anticommunist crusade. Moderates feared being identified with
anything that seemed too radical, and people to the left of them
were either unheard or under attack. McCarthyism further contributed
to the attenuation of the reform impulse by diverting the attention
of the labor movement, the strongest institution within the
left-liberal coalition, from external organizing to internal
politicking.
The impact of the McCarthy era was equally apparent in the realm
of international affairs. Opposition to the Cold War had been so
thoroughly identified with communism that it was no longer possible
to challenge the basic assumptions of American foreign policy
without incurring suspicions of disloyalty. As a result, from the
defeat of Henry Wallace in the fall of 1948 until the early 1960s,
effective public criticism of America’s role in the world was
essentially nonexistent.
The insecurities bred by McCarthyism afflicted the State
Department for years, especially with regard to East Asia. Thus, for
example, the campaign against the loss of China left such
long-lasting scars that American policy-makers feared to acknowledge
the official existence of the People’s Republic of China — until
Richard Nixon, uniquely impervious to charges of being "soft on
Reds," did so as president in 1971. And it was, in part, to
avoid a replay of the loss-of-China scenario that Nixon’s Democratic
predecessors Kennedy and Johnson dragged the United States so deeply
into the quagmire of the Vietnam War.
The nation’s cultural and intellectual life also suffered.
Television offered little during the late 1950s but a bland menu of
quiz shows and Westerns. McCarthy-era anxieties clearly played a
role. Similarly, the blacklist contributed to the reluctance of the
film industry to grapple with controversial social or political
issues. In the intellectual world, Cold War liberals also avoided
controversy. They celebrated the “end of ideology,” claiming that
the United States’ uniquely pragmatic approach to politics made the
problems that had once concerned left-wing ideologists irrelevant.
Consensus historians pushed that formulation into the past and
described a nation that had never experienced serious internal
conflict.
Ironically, just as these social commentators were lauding the
resilience of American democracy, the anticommunist crusade was
undermining it. The political repression of the McCarthy period
fostered the growth of the national security state and facilitated
its expansion into the rest of civil society. In the name of
protecting the nation from communist infiltration, federal agents
attacked individual rights and extended state power into movie
studios, universities, labor unions, and many other ostensibly
independent institutions. The near universal deference to the
federal government’s formulation of the communist threat abetted the
process and suppressed opposition to what was going on. Moreover,
even after the anticommunist campaign began to abate, the
antidemocratic practices associated with it continued.
We can trace the legacy of McCarthyism in the FBI’s secret
COINTELPRO program of harassing political dissenters, the
Watergate-related felonies of the Nixon White House, and
Iran-Contra. The pervasiveness of such wrongdoing reveals how
seriously the nation’s defenses against official illegalities had
eroded in the face of claims that national security took precedence
over ordinary law. During the McCarthy years, the collaboration of
private institutions and public agencies in suppressing the alleged
threat of domestic communism ate away at the political freedom of
all Americans. It was never completely restored.
Kennedy and the Cold War
Throughout his pre-presidential career, Kennedy was an active
“Cold Warrior.” As noted, his first Congressional campaign involved
taking on the anti-Cold War faction of the Democratic party led by
Henry Wallace, and as a congressman he aligned himself with those
who said the Truman Administration wasn’t being tough enough,
willingly attaching his name to the chorus demanding “Who Lost
China?”
While in Congress, he supported all of America’s overseas
activities in waging the Cold War. Even while running for president
in 1960, Kennedy appealed to the “tough on the Soviets” contingent
by consistently hammering at Eisenhower for America’s supposed lack
of leadership, and America's “falling behind the Soviets.” It was
Kennedy, promising more money for defense spending and American
readiness, who charged Eisenhower with allowing a nonexistent
“missile gap” to develop between the U.S. and Soviet nuclear
arsenals. And it was Kennedy who, during the debates with Nixon,
charged that Eisenhower's policy had resulted in the loss of Cuba.
As president, Kennedy, in order to credibly claim he had taken
action against the “missile gap,” ordered an increase in spending on
nuclear missiles, setting off an arms race that resulted in
America's losing its nuclear superiority by the end of the decade.
Those who point to the Limited Test Ban Treaty as proof of Kennedy
wanting to begin the first step toward disarmament should remember
that Kennedy wanted a ban chiefly for environmental reasons, and not
because he envisioned the long-term elimination of nuclear weapons.
Indeed, it was Kennedy's own Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, who
came up with the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) principle that was
dependent entirely on the maintenance of a sizable nuclear arsenal.
Kennedy did make efforts to reduce direct tensions with the USSR
following the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the installation of a
teletype Hot Line was seen as essential to preventing the slow
communications that had hampered talks during the crisis. But
Kennedy's desire to reduce direct tensions with the USSR in no way
meant backing away from the basic principle of containment first
enunciated in the Truman Doctrine. Khrushchev had still publicly
declared that the Soviets would support “wars of national
liberation” wherever they occurred in the world, and since Kennedy
firmly believed in the “Domino Theory” (as he said in a 1963
interview), the idea of backing away from containment was
impractical from a national security standpoint as well as a
political one.
The Vietnam War was only one of several conflicts that erupted
out of the Cold War. Soviet and American power confronted each other
in several places, especially in Europe and Korea. The settlement in
Europe after World War II not only divided the continent into two
hostile factions; it also divided Germany into two countries and
Berlin into two cities. This was a source of strife in 1948, when
the Soviets instituted a blockade of West Berlin, geographically in
the heart of Soviet-occupied territory. West Berlin was rescued
dramatically by an airlift of goods and services, and the failed
blockade was abandoned in mid-1949. The hostilities, however,
endured until 1989.
Numerous other Cold War trouble spots continued to disturb the
peace of the world. One of the most notable was in Cuba, where
forces led by Fidel Castro staged a successful revolution in the
late 1950s. Cuba then became a Soviet dependency and hoped to engulf
the whole of Latin America in revolution. In the early 1980s, much
of Central America was torn by conflict, with guerrillas supplied by
the Soviet Union and Cuba fighting soldiers armed and trained by the
United States.
The Cuban threat was close-up and personal for the United States.
In 1962, it was learned that the Soviet Union had placed guided
missiles aimed at the United States in Cuba. This brought on a
crisis that was resolved only when the Soviet leader, Nikita
Khrushchev, ordered the removal of the missiles.
The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 was a turning point in the
Cold War. The treaty was accorded considerable symbolic significance
on both sides and seemed to signify that U.S. and Soviet leaders
wanted to end a costly and risky struggle that increased the danger
of a real war.
Nevertheless, ideological rivalry, competition for influence, and
the arms race continued between the two superpowers. U.S.
involvement in the Vietnam War, for example, was at its height
during the late 1960s. East and West were able, however, to
negotiate in a spirit of detente. U.S. rapprochement with China
occurred in the 1970s, and the arms race was slowed by the Strategic
Arms Limitation (SALT) agreements of 1972 and 1974.
Relations between the United States and the USSR deteriorated
during the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, especially
after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. This revival of
the Cold War continued in the early years of the Reagan
administration, fueled by Soviet support for the Sandinista
government of Nicaragua and by America’s declared intention to
develop an antinuclear Strategic Defense Initiative.
Not all of the global trouble spots owed their origin to the Cold
War, though most of them were affected by it. The most persistent
area of conflict since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948
has been the Middle East. There has been relentless hostility, and
several wars were fought between the Arab states and Israel. The
wars were all won by Israel, deepening Arab hostilities toward both
Israel and its major ally, the United States. The Cold War injected
itself into the Middle East when the Soviet Union started supplying
some Arab states with weapons; Syria and Iraq were notable examples.
Other Muslim nations, Saudi Arabia and Jordan among them, tried to
maintain neutrality in the Cold War. In some cases, they openly
welcomed aid from the United States and Western Europe.
With the rise to power of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in
1985, the situation began to change dramatically with startling
and rapid political changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Gorbachev’s policies of domestic reform and reconciliation with the
West led to self-determination for the satellite countries of
Eastern Europe and, in 1991— however inadvertently — the end of the
Soviet system itself, finally bringing the Cold War to an end.
Gorbachev inaugurated a reversal of Cold War policies. With the
cooperation of President Reagan, arms reduction agreements were
signed, and both sides later pledged troop withdrawals. The Soviets
also ended their ten-year war in Afghanistan. The new Soviet
democratization spilled over into the rest of Eastern Europe
dramatically. By the end of 1989, communist domination had ended or
was seriously eroded in the former Eastern Bloc nations. On Nov. 9,
1989, East German authorities allowed the opening of the Berlin
Wall. The subsequent destruction of large sections of the wall
signaled the end of the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact voted itself out
of existence on July 1, 1991. And by the end of 1991, the Soviet
Union itself had ceased to exist, breaking apart into its
constituent, and now independent, republics. There remained in the
world only one superpower: the United States.
The most striking symbol of the end of the Cold War was the
opening of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and its subsequent
destruction. This amazing event surprised the world, but it had been
in the making for a long time. The process began on March 6, 1953,
the day after the death of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. The
totalitarian state he had ruled for about thirty years was suddenly
in the hands of men who were relieved at his departure and unwilling
to rule with his style of brutality. In addition, by the end of the
decade, relations with China had worsened significantly. There was a
genuine break between the two countries in the early 1960s. The myth
of international communism was shattered. While maintaining a sure
hold over Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union attempted to gain better
relationships with the West, particularly the United States. Both
superpowers realized the futility of edging toward nuclear war.
The internal condition of the communist societies worsened
economically. The persistent shortages of consumer goods, even food,
frustrated the citizens of these countries. By the early 1980s, it
was apparent to the rulers of the Soviet Union that real reform was
needed if their country was going to survive. Gorbachev recognized
the serious economic situation and desired to reform it, while
intending to perpetuate control by the Communist Party. His plan did
not work. Once he allowed freedom of speech, a policy called
glasnost, he suddenly watched the whole society reject communism and
demand democracy.
Gorbachev also made it clear to the leaders of Eastern European
communist states that Soviet troops would no longer be available to
keep them in power. This policy triggered the rapid collapse of
communist regimes in all of Eastern Europe. It began in Poland,
spread to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, then spread to East Germany.
With the breaching of the Berlin Wall, there was no turning back.
The rest of the countries of Eastern Europe abandoned Communism
within a few months. By October 1990, Germany was reunited.
But the end of the Cold War and of communism did not signal the
end of international strife. Old problems remained, but they no
longer flourished under cover of East-West competition. In the
Middle East, for example, the weakness of the Soviet Union after
1989 meant that such warlike states as Iraq and Syria could no
longer rely on it for weapons and support. Thus, when Iraq invaded
tiny Kuwait in August 1990, it found itself opposed by a whole
United Nations (UN) coalition of armed forces including those of
Syria. The end of the Cold War had given the United Nations a new
lease on life. For the first time in decades, the UN was able to
take concerted action against a common foe, and win.
The success of the offensive against Iraq rearranged conditions
in the Middle East. The United States found itself with new allies
and few enemies. This prestige enabled President George Bush and his
secretary of state, James Baker, to persuade Israel and its Arab
enemies to sit down at the negotiating table to work out a means of
living together. The peace talks began in September 1991.
In Southern Europe, the collapse of communism had bred civil war
in Yugoslavia. The small nation had been ruled by Tito from 1943
until 1980. His death weakened the bonds that held the six provinces
together. Old ethnic hatreds resurfaced. When Slovenia and Croatia
declared their independence in mid-1990, the mostly Serbian Yugoslav
army invaded, plunging the country into civil war. The war worsened
when Bosnia and Herzegovina seceded in 1991. Although the
independence of these republics was recognized by the European
Communities (now European Union) and the United States, the fighting
continued.
In the Far East, the Chinese government rejected democracy in
June 1989, when it crushed the youth demonstration in Beijing’s
Tiananmen Square, a rebellion that was seen worldwide on television.
Yet, in spite of the regime’s harshness toward the rebels, it
permitted economic reforms to continue. By 1993, the southern sector
of China had one of the fastest growing and most prosperous
economies in the world. Outsiders, mainly in the United States,
complained about China's human-rights violations, but they were
unwilling to break off relationships or impose sanctions on the
world’s most populous nation.
How the Cold War Worked
Both the U.S. and USSR would have preferred that the other simply
disappear. But since this would obviously have involved mutual
annihilation, a system of global management called the Cold War was
established. According to the conventional view, the Cold War was a
conflict between two superpowers, caused by Soviet aggression, in
which "we" tried to contain the Soviet Union and protect the world
from it. If this view is a doctrine of theology, there's no need to
discuss it. If it is intended to shed some light on history, we can
easily put it to the test, bearing in mind a very simple point: if
you want to understand the Cold War, you should look at the events
of the Cold War. If you do so, a very different picture emerges.
On the Soviet side, the events of the Cold War were repeated
interventions in Eastern Europe: tanks in East Berlin and Budapest
and Prague. These interventions took place along the route that was
used to attack and virtually destroy Russia three times in this
century alone. The invasion of Afghanistan is the one example of an
intervention outside that route, though also on the Soviet border.
On the U.S. side, intervention was worldwide, reflecting the
status attained by the U.S. as the first truly global power in
history.
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union
entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it
gave the U.S. a way to compel its population to subsidize high-tech
industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic
populations, but fear of a great enemy is an old and powerful
technique.
The Cold War provided that, too. Each superpower controlled its
primary enemy — its own population — by terrifying it with the
(quite real) crimes of the other.
In crucial respects, then, the Cold War was a kind of tacit
arrangement between the Soviet Union and the United States under
which the United States conducted its wars against the Third World
and controlled its allies in Europe, while the Soviet rulers kept an
iron grip on their own internal empire and their satellites in
Eastern Europe. Each side used the other to justify repression and
violence in its own domains.
So why did the Cold War end, and how did its end change things?
By the 1970s, Soviet military expenditures were leveling off and
internal problems were mounting, with economic stagnation and
increasing pressures for an end to tyrannical rule. Soviet power
internationally had, in fact, been declining for some thirty years,
as a study by the Center for Defense Information showed in 1980. A
few years later, the Soviet system had collapsed. The Cold War ended
with the victory of what had always been the far richer and more
powerful contestant. The Soviet collapse was part of the more
general economic catastrophe of the 1980s, more severe in most of
the Third World domains of the West than in the Soviet empire.
The Cold War had significant elements of North-South conflict (to
use the contemporary euphemism for the European conquest of the
world). Much of the Soviet empire had formerly been quasi-colonial
dependencies of the West. The Soviet Union took an independent
course, providing assistance to targets of Western attack and
deterring the worst of Western violence. With the collapse of Soviet
tyranny, much of the region can be expected to return to its
traditional status, with the former higher echelons of the
bureaucracy playing the role of the Third World elites that enrich
themselves while serving the interests of foreign investors.
But while this particular phase has ended, North-South conflicts
continue. One side may have called off the game, but the United
States is proceeding as before, more freely, in fact, with Soviet
deterrence a thing of the past. It should have surprised no one that
former President George Bush celebrated the symbolic end of the Cold
War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, by immediately invading Panama and
announcing loud and clear that the United States would subvert
Nicaragua's election by maintaining its economic stranglehold and
military attack unless "our side" won.
Nor did it take great insight for Elliott Abrams to observe that
the U.S. invasion of Panama was unusual because it could be
conducted without fear of a Soviet reaction anywhere, or for
numerous commentators during the Gulf crisis to add that the United
States and Britain were now free to use unlimited force against its
Third World enemy, since they were no longer inhibited by the Soviet
deterrent.
Of course, the end of the Cold War brought its problems, too.
Notably, the technique for controlling the domestic population has
had to shift, a problem recognized through the 1980s, as we've
already seen in previous chapters. New enemies have to be invented.
It becomes harder to disguise the fact that the real enemy has
always been "the poor who seek to plunder the rich," in particular,
Third World miscreants who seek to break out of the service role. As
the Cold War hit its stride in the 1970s and 1980s, all of the
elements for a "new world order" were being assembled. The first
requisite for such a universal hijacking of the masses was obedience
to centralist government. Of course, in the communist regimes this
was automatic, with dissidents being shipped off to gulags for
brainwashing and extermination. In the West, the job was made more
difficult by the introduction of constitutional rights in past
centuries. The political genius of the manipulators found ways and
means of subverting these rights and over the four decades gradually
achieved a totalitarian mentality that was predicated on big
government, big business, and big unions. Together with a rolling
taxation regime which became more tyrannical with each amendment,
all Western democracies succumbed to the ideal of centralist
government.
With the group of seven central banks firmly in place, the stage
was set for a suicidal borrow, tax, and spend period over several
decades that resulted in a complete bankrupting of each Western
society that had succumbed to the "party on" mentality. Debt simply
accumulated through misguided and idiotic socialist programs that
lawyers and politicians dreamt up. By the late 1980s, with both
sides of the Cold War financially and morally bankrupted, a truce
was brokered. What insanity was behind this suicidal plunge by Cold
War opponents? To explain, we need to revisit the 1947 Roswell
incident.
After fifty years of denial and cover-up by the U.S. government
and its military commands, the truth was finally exposed. In 1997,
just before the fiftieth anniversary of the Roswell crash, a former
Pentagon official by the name of Colonel (Ret.) Philip J. Corso
broke the deadlock. His book "The Day After Roswell" provides
"a landmark exposé firmly grounded in fact."
"The Day After Roswell" attempted to put a 50-year-old
controversy to rest. Since 1947, the mysterious crash of an
unidentified aircraft at Roswell, New Mexico, has fueled a firestorm
of speculation and controversy with no conclusive evidence of its
extraterrestrial origin - until 1997. Corso, a member of President
Eisenhower's National Security Council and former head of the
foreign technology desk at the U.S. Army's Research and Development
Department, came forward to tell the whole explosive story. Backed
by documents newly declassified through the Freedom of Information
Act, Corso revealed for the first time his personal stewardship of
alien artifacts from the crash and disclosed the US government's
astonishing role in the Roswell incident. What was found, and the
ensuing cover-up, changed the course of twentieth-century history.
If Colonel Corso's book “The Day After Roswell” is
creditable and stands up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have the
possibility of the truth being finally revealed. If, however, the
rigorous scrutiny reveals a fraud, then the search for truth
concerning the UFO-extraterrestrial phenomenon will be set back by
many years. The peer review is decidedly divided.
According to Corso, then a Lieutenant Colonel, in 1961 he was
given command of one of the Pentagon's highly classified weapons
development budgets and was made privy to the U.S. government's
greatest secret: the U.S. Army's dismantling and appropriation of
the Roswell extraterrestrial spacecraft. Identifying all those
involved, Colonel Corso revealed how a deep-cover council officially
discounted all UFO reports to the American public and cleared the
path for his research and development team at the Pentagon to
analyze and integrate the Roswell artifacts into the military
arsenal and the private business sector. The extent of the operation
is startling.
With unprecedented detail, Corso divulged how he spearheaded the
Army's reverse-engineering project that "seeded" alien technology at
American companies such as IBM, Hughes Aircraft, Bell Labs, and Dow
Corning - without their knowledge. He described the devices found
aboard the Roswell craft and how they were the precursors for
today's integrated circuit chips, fiber optics, lasers, and
super-tenacity fibers. He also discusses the role alien technology
played in shaping geopolitical policy and events — how it helped the
United States surpass the Russians in space; spurred elaborate Army
initiatives such as SDI, Horizon and HAARP; and ultimately brought
about the end of the Cold War.
Laying bare some of the government's most closely guarded
secrets, “The Day After Roswell” not only forces us to
reconsider the past but also our role in the universe.
Corso was a key Army intelligence officer who served on General
MacArthur's staff in Korea, and later on President Dwight D.
Eisenhower's National Security Council as a Lieutenant Colonel.
During his twenty-one-year military career, he was honored with 19
medals, decorations, and ribbons for meritorious service. He retired
from the army in 1963 and went on to serve Senators James Eastland
and Strom Thurmond as a staff member specializing in national
security. Since then, he worked for various private-sector business
entities as a consultant and contracts administrator. Before his
death, he appeared on Prime Time Live as an expert commentator
on Cold War U2 flights over Russia and testified before the House
National Security Committee about American POWs held in North Korea.
If Colonel Corso, perhaps motivated by his age and then-failing
health, is to be believed, and there is every indication that his
story is authentic, we as a people deserve an explanation from the
superpower authorities. With this revelation, it becomes obvious
that the reptilian mindset of the Military Industrial Complex in
both the East and the West, having been exposed to the reality of
extraterrestrial life, simply made a decision on behalf of mankind
to cover up this earth-shattering news. Having done so, which is
nothing short of treason and a flagrant breach of Constitutional
rights, they went on to treat the whole issue of extraterrestrial
contact in their normal military style. The national governments
recognized the danger to their control mechanisms if the masses were
to be suddenly exposed to the reality of inhabited planets elsewhere
in the cosmos. Religious, political, and social implications
considered, the superpower mindset simply acted out of
self-interest.
With this creditable revelation of Corso's, it's evident that the
whole concept of human freewill had been hijacked by the powerful
and greedy mindset of the Industrial Military Complex and its
supporters. Constitutional rights and even human rights were simply
relegated to the scrap heap in the race to satisfy the power-lust of
the militarists. Democracy and any semblance of a free society were
treacherously and blatantly ignored.
The truth has a way of always getting out, and although
successive government and military leaders have continued the lies
and deceit over the ensuing 50 years, with Corso's revelation, the
game is over. We can now see how the Industrial Military Complex
exploited the opportunity in a secret and deceitful way — using
back-engineering techniques on the artifacts captured at Roswell.
At the same time, they denied our civilization the opportunity for
interacting with and benefiting from extraterrestrial visitation.
How barbaric and uncivilized must we have appeared to our cosmic
visitors!
There have been numerous books written on this subject by various
authors who meticulously and professionally weeded out the evidence
that clearly showed something not of this planet had crashed at
Roswell in 1947. The media and supporters of the Industrial Military
Complex simply branded these courageous patriots as either
conspiratorial or paranoid and deluded individuals. How
unconscionable that these traitors would perpetuate this "cosmic
Watergate" for five decades.
Corso explains how various so-called new technologies came from
back-engineering artifacts from the downed craft:
"Among the Roswell artifacts and the questions
and issues that arose from the Roswell crash, on my preliminary list
that needed resolution for development scheduling or simple
inquiries to our military scientific community were:
Image intensifiers, which ultimately became
"night vision" Fiber optics
Supertenacity fibers
Lasers Molecular
alignment metallic alloys
Integrated circuits and microminiaturization of logic boards
HARP (High Altitude Research Project)
Project Horizon (moon base)
Portable atomic generators (ion propulsion drive)
Irradiated food
"Third brain" guidance systems (EBE headbands)
Particle beams ("Star Wars" antimissile
energy weapons) Electromagnetic
propulsion systems Depleted
uranium projectiles
For each of the items on my list, General
Trudeau went into his human resources file and found the names of
scientists working on government defense projects or in allied
research projects at universities where I could turn for advice and
some consultation. I wasn't surprised to see Wernher von Braun turn
up under every rocket-propulsion issue. Von Braun had gone on record
in 1959 by announcing that the U.S. military had acquired a new
technology as a result of top-secret research in unidentified flying
objects. Nor was I surprised to see John von Neumann's name next to
the mention of the strange-looking silver-imprinted silicon wafers
that I thought looked like elliptical-shaped crackers. 'If these are
what I think they might be,' General Trudeau said, 'printed
circuitry, there's only one person we can talk to.'" (pages 115-116,
The Day After Roswell)
With the benefit of Corso's 1997 exposé, it's obvious that the
world and its inhabitants have been treated with contempt by
powerful, greedy, self-serving individuals ...
Let us now back-track to the "Cold War" era and see how Corso's
information helps to unravel the jigsaw puzzle of insanity that
prevailed:
"Those were hard times, made even harder
because the U.S. military also knew that not just the free
world but the whole world was under a military threat from a power
far greater than the combined forces of the Soviet Union and the
Republic of China. We didn't know what the EBEs wanted at first, but
we knew that between the cattle mutilations, surveillance of our
secret weapons installations, reports of strange abductions of human
beings, and their consistent buzzing of our unmanned and manned
space launches, the EBEs weren't just friendly visitors looking for
a polite was to say "Hello, we mean you no harm." They meant us
harm, and we knew it. The problem was we couldn't do anything about
it at first, and anything we did try to do had to be done in
complete secrecy or it would set off a worldwide panic, we
believed." (page 122, The Day After Roswell)
This is an interesting paragraph in Colonel Corso's book,
insofar as he reports no evidence of aggression from EBE craft. The
interesting point is that there was absolutely no attempt by the
military-minded of the U.S. authorities either to evaluate or to
seek American or world opinion on this subject. The authorities
assumed that the EBE incursion was hostile and reacted accordingly.
Let us look at the facts upon which the authorities based such a
conclusion.
First, there is mention of cattle mutilations. Did anyone
consider that the precision-like laser incisions were the result of
a monitoring process of our own radioactive proliferation? After
all, we had just exploded several nuclear devices into the
atmosphere! Did anyone consider that the organs and cattle parts
harvested from the mutilations could have something to do with the
EBE's food source? After all, we slaughter millions of cattle each
day as a food source. We also conduct scientific experiments on
animals on a daily basis.
Second, as regards surveillance of secret weapons, if these EBEs
were from a neighboring planet, perhaps even within our solar
system, would it not follow that they would be interested in
monitoring our nuclear weapons of mass destruction, based on the law
of cause-and-effect?
Third, as regards reports of strange abductions of human beings,
could it be that they were similarly monitoring our DNA degradation,
resulting from the polluting effect of our atmosphere by nuclear and
other poisonous fallout?
Fourth, as regards their consistent buzzing of our unmanned and
manned space launches, could they simply have been monitoring our
unwise quest into outer space, given that we are now aware of the
debilitating effect on the human body that results from long periods
of weightlessness in space? Corso, during his years of research and
development work for the army, discovered (along with the scientists
he worked with) that the space suits worn by the retrieved aliens
from the Roswell crash sight were designed specifically for long
space journeys. This revelation helped later to explain why our
astronauts were so debilitated after long periods in space.
Without the effect of gravity, the human body simply atrophies. That
is to say that the major organs, without the accustomed effect of
gravity, operate on a different level, which causes a gradual
breakdown in their functioning ability. Very much the same way that
a human muscle, if left unexercized for a long period, will simply
shrink in size, durability, and elasticity. This was clearly shown
on television footage viewed by the Russian public when the
cosmonauts returned from an extended assignment on the space station
Mir. They could hardly walk and had to be physically carried to the
waiting transport vehicles. This problem is one of the main reasons
that NASA and the Russian space campaigns suddenly changed direction
from manned to unmanned space flight.
Surely, the global authorities who secretly and treasonously
reacted to this so-called problem could have at least consulted with
we the people. Governments all over the world, arrogant and drunk
with power, simply made decisions that would affect future
generations without consultation or concern for true democracy. This
breach of trust is unforgivable, and deserves the strongest rebuke
we can muster. Should it continue, civilization is doomed. As Corso
explains:
"This was where the Cold War turned out to be
a tremendous opportunity for us, because it allowed us to upgrade
our military preparedness in public to fight the Communists while
secretly creating an arsenal and strategy to defend ourselves
against the extraterrestrials. In short, the Cold War, while real
enough and dangerous enough, was also a cover for us to develop a
planetary tracking and defense system that looked into space as well
as into the Soviets' backyard. And the Soviets were doing the exact
same thing we were, looking up at the same time they were looking
down." (page 122)
If Colonel Corso is to be believed, this is the most despicable
revelation of government conspiracy we could ever imagine. What
suddenly happened to constitutional rights and human rights? The
arrogant siege mentality of the global authorities, particularly the
U.S. political and military authority, is beyond comprehension. This
revealing statement by a former Pentagon Official reveals the
treachery of the then executive office and government, continuing on
to the present day. We ask again, what of the Constitution and human
rights? Of course, the obvious self-serving answer is "we acted
according to a situation of 'National Security'." The reaction by
global powers to this world-shattering event was predicated on the
motive of control, fueled by greed and power-lust. The self-interest
of political, religious, and social institutions were simply placed
above the best interests of the human population. According to
Corso:
"In an only tacitly acknowledged cooperative
endeavor, the Soviets and the Americans, while each one was
explicitly using the Cold War to gain an advantage over the other,
both sought to develop a military capability to defend ourselves
against extraterrestrials. There were very subtle indications of
this policy in the types of weapons both countries developed as well
as in our behavior toward one another every time one side came close
to pushing the button. I can tell you definitively because I was
there when we avoided nuclear war because both military commands
were able to pull back when they stared over the cliff into the
flaming volcano of war that threatened to engulf all of us at least
four times between 1945 and 1975 - the Berlin airlift, the Chinese
invasion of Korea, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Yom Kippur
War-and probably many more.
By the time President Nixon returned from
China, having agreed to turn over Vietnam to the Communists, he had
effectively turned the Soviets' flank in the Cold War. For the next
decade, the Soviets felt caught between the Chinese, with whom
they'd fought border wars in the past, and the United States. When
President Ronald Reagan demonstrated to Mikhail Gorbachev that the
United States was capable of deploying an effective antimissile
missile defense and sought Soviet cooperation in turning it against
the extraterrestrials, all pretext of the Cold War ended and the
great Soviet monolith in Eastern Europe began to crumble.
But the Cold War worked its magic for both
superpowers by allowing them to prepare defenses against the
extraterrestrials without ever having to disclose to the public what
they were really doing. When you examine it, the record itself
should have showed that another agenda was present throughout the
Cold War. After all, why did each side really have ten or more times
the number of warheads needed to completely destroy the other side's
nuclear missile arsenal as well as their major populations centers?
The real story behind the vast missile arsenals, the huge fleets of
bombers, and the ICBM submarine platforms that both sides deployed
was the threat to the aliens that if they occupied a portion of our
planet, we had the firepower to obliterate them. If they attacked
either the United States or the Soviet Union so as to render one of
the arsenals inoperable, we had enough missiles to spare to make
them pay so heavy a price for starting a war, it wasn't even worth
trying."
In this startling revelation, the reader cannot help but
recognize the courage and spiritual insight that Colonel Corso has
demonstrated in his exposure of the authorities' mindset regarding
the Cold War and the hidden agenda behind it. As a people, we must
recognize and honor people like Colonel Corso for their courage in
exposing these issues.
As we saw in Bloom's theory of the triune-brained hominid from a
previous chapter in this book, what Corso has exposed is the savage
and barbarous nature of the reptilian inheritance of the human
brain. Of course, those who participated in these treasonous acts
would fully justify themselves based on the chain of command and
their misguided interpretation of that much-abused term, "National
Security." Too bad about constitutional and human rights, they
simply were relegated to the periphery. The main game was the Cold
War and the commercial enterprise of the Industrial Military
Complex.
As we peruse the history of the Cold War, not just from Corso's
vantage point, we see a gradual usurpation of citizens' rights, as
successive national governments worldwide realized there were
basically no limits to their powers or their ability to control.
Every piece of legislation that usurped constitutional, human, and
social rights was fully "justified," authored by lawyers adept at
manipulating words, and enacted by politicians who had succumbed to
the theory of big centralist government.
It began with the two breaches of public trust that the U.S.
government perpetrated on the American people and the world at
large. The first was the Philadelphia experiment in 1943, whereby
the U.S. Navy and its scientists, using the latest technology,
attempted to move material matter through time and space. This
experiment, covertly undertaken under the "national security"
pretext (widely abused during the tenure of World War II), was a
flagrant breach of public trust and global responsibility. Any
attempt to experiment with the intricate fabric between the
dimensions of the time-space continuum is inhumane, fraught with
extreme danger, and a prime example of insane atheistic science.
Two years later, as a result of the Manhattan Project's
culminating atomic weapons development, the U.S. government again
breached global trust when it attacked Nagasaki and Hiroshima with
atomic weapons. Of course, historians seeking to justify these
actions by well-meaning militarists would first ignore the
Philadelphia experiment and then go on to record the twin atomic
blasts as fully justified, based on the need to end the war quickly
and thus save American and Allied lives. However, this self-serving
justification, spoon-fed to compliant historians, does little to
cover up the gross injustice and acts of iniquity involved in these
transgressions. With the culmination and ending of World War II, one
would have expected virtuous world leaders to recognize the folly of
such a breach of trust. One would have expected them to learn their
lesson and, using "virtue" as their guide, never to allow such
flagrant breaches of trust to occur again.
The criminal mind, having succeeded both in committing the crime
and avoiding detection, will go on to commit crimes indefinitely —
unless public scrutiny intensely focuses on the criminal activity,
exposes it, prosecutes the criminals and punishes the crimes. As we
see in recent history, the Roswell crash cover-up and subsequent
criminal activity, all under the guise of "national security" and
Cold War imperatives, are nothing more than a natural extension of
the criminal mind spawned during World War II. Had the U.S. and
Western leadership actually succumbed to the same criminal mindset
of its arch-enemy, Adolf Hitler?
Of course, history now records that these earlier episodes are
dwarfed by the heinous crimes against humanity that political and
military leaders, in league with science and the emerging
technologies, perpetrated against the global population over the
ensuing years. Weapons of mass destruction such as thermonuclear
devices, viral and bacterial weapons, HAARP, MK-Ultra, depleted
uranium and other classified weapons in the vast arsenal of the
modern military-industrial complex are now slowly but surely being
uncovered. The criminal mind knows no bounds once the original crime
has been committed and goes undetected. It is human nature that such
minds become totally corrupted and perverted in their attempt to
challenge decency and virtues.
At this point we need to explain to the reader that not all
politicians, military leaders, and scientists are criminally minded.
It is not so much the individual mind that is at fault here; it is
more the mindset. One of the greatest tragedies of the latter
twentieth century has been the emergence of the term "national
security" spawned during the tension-filled days of World War II,
morphed into a sophisticated cover during the Cold War and exploited
to the maximum in the post-Cold War era of terrorism and the
so-called "drug war." Psychology elegantly portrays human
nature as having inherent in its evolutionary pathway the ability to
create a contextual pattern of justification and rationalization
once criminal-mindedness has been activated. The only true defense
against criminal-mindedness is the combination of what many describe
as the three Ds: discipline, dedication, and determination
augmented by common virtues — principles, ethics, morals, and values
— the hallmark of a true civilization.
In order to finance the enormous cost of waging the Cold War for
forty years, Western democratic governments were forced into tax,
borrow and spend policies. By the late 1980s, with the dismantling
of the Berlin Wall, the damage had been done. All communist regimes
in Europe and Asia were bankrupted both morally and financially. In
the West, the so-called social democracies in Europe and the
Americas had similarly succumbed to moral and financial bankruptcy.
Was this eventual bankrupting of both the communist/socialist and
capitalist systems the agenda of some other powerful secret society?
By the late 1990s, there were many who claimed this was so.
Conspiracy theorists, who posited a well-hidden secret agenda had
been controlling the global economy, abounded. Many were of the
opinion that a global elite had formed during the dark ages of the
second millennium, and had put in place a master plan for the global
domination of all people. That the communist/socialist and
capitalist confrontation culminating in the Cold War scenario would
bring about their plans to dominate the world. Many believed that
Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati Manifesto is the blueprint
for this world domination plan. There are supposedly twelve or
thirteen elite families worldwide who positioned the pawns on the
chess board. In review of the horrendous revelations of Corso's
story, it would be quite easy to accept such a view. We shall have
to dig deeper in order to expose any such plan to enslave the world
population. During the research for this book, several excellent,
well-documented, well-researched publications were accessed. There
have been a plethora of these superb works published, videos
produced, and tape recordings made. Yet the mainstream media
worldwide ignores the facts and the overwhelming evidence.
Let us take a look at the history, using the work of Bloom's
"Lucifer Principle" as the foundation for our search. We see
that secret societies have existed since history was on clay
tablets, animal skins, parchments, and finally paper and modern
printing. They are nothing new in evolving societies and
civilization as a whole. The barnyard pecking order of the strong
needing to overcome the week through natural selection has existed
from the beginning of man's emergence on this planet. And so it is
that we discover this elitist and fanatical need for a small cadre
of financially strong, albeit weak-minded family groups to believe
that they, through divine right, possess the ability to enslave the
world.
Sometime in the dim past history, approximately four thousand
years ago, there appeared the foundation of the secret societies.
Robert Morning Sky in his "Guardians of the Grail-TheWorld's
Oldest Religion" reveals that the Templar Knights are the
culprit. Without going into the long and blood-thirsty history of
this covert group, in 1776 one Adam Weishaupt (sponsored by
Mayer Rothschild) authored "The Illuminati Manifesto." This
document proved to be Weishaupt's undoing within the secret
societies; however, it did expose the horrible truth of what had
been, what was, and what was yet to come. It gave rise to the
Illuminati "New World Order." The agenda had an elegant and
indisputable symmetry to it, whereby over the next two centuries,
three world wars would be required to achieve global control and
dominance over this planet's people and its resources. This plan and
the ensuing agenda has been followed to the letter by succeeding
generations of aspirants to The Illuminati Manifesto's goals.
The number of subservient secret societies, such as The Council on
Foreign Relations, The Trilaterists, The Bilderbergers ad nauseum,
have all played their part in the manipulation of global affairs
toward the stated objective of global domination by an elite cadre
of international banksters.
The reader at this point is fully justified in expressing
indignation, horror, and disbelief when presented with such a
heinous and evil plan to possess this world. It must be remembered
that the prince of darkness, commonly known as the devil, is still
free to prosecute his nefarious designs on this planet since
Pentecost. This prince of darkness is a fallen son of God and is
variously known within the confines of the Jewish, Christian and
Muslim religions as Satan. His name is immaterial, as his evil and
iniquitous plans have been playing throughout all recorded history,
punctuated by two events that the Christian Bible evidently glosses
over.
The prince of darkness was shorn of all power by the incarnated
Son of God, Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth). However, we are now being
exposed to the divine mind of God who decided that during the
twentieth century, as technology exploded, mankind on this planet
would be forced to face the great decision. During his
two-thousand-year-ago incarnation, this Son of God terminated the
Lucifer rebellion, defeating Lucifer and his fallen cohorts ("Get ye
behind me, Satan,") then went on to publicly teach the greatest
gospel of religious living ever known on this planet, and indeed all
of the planets of His sovereignty.
The great travesty now confronting our modern civilization is
that the prince of darkness has been successful in corrupting and
perverting the minds of successive generations into believing that
such a perversion as a New World Order and world domination could
exist. It is imperative that every mortal on this planet
investigate, uncover, and determine the veracity, or otherwise, of
The Illuminati Manifesto and its execution to date of
the New World Order... Laziness and a laissez faire attitude are no
excuse when the fact is that every mortal individual on this planet
will soon be faced with the final enactment of this evil plan and
its dire consequences. Secrecy has been the main weapon used by the
various factions of The IlluminatiManifesto. They have
succeeded to date as the result of their secret societies, a lazy
and disbelieving public, and apathy in general.
There can be no doubt that the emerging totalitarian states in
the East and West were planned and brought into existence by a
mindset that was not only well-camouflaged but also well-financed.
Is this to be the "Armageddon" of John's Revelation in the Bible? If
so, we are all in for a rough ride and we had better know our
history well.
As Niccolo Machiavelli so eloquently posits, the great problem
with choosing a "Prince" is that no matter what promises are made,
hindsight is the only true litmus test. This has always been the
problem in choosing political leaders; promises are easy to make but
very rarely acted upon. And so as we finalize our review of the Cold
War, we see clearly that no "Princes" of real worth have been
elected or emerged during this century.
In the background all the way through this century was the
Marxist Communist Manifesto. Democratic government and human
free-will both simply became a dim memory as the confused and
frightened masses willingly handed over all power to centralist
governments.
The criminal goes on to repeat the deceit until caught. And this
is certainly the behavior displayed by successive governments and
their agencies worldwide after Roswell. Of course, every lie
involved in the cover-up is fully justified and enshrined in
self-serving legislation to cover the politician's tracks.
Nevertheless, all who participated through whatever motivation, in
the final analysis must be judged as traitors to humanity.
In generations to come, as a result of the coming paradigm shift
of human consciousness, citizens will look back on the latter part
of this century with amazement at the blind faith that citizens
exhibited in placing their trust in charismatic, slick, grossly
dishonest political figures. They will also marvel at the worldwide
apathy and laissez faire attitude of the brainwashed citizens of
this era. Not to mention the idiocy of becoming ensnared in a
philosophical net which serves no purpose other than to aggravate
confrontation between classes, which is always divisive and bloody.
That review — generations from now — will not be helpful in solving
our present problems.
The solutions to our present mindset become clear and focused
once the history of events is recorded and understood. It is the
mission of this work to bring about such circumstances that will
enable readers to discern that even though we view the world as a
black background of evil, with white patches of good, the opposite
is the fact. The electronic media continually bombards the psyche of
the masses, brainwashing us with bad news, desperation,
blood-thirsty behavior, and depression. The only respite to this
mind-numbing parade of negativity is celebrity worship via
entertainment and sporting heroes. Not often do we see political or
public-serving heroes.
In "The Prince," Niccolo Machiavelli eloquently and
succinctly points out that the true "Prince" - and this is still
relevant in the modern era - is the political leader who sets an
agenda based on his or her view of what is right for the citizens.
Then without fear or favor, with single-mindedness, carries out the
agenda in full. Ask yourselves how many political leaders you can
name this century who have set an agenda based on love and goodwill
towards the citizens, then gone on to carry out that agenda for
their benefit?
If you are honest, you will quickly reply "none." Machiavelli
tries to explain that such political leaders are few and far
between. They must be idealists of the highest order, possessing
courage and determination, not easily found in an un-virtuous
society.
For centuries, The Prince was notorious as the expression of a
cynical, moral political opportunism. More recently, it has been
seen as the work of an Italian patriot writing a prescription for a
strong leader who could unite his countrymen and throw out the
foreign invaders. Whatever Machiavelli's intentions in writing it,
the book itself has had a massive influence on the whole modern
development of political science. Machiavelli's book reflects a
startlingly pessimistic view of human nature. It offers one of the
most caustic appraisals of man ever to be accorded a book deemed a
classic.
This is Machiavelli's verdict on the human race, stated in his
book:
"For it may be said of men in general that they
are ungrateful, voluble dissemblers,
anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; as long as
you benefit them, they are entirely yours; they
offer you their blood, their goods, their
life, and their children . . . when the necessity is
remote; but when it approaches, they revolt.
A prudent ruler ought not to keep faith when by
so doing it would be against his
interest, and when the reasons which made him bind himself
no longer exist. If men were all good, the
precept would not be a good one; but as
they are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so
you are not bound to keep faith with them. . . "
And again:
"...men are so simple and so ready to obey
present necessities, that one who
deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be
deceived."
Thus, Machiavelli's judgment on the majority of mortals seems to
be that they are both wicked and stupid, and he warns the would-be
ruler to remember that "men will always be false to you unless they
are compelled by necessity to be true."
Of course, unlike Hitler in "Mein Kampf," Machiavelli was
addressing his remarks not to the general public but to one in a
position to command, to the potentially successful ruler or
"Prince."
Nevertheless, he grounded his teachings on what he conceived to
be the essential facts of human character and behavior as
demonstrated by experience. In order to cope with the fickleness,
avarice, and short-sighted egoism of the multitude, the ruler, in
Machiavelli's view, must be not only intelligent and forceful but
also a master of the arts of deceit.
Understanding what men are really like, the Prince "must know
well how to use both the beast and the man." He "must imitate the
fox and the lion." While carefully presenting the appearance of all
virtues, he must "learn how not to be good," because a prince is
"often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against
faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion."
Machiavelli concludes that if a choice is necessary between being
loved and being feared, it is better for the Prince to be feared by
his subjects, because though the chain of love is easily broken,
"fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." He
does add the significant point that the ruler should avoid being
hated, but he believes this can easily be managed without any
particular tender-heartedness on the ruler's part. Most of the
people, he says, will be relatively contented under an efficient
despot as long as neither their own persons, their women, nor their
property are molested: "for men forget more easily the death of
their father than the loss of their patrimony."
Machiavelli's comments are cruel and cut very deep; they seem to
be so anti-humanistic. Yet, what Machiavelli is after is the
unification of Italy; and he thinks man has the ability to do this
and to rule effectively, which, I suppose, is to rule well. Thus, in
a final sort of way, Machiavelli is on the side of the humanists.
We can at least say that Machiavelli freed his readers to view
politics as practical and based on power. Politics always was
practical and based on power, but Machiavelli seems to have been the
first to publicly say so and let it be a natural conclusion. Not
what government ought to do, but what it can do. Machiavelli also
believed that people did not control their entire environment or
lives or circumstances. Yet there were parts of their lives that
they could control. He believed that instead of working for
so-called good in life, people needed to take whatever control they
had over life to reduce the catastrophes of chance and fortune (or
of God).
Of course, in the 15th century, Machiavelli was drawing on the
history up to that time, which clearly demonstrated that the great
majority of political and monarchical leaders had lacked the virtues
he aspired to. Tyranny and treachery were more the norm — and
nothing has basically changed in the interim five centuries. So in
the twentieth century, particularly in the latter half, it should
come as no surprise to any reader that the traitorous pattern has
continued. Human nature, unless modified by religion and virtue,
simply continues in the evolutionary pattern encoded genetically
into our beings.
The reptile brain, once aroused and set free, produces the
political spoils of each age — aspiring to populist IDEAS rather
than IDEALS. It is worth remembering that the ideals enshrined in
the consitutional rights of most western democracies are founded on
virtue — principles, ethics, morals, and values.
When a breach of trust occurs, as we have witnessed, the result
must always be despair, which we are presently experiencing. The key
is to find the solution based on a thoroughgoing knowledge of the
past — the getting of wisdom.
|