Robert Gaylon Ross

Global GulagAuthor Says Constitution At RiskFrom Territorial Unions

An Iconoclast Interview WithTexas Author Robert Gaylon Ross

By W. Leon Smith and Nathan DiebenowICONOCLAST EDITORS

CRAWFORD — Several weeks ago The Lone Star Iconoclast published a paid advertisement submitted by Ross International Enterprises that contained a listing of books that RIE has available for purchase. Several readers took exception to the Iconoclast’s allowing that advertisement to be printed due to a couple of titles among the offerings, i.e. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and International Jew. One reader suggested that these are considered by the Jewish community as “hate books” and that the newspaper should contact the publishing company and have its owner, Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr. explain himself.Following that appeal, The Iconoclast conducted an interview with Ross, who is also the author of several books related to global unionization and other issues.Some of his latest titles include The Elite Don’t Dare Let Us Tell the People, Who’s Who of the Elite, and The American Union 2005.Says Ross, “My concern is that we are losing control of this fantastic nation, and the world as well, to a group that cares nothing about the present or future quality of life of the citizens of this country, or the rest of the world. The elite are guided by greed, and the insatiable need for influence and power.”Ross’ books contain numerous references to other published works that reflect this loss of control. Among the references are The Protocols.Because of his international career experiences and work with the Federal government, he says he is in a unique position to “back away from a problem and look at the big picture.” From this bird’s-eye perspective, Ross says that the creation of a Global Union is in the works, as is seen in recent and ongoing legislation and the creation of unions in other countries, which can be followed through strategies explained in the Protocols.Ross, who holds a BS degree in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University, accepted a commission as a Second Lieutenant (later promoted to First Lieutenant) in the Army Security Agency (ASA), a branch of the National Security Agency, upon graduation. He describes the ASA as the big brother to the Central Intelligence Agency.After leaving active duty, Ross assumed a career as an industrial engineer in the petroleum industry, serving in that capacity until he was promoted into management, where he served as a plant manager for over 10 years, with a total of 36 years in manufacturing. He spent the last 17 years of his manufacturing career as an international management consultant working in the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, England, and Iran.Ross’ military training was in the field of crypto-analysis (the breaking of codes). He was a company commander in the demilitarized zone in the Chowan Valley of South Korea from 1956 to 1957, after the fighting had ceased.In the interview, Ross said, “None of the books I have written are anti-semitic, and I guess the position I take is if Jeffery Dahmer and several other serial killers happen to be Jewish, should we not talk about their crimes? It just so happened that of the two people at the very top of the cabal to conquer the entire world, one of them is a Khazarian Jew and the other is a Gentile. The subject I write about is about evil people whose goal is to dominate the world politically and economically, and there’s nothing about it that is religious. One just happens to be a Jew and the other just happens to be a Gentile.”Ross says the Protocols were written somewhere around 1895-96. “They are sort of an outline of what the Learned Elders of Zion planned for the world. A number of people have said that it’s fiction or that it’s plagarism or it’s a false document, but probably somewhere between 60-80 percent of the Protocols are history. What they predicted would happen has happened.”He explained that since the citizens of the United States are well armed, a takeover of the U.S. is being done “economically.”Ross sat down with Iconoclast editors W. Leon Smith (WLS) and Nathan Diebenow (ND) to answer some hard questions.
Anti-Semitism
ICONOCLAST (ND): Why would Henry Ford write a book, The International Jew? He’s a capitalist fascist who helped Hitler destroy Jewish people? Hitler had a picture of Ford in his office. How do you explain that?
ROSS: In The International Jew, I didn’t see anything that was anti-semitic. It was a history of the Jewish movement, and he did put a copy of the International Jew in every new car he sold.
ICONOCLAST (ND): Yeah, he published these books, and they’re still being published today and used to discredit, harm, or destroy the Jewish people around the world, in Iran, and whatnot.ROSS: I don’t read that. I don’t read anything in the books that says, “We’re going to destroy the Jewish people.” Have you read The International Jew?
ICONOCLAST (ND): I’ve read portions of it online.
ROSS: I’ve read all four volumes.
ICONOCLAST (ND): ... and it says that the Jews are going to secularize the nation through education institutions, and the colleges are going to be run by Jews, and it kind of puts all the blame on the Jews. Who are the Jews and why would they put in a socialist state? I don’t understand. It seems contradictory. It seems like Ford’s only problem is that they’re Jews and that they’re socialist, and he’s a fascist capitalist. Ford wants to control the labor force and eradicate the Jews for whatever purpose.
ROSS: Well, Henry Ford is the one who invented fairness to workers because he gave his workers a good wage so they could buy his cars. He’s probably the first to treat his workers properly in history.
ICONOCLAST (ND): But he sold all this stuff to Hitler before World War II, and he was a self-described fascist. Hitler destroyed the whole nation of 6 million Jews.
ROSS: But you also have David Rockefeller and a number of Khazarian Jews who also supported Hitler. The parent company of Exxon provided fuel to all the Germans.
ICONOCLAST (ND): Is the question obtaining power; does it really have anything to do with Jewish people at all?
ROSS: It has nothing to do with religion.
ICONOCLAST (ND): So what’s your definition of anti-semitism?
ROSS: A semitic person is a person of about a half a dozen or so tribes in Israel, including both Jews and Arabs. So my definition of anti-semitism would be one that takes a negative approach to Jews or Arabs in Israel. Semitic covers both Arabs and Jews.
ICONOCLAST (ND): Going back to my previous question, does this really have anything to do with an ethnic group of people trying to take over the world or is it philosophy that certain people have in high power and have a lot of wealth who are trying to manipulate a system for their own benefit? I mean, is it a group of people, like an ethnic group or is it just an idea that some people have that spans across nations and borders in different ethnic groups?
ROSS: Like I say again, it has zero to do with religion because the two at the very top — one is a Gentile and the other is a Jew, and the Jew happens to be a Jew who is not a Jew, but a Khazarian Jew. I covered it in both The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK, and MLK and The Elite Don’t Tell The People about Khazarian Judaism. Back in 740 A.D., the leader of the Khazarian tribe adopted Judaism, so they really are not the seeds of Abraham or the descendents of the 12 tribes of Israel. It’s got nothing to do with anything, but it explains it. The subject is the people at the very top who have this need to gain power and money, and I guess an example is that in 1998, the Rockefeller family was worth $11.48 trillion. The Rothschild family is worth somewhere between $100 and $700 trillion. They use this tremendous reserve of money to control the world. The Protocols clearly spell out they will use their wealth to gain control of the world. That’s why I brought the Protocols in because they explain what is going on.
ICONOCLAST (ND): Is it a systematic procedure or just a philosophy?
ROSS: It’s not a philosophy. The Protocols, as I interpret them, is a roadmap of the plan by that small group of people, the Learned Elders of Zion. That does not generally represent the general population of Khazarians or semitic Jews. It’s just the very top, and I feel that both Jews and Gentiles would not be very proud of the documentation at least in the Protocols because it is a horrendous, horrific plan to conquer the world. I don’t know what it is, but it goes way back. Atilla the Hun had a need to conquer. In fact, Genghis Khan had a need to conquer. He conquered most of the known eastern part of Europe at that time, including Khazaria. Hitler, Stalin, you can name probably a dozen people in history that had an insatiable need to conquer the entire world. And those of us who don’t have this need cannot explain it because it’s not a part of our makeup to conquer, but it has zero to do with religion.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Why do you think some people would object to reading those documents?
ROSS: I suspect that most people that would make an accusation of anti-semitism have never read the documents. They certainly have not read my books.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): What I’m talking about is even the publication of those two documents themselves. Why would they not want those books before the general public?
ROSS: Because it tells of evil coming. If you decide you want to conquer all of Clifton, you wouldn’t want to let the word get out you had this plan. If you wrote up a plan on a piece of paper ..., you wouldn’t want that plan to fall in the hands of the public because they’d probably think it’s not a nice thing to do.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Do you think that they think this plan is bogus and shines a bad light on the Jewish people?
ROSS: I wouldn’t think any Jew whether they were Khazarian or semitic or Ashkenazi would want to label it anti-semitic because it sheds terrible light on a small group of people and they have a tie to them. Actually, the Protocols is just a blueprint. Just not a religious blueprint. It’s a coincidence that I ran across the Protocols, and when I read them, they so much paralleled what I saw going on that I could see that they were a vital part of explaining why we’re going in the direction we’re going. This has nothing to do with religion.American Union
ICONOCLAST (WLS): In your book entitled The American Union 2005, printed is an interview of you by broadcaster Maria Heller, in which you admonish the Bushes for changing the term “New World Order” to a series of terms utilizing the world global which, as you put it, is the goal of there being a one-world government controlled by bankers. You set the date of this occurring during the next couple of years. What evidence do you have at this point?
ROSS: If you carefully read, there’s a chapter in Dare We Not Tell the People with a timeline of this plan dating back to early 1940s or so. In fact, I have access to copies of the minutes of the first Bilderberg meeting in the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Netherlands. David Rockefeller was one of the attendees. In this first Bilderberg meeting, they talked about the creation of the European Union back in 1954. That was a very long-range plan. The name of this conglomeration changed over a period of time. It was European Economic Community, and finally it was settled on the European Union. Almost no one is aware of the fact that in the year 2000, they created the African Union, which is a copy of the European Union. Fifty-three nations of Africa joined together to create the African Union with one monetary system, one central bank, one governing body, the African Parliament, all a carbon copy of the European Union.Part of this overall plan is to do the same thing in the Americas. They plan to take all nations in North, Central, and South America and create what they then will call the American Union. That could happen sometime this year or next year. David Rockefeller created a Council of Americas back in, I believe, 1965. It’s made up of representatives of all nations of North, Central, and South America, Caribbean islands, except for Cuba. I have created a VHS tape called The American Union By 2005, which is what Maria Heller’s interview was based on. One half of the video is me talking about their plans going back in 1954 to create the European Union and then the African Union. The last half of the video is actual footage that I got from C-SPAN of David Rockefeller and Dick Chaney, three secretaries of state, two presidential councillors. In these clips, they talk about the creation of the New World Order. In fact, Dick Chaney in his speech at the Council of Americas meeting May 6, 2004, said that we are on track to create the free trade area of the Americas by Jan. 1, 2005. Now, within six to 18 months of that plan, they would change it from the free trade area of the Americas to the American Union.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): When President Bush met with President Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Martin of Canada at Baylor University recently to talk about free trade, do you think that was an attempt to move toward the American Union? What is your take on the Farmer’s Union decrying free trade in support of fair trade?
ROSS: The elite adopt generic terms that are designed, first of all, to create a smoke-screen or fog and they also create terms that will not gather attention. For example, in at least three of George H.W. Bush’s presidential speeches, he referred to the term New World Order. When he did this, the elite noticed that the audience immediately became alert, so they decided to change it to a generic term so that the public would accept it. They changed the term to globalization. When you hear the term “Globalization” or “Global Union” or “Global Trade” or “Global Architecture” or “Global Village,” all these terms exactly equal the previous term “New World Order.” The plan hadn’t changed. They just changed the sign out in front of the building.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Back when Adolf Hitler was in power, didn’t he refer to the Americas as the American Union?
ROSS: He could have. In fact, he was one of the others who wanted to dominate the entire world and create a new world order. I don’t know whether it’s contagious among a small group of people, but they have a need to dominate the world. I don’t understand it because I don’t even worry about my neighbor. I’m not going to try and take over my neighbor’s property. As long as my neighbor leaves me alone, I’ll leave him alone, and we’re just friends.Federal Reserve System
ICONOCLAST (WLS): The root of the problem as explained in your books is the Federal Reserve System.
ROSS: The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It is not federal, and there is no reserve. It is a private corporation, owned by the member banks of the Federal Reserve System, but it’s controlled by these international bankers. There are 12 regions —
ICONOCLAST (WLS): — set up, I’m assuming, to spread out throughout the United States.
ROSS: No, if you go back in history, the Rothschilds tried to create a central bank in the United States a number of times. They were given two or three charters, and at the end of the life of the charter, they were not allowed to renew it. Another charter was created to give them the ability to create a central bank. Back in 1913, there was a group of very wealthy people, including international bankers, that went to a secret meeting on an island off the Carolinas. At this meeting, they designed the Federal Reserve System, how it was going to work. They had influence with the President and key people in Congress, and actually the Federal Reserve Act was passed during the Christmas holidays of 1913. Not all in Congress were there to vote, but there were a number who voted for it. The House had already passed it, but it was designed to bring up the vote during the Christmas holidays where people wouldn’t notice it. There wouldn’t be enough people to resist it, and so the Federal Reserve Act went in, and the President signed it. At the same time they did the Internal Revenue Act. The purpose of the Internal Revenue Act was to support the Federal Reserve System. In fact, if you look at the laws of the Internal Revenue Act, it says that money collected into the Internal Revenue System will be deposited in credit unions and banks or central banks of the Federal Reserve System. Really, these others were just have the option to do that or put it in the Federal Reserve System, so every penny that’s collected actually goes into the Federal Reserve System.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): When the local banks have their dreaded bank examiners come down, these guys are from the private central banks?
ROSS: Now, there are state banks and federal banks. State banks are not required to be a member of the Federal Reserve System.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): They can, but not required to?
ROSS: They can elect to do so that if they want to, but they cannot be examined by the Federal Reserve System.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): That gives them restraints on what percentage of their assets they can loan?
ROSS: That’s right. The Federal Reserve System determines all the policies of all federal banks. What interest they can charge —all the banking practices are dictated by the Federal Reserve System.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Have there been any attempts to change the Federal Reserve System back to being the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
ROSS: No, one of the major problems with our political system is that the elite allow money to control what goes on in politics. They also control the court system — the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is a form of speech. That’s a long stretch to say that money is speech, but that’s what they did. And they said that since money is speech, then we see no reason to interfere with the use of money to create things on behalf of certain groups.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): So how is this money backed? Say you have a $10 bill. How much is it worth?
ROSS: It has no value. It’s only worth what the person receiving it is willing to trade for it. It’s not backed by gold or silver or anything of value. This was done on purpose in Nixon’s time. He took the lid off the price of gold, and for many years, it was $35 an ounce during his term. By the way, I have the minutes of the Bilderberg meeting which they discuss the taking off the limit on the price (of gold). I’ll just have to paraphrase it: “we will be able to accomplish some of the things we want. We’ll be able to finance it through the fact that when we take the lid off the price of gold, we’ll allow it to go up, and we’ll take this profit and do what we want with it.”Within two years of this meeting, gold went from $35 an ounce to $800 an ounce. So you can imagine the attendees of the Bilderberg meeting when they left and went out and bought gold and borrowed money to buy gold, because they knew they were going to take the lid off of it, and that’s what they did. The Bilderbergs plan everything of significance in the entire world.
Secret Groups
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Maybe we need to talk about these three groups. Explain how they were organized and why, the types of membership, etc.
ROSS: Let’s start with the Council on Foreign Relations that was founded in 1921. It started off with a group in New York City. They later expanded to another satellite group in Washington. Today, there is a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in every major city in the United States. The core is in New York City. Their headquarters is across from the Soviet Embassy in New York City. The (Harold) Pratt House is their headquarters. Today there are a little over 4,000 members. They meet at least monthly; sometimes, they will hold a special meeting when dignitaries are in town.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): How do you become a member?
ROSS: You have to be invited in. You have to have approval by a certain number of people in order to issue an invitation for a person to become a member. Then they have to have the FBI check them out.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): What if you become a member but then you want out? How do you get out of it?
ROSS: It’s sort of like the Mafia. You die out of the Council on Foreign Relations, like you die out of the Mafia. You don’t just decide one day to quit being one. The members of the Council on Foreign Relations are lifetime members. The Council on Foreign Relations is only U.S. citizens.
ICONOCLAST: How about the Bilderbergs?
ROSS: The Bilderbergs were founded in 1954, and it was made up of representatives of Canada, the United States, and Western Europe only. The attendees were typically around 300 people. It’s never held at the same place twice with one or two exceptions. This is for security reasons. The nation where they meet is required to provide security for the Bilderberg meeting. In addition to that the Bilderbergs have their own security people who are in control. In the past, if you got within a 100 feet or a 100 yards of the building where they were meeting, you’d be arrested. Today, they go beyond that. They say if someone tries to get closer than that, just shoot them. I have videos of the latest Bilderberg meeting. It shows that this five-star hotel where they met. Cars would drive inside this canopy extending out the entrance of the hotel. It just didn’t have a roof. It had walls and an end, too. So they’d draw the curtain back, and the car would drive in. The windows were all black, so you couldn’t see who was in it. They’d close the curtain in front. They’d go into the hotel, and they’d open the curtain and drive out. They didn’t successfully cover the cars in every case. I have a video showing, I believe it was Henry Kissinger, coming out one of the cars. When the Rothschilds get out of the car, the curtains are fully closed. When the queen of England or the queen of Spain or the queen of the Netherlands is out, you cannot see them. They’re called “attendees” rather than members.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): What about the Trilateral Commission?
ROSS: The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973, again, by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. There are 300-400 members. They meet once a year, again, in a secret meeting, but every year I write a letter to both the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations and ask for their list of members and they give them to me.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Are some of their members of the Trilateral Commission also members of Bilderberg and CFR?
ROSS: There are about three dozen in all three of the secret groups.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): You’d be talking probably 4,300-4,400 people in all that comprises these three groups?
ROSS: There’s about 4,000 in Council on Foreign Relations, about 300 in Trilateral, and about 300 Bilderbergs.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): About 4,600 people. And this is the group you are saying that want to rule the world.
ROSS: No, they are the tools used by the two at the very top, David Rockefeller and David de Rothschild.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): How old is Mr. Rothschild?
ROSS: He’s, I believe, 69.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): And Mr. Rockefeller is approximately the same age?
ROSS: He’s, I believe, in his 80s. Again, Rockefellers and Rothschild are worth trillions of dollars.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): How does that play into the dates you say in your books?
ROSS: They’ll be someone to take David’s place whenever he passes away.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Does anyone know who?
ROSS: No.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Anyone related to him?
ROSS: Not necessarily. The person who headed the Council on Foreign Relations who chaired the Chase Manhattan Bank before David Rockefeller was a fellow by the name of John J. McCloy. McCloy was an agent of Rothschild, as are the Rockefellers. They’re agents of Rothschild, even though they have trillions of dollars, they’re way down from the super wealthy, Rothschild.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): The endgame, if they’re gaining this power, and they’re gaining this money, the endgame would be what?
ROSS: Political and economic control of the entire world.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): What would that mean to people like you and me?
ROSS: In the European Union, they have already created a new constitution. They haven’t passed it yet, but this new constitution will override the constitution of every nation in the European Union. They have already written the constitution for the American Union, which will override our constitution and Bill of Rights and constitutions of all the other nations in North, Central, and South America. It has no Bill of Rights we’re entitled to — Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, all those things. This new constitution, I guarantee you, does not contain those rights, even though I have not seen it.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Are you familiar with the constitutions of any of the other American nations?
ROSS: No, I’m not.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): So you can’t tell how they compare to ours?ROSS: No, but the new constitution, once we reach that point, will override all the constitutions of all member nations.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): How do you think they will go about changing? Won’t United States citizens be up in arms?
ROSS: I’ll use one example. Let’s use the relationship between Mexico and the United States. I believe it was the New York Times that wrote an article noting that there was something like at least three million illegal immigrants who entered the United States from Mexico last year. That’s probably the lower end of the actuality, but the European Union, when they finally agreed to that, eliminated the need of passports and VISAs when traveling from one country to another, so people can freely move from one nation to another in the European Union. When they create the American Union, that will allow the Mexicans, Bolivians, and whoever to freely come to the United States.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): And we can go there.
ROSS: And we can go there, but there’s a fellow who did a study a number of years ago about almost all the nations in Latin America and determined that I believe 80 percent of the wealth was in less than 10 percent of the people, so you have super wealthy and very few middle class and the super impoverished people.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): I read somewhere that part of the way the major banking entities control the public is through chaos.
ROSS: Actually, I cover it succinctly. The Rothschilds have been involved in every major conflict in Western Europe from 1865 on. They financed both sides. The bankers finance both sides of the war, then they finance the reconstruction of the nation destroyed in the war. They only profit from wars, so there’s a great incentive for them to encourage wars. They’ve done that since 1865.
ICONOCLAST (ND): When you talk about these elites, I understand that they are all pretty much on the same page.
ROSS: When a Rothschild walks into the room, people will shudder, they are so powerful. The same thing with David Rockefeller. They fear David Rockefeller. The ones right next to him don’t fear him as much, but they always all respect him because of his wealth.
ICONOCLAST (ND): Have you seen any people up there saying, “No, we don’t want to do this. Maybe we should do that?” For this reason, we have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Are there any benevolent super elites that kind of help the less wealthy people of the world?
ROSS: They don’t do it openly, but there is some resistance going on. In the May 6, 2004, Dick Chaney said, “We will complete the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas by Jan. 1, 2005.” That’s a finite date. Now preceding that would be the completion of CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. That was signed by the President in late December 2004. He signed CAFTA, but this is a treaty, and the Senate has to ratify all treaties. The Senate has been sort of turning their back, saying, “We’ve got things to do. We haven’t gotten around to that.” They’re not openly resisting, but they’re not allowing CAFTA to come to a vote. They’re resisting the Free Trade Area of the Americas for the vote because they don’t want it, but they don’t openly say, “This is a terrible thing. It’s going to make us slaves. It’s going to dominate the world.” They dare not say that because the bankers finance their campaigns, and also they have probably photographs of members of Congress doing things they’re not proud of. J. Edgar Hoover was an expert. He created that technique. So they have economic control and also blackmail control over many of the people in Congress.
Treasury Department
ICONOCLAST (WLS): We had talked earlier about the Treasury Department, and you are quoted in one of your books as saying, “Fiscal Year ‘03 the U.S. government spent $318 billion of your money on interest payments to the owners of the national debt.” Do you know what that is now?
ROSS: No, it’s probably on the order of five percent interest or something like that of the total debt, but this is owed to both the Federal Reserve and foreign countries.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): You also have said that our national debt is now well over $7 trillion if they counted every debt obligation and accounted for them in the same manner as they require the public to account for them. The real federal debt is $40 trillion.
ROSS: That’s correct, but they don’t publish any figure like that. They will talk about $7 trillion, but they will never address the real $40 trillion.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Where does that come from?
ROSS: That comes from all loans the government has had, all their financial obligations. You have to look at the U.S. government as you would business. You have a balance sheet. Assets and liabilities. Total U.S. government liabilities are really at the order of $40 trillion, but you never get anyone in public office to state that amount.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): So how do we get rid of the massive federal debt?
ROSS: My brother came up with a solution to that. It’s in Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”Take it to the court and say, “According to this provision, our federal debt is null and void.” Write it off.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): But what happens to the people who hold the loans on that?
ROSS: Let’s say that you commit a crime — you steal something and then sell it to somebody else. You committed a crime, and they have committed a crime by buying the stolen property. Even considering the fact that they might not have known it was stolen, and you trace it back, and it is stolen. It’s no longer theirs, and they’re out their money, and they’re out the goods.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): You wrote in one of your books that the Treasury Department approves the printing of money, not the Federal Reserve.
ROSS: No. Let’s say that the U.S. government needs to borrow $1 billion to pay for the troops in Haiti, and they wanted it in $100 bills. They call up and write a letter to the Federal Reserve and say we want $1 billion worth in $100 bills. The Federal Reserve will contact the printing office and say, “Print us $1 billion in $100 bills.” The printing office will then charge the Federal Reserve something like $35,000 printing costs for material and labor for the bills. The Federal Reserve will then loan this $1 billion of $100 bills to the U.S. government with interest. Five percent or whatever the interest would be at that time. But the total cost is only $35,000, and they created $1 billion of assets that they loaned out. The more outrageous example is, let’s say Chase Manhattan Bank wants to borrow $1 billion into their credit card account. They call the Federal Reserve and say, “Credit our account with $1 billion.” They do that and create a note, but it’s all done electronically, and there’s no cost, other than payroll of the people who are working at the bank. So they created $1 billion of new money at virtually no cost.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): It goes directly into their account?
ROSS: Yeah, it goes into their account.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): And they’re part of the central bank.
ROSS: They have to pay the going rate, which is right now what? 1½-2 percent interest on that, and they loan that to credit card holders at 10 percent.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): So this is how credit card companies get rich?
ROSS: In this book I cover the fractional reserve practice that is mandated by the Federal Reserve System. It means that any Federal Reserve Bank member bank whose assets or capital exceeds $42 million can loan out all new money coming in like in a savings account or CD, 90 percent of that, back out in a loan. So an example I use is that if I put $1,000 in XYZ Bank, it can immediately loan out $900 of that to the next person coming in. That person can then but they take the $900 and open another savings account and put $900 in it. Then the bank can loan out $810, so if you keep loaning it on and on. This initial transaction of $1,000 creates $9,000 in new money, created by the bank in this fractional reserve process dictated by the Federal Reserve.Now an even more shocking example is the compounding of interest on loans. The example I use in the book is if Mary had taken one U.S. penny and deposited it in a savings account the day of Jesus Christ’s birth, today without anyone touching that account, just compounded interest at six percent daily, that one penny today is worth $167 and 36 zeros before you get to the decimal point. That’s compound interest. So now you know why they are in the banking business. In the book I give the exact number that’s equal to.By the way, on that same subject, in 1850 the first person to be called Rothschild left his fortune to his five sons. He died in 1812, I believe. By 1815, the sons had grown that original inheritance to $6 billion. So if you take the compounding equation of $6 billion in 1815, it’s current value today at six percent is almost $50 trillion. At eight percent, it’s a little over $400 trillion, if they didn’t add to it at all, just compounded daily.
ConCon
ICONOCLAST (WLS): You have in your book a little paragraph about the Constitutional Convention called ConCon and how it works. You say that, regarding the balanced budget amendment, it would take only two more states to ratify a call for a convention to take place. Once the convention gets under way, we are subject to the whims of the delegates. You are quoted as saying, “You can rest assured that a majority of the delegates to any Constitutional Convention will be puppets of the elite. There is a greater than a 50 percent chance that if a Constitutional Convention be called, we will have an entirely new constitution.”
ROSS: Once the Constitutional Convention has legally formed, it goes into session. By our Constitution, that convention can do anything. They can throw out the Constitution. They can completely revise it or revise parts of it. That is a danger of having a Constitutional Convention. We should never allow that.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): How do you make any changes to the Constitution?
ROSS: The way you do that is both Houses of Congress do their part in creating an amendment, and then that amendment is sent to all the states, of which a percentage must ratify this amendment before it can actually become an amendment. We’re protected that way.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): It emanates from the Congress to the states.
ROSS: That’s right. Yes, and states are in control. If it’s a really damaging amendment, that gives the public time to go to their representatives to say don’t vote for this. That’s the only way to kill it.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): What needs to happen to assure that government operates properly?
ROSS: We must get money out of the election process. If you believe the current people in office are going to do anything about it, you’re a little bit naive, and if you think that we’re protected by the Supreme Court, they’ve already said that money is free speech. We can’t gain control of our government without getting money out of it. We have to elect people who are inclined to do that, and my position is it can’t be a Democrat or a Republican because they are in charge now. I suggest that everytime there’s an election, whether it’s a city, county, state, or federal government, that there be an independent person running that is not tied to either the Democrats or Republicans, and that we support these people and elect them, and once they become the majority in both Houses of Congress and become President, then they can say, “We speak for the people, and we’re going to do things for the people, and no longer for the special interests.” Once the people are in control, literally the people will be in control then.The other thing I recommend is that they change the law of campaign financing so that no one is allowed to contribute money who is running for office unless they physically live in the district that person has represented for five years, and that no business be allowed to donate money. Only residents can donate money. But set a small limit on it. Others will say that it costs money to run for office. Why run for office for two years? Say you have three months to run for office. That cuts the cost way down. And then say that the Iconoclast must provide free space in the paper to give your position. That’s part of them being allowed to publish a paper, and every television station must give public service rights. Clearly define this. Now you’ve got money out of the deal. You cut costs down. Once the people are in control of the government under this new process, then the first thing we do is make it illegal for anyone who holds any public office, elected or hired, to be a member of any secret organization. By secret organization, I mean Klu Klux Klan, you name it, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs. They cannot be a member of any secret group for five years, and also there be no grandfathering of this, so anyone who is a member of these secret groups must immediately be removed from office.Then now we want to say that when we enter office, we put our hand on the Bible, and swear to defend the Constitution against anybody, foreign or domestic. Now we have an internal group who wants to overthrow our government. We need to bring them into court. Let’s bring this all out into the open, and let the people decide, is this what you want? That’s very simple, but it’s not easy to do. In fact, it would take quite some time. First of all, you have to educate the people to do this, or first of all, you have to convince them that there’s justification to do this for all these reasons.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Wouldn’t you almost have to be organized?
ROSS: Yeah, really, I’m looking for the next Martin Luther King to step up and say, “I’m fed up with this. People, this is what we’re going to do. Now on May 31, we’re all going to head to Washington, and we’re going to point our fingers to Congress and say, ‘Stop this! We’re tired of this. It’s not in our Constitution. We don’t want you to do this anymore. If you don’t stop it, you won’t be elected anymore.’” We need a leader. Someone to step up. I’m not suggesting its me. I don’t want to do that at all, but I’m not a Martin Luther King.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Someone with charisma. That type of person?
ROSS: That’s right. Someone with no self-interest. Someone with no agenda other than protecting the people of the United States against this internal and external force that wants to take over this world.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): But as far as the other Congressional offices go to put independents in, wouldn’t you need an organization to find independents who would latch on to your concept.
ROSS: It would be a major screening process to find someone who didn’t have a hidden agenda — charismatic people who are really interested in the future quality of life for their children and grandchildren. That’s the real goal of it. You and I have lived better than our parents. My parents lived better than their parents. Our children are not going to live better than I am. My grandchildren are going to have a reduced quality of life, if we don’t stop.
Privatization
ICONOCLAST (WLS): What are your views on privatization?
ROSS: The privatization of the Social Security system — you have to step back from all major issues, and I view myself as being 160 miles up in the atmosphere looking down at the Earth, and when something happens, I ask why did this happen? If you look at that particular subject, you’ll see that the international bankers want to gain more control of your money. So if they say that one of the answers to the Social Security problem is to privatize part of it or maybe all of it, then what do you mean by privatization? It means that you take the funds that would normally be contributed to the Social Security Fund, and you invest it in the stock market or whatever, and every now and then the sheep herders will sheer the sheep. There was a major sheering of the sheep in 1929. We’re very close to having another sheering time again, so if your money is in stocks, bonds, and commodities, the likelihood of it being there will be reduced considerably.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Are suggesting that there will be another depression?
ROSS: No sooner than three months but no later than 18-24 months, we will be in a major recession and possibly a depression.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Do you have any idea how long that would last?
ROSS: The last one lasted about a dozen years.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): The reason you think this would happen is?
ROSS: The Bolsheviks took over Russia by murdering 66 million middle class people. These middle class people were educated, and they had the ability to think and have judgement. They literally murdered them. Now, they can’t do that here in this nation because we’re too well armed. We’re protected by the Constitution, so they cannot do a violent takeover of this nation. They’re going to take it over through economic means. They’re taking as many jobs as they can and sending them offshore, like the manufacture of clothing and materials used in clothing is almost 100 percent done offshore. All the lower hourly paid jobs in the world and manufacturing of everything else. Almost no electronics are made here. They’re made in Korea, Japan, Singapore. They’re reducing the ability to earn a decent living by the people. The reason the Bolsheviks left the very poor people alone in Russia is because all they worried about was where the next food was coming from and clothes to stay warm and shelter to get in and out of the rain. They didn’t care about what the government did at all. In the United States, first off all, they’re dumbing down our kids, so eventually, they will not have the tools to argue with these people because they will not have the ability to do logic. They refuse to protect our borders. Last year, over three million illegal immigrants entered this nation from Mexico. So as you bring more people in looking for jobs, and send more jobs out, it’s a law of supply and demand. There will be more and more people hunting fewer and fewer jobs, and the payrate for those jobs is going down, and the likelihood of gaining seniority in your job is going to be diminished. People then will not care about what the government is doing. They’ll worry about how they are going to feed their kids. It’s a shell game. Get their eyes off the government and on their pocketbook: “How am I going to make this next house note? How am I going to make this next car note? How am I going to send my kids to school? I don’t care what the government does. I don’t have time.” That’s part of the overall plan.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Why is that part of the plan?
ROSS: Because the end goal is to dominate the world politically and economically.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): Are you talking population control?
ROSS: Population control will be part of it. The elite have for years wanted to gain possession of the tremendous wealth of the natural resources in Africa. Now, for some reason, they have not been able to overcome the tribes of Africa and dominate them. They’re independent. If you can’t gain control of the people, you can create diseases — Eboli, AIDS, HIV — and take it to Africa, and depopulate them with disease. On the side you can take two hoodlums and give them a little money in their back pocket, and they will revolt against the government and cause a rebellion and millions of people have been killed through rebellions. If you look behind the curtain, you’ll see the CIA, and if you look behind the curtain behind the CIA, you’ll find the elite. They are going to do the same thing here. If you open up the borders, and let all the very poor people from Latin America come into this country legally by walking across the border, that means more and more people looking for fewer and fewer jobs. Our quality of life is going to be reduced. Their quality of life will come up, and ours will go way down. The end result is that we won’t worry about what the government says. Let’s worry about where we’re going to eat.
ICONOCLAST (ND): Talking about European Unions and African Unions, American Unions, do you see that Iraq is the first stage to a Middle Eastern Union?
ROSS: President George W. Bush has already stated that sometime in the near future we need to create a Middle East Union. Now I don’t know if that was a slip of the tongue or not. He really needs to go by the script or he wouldn’t have made that statement. But right after the American Union, there will be a Pacific Union made up of all those Pacific Rim nations. They started that in 1998, when they created the Asian-Pacific Economic Community made up of all nations in the Pacific Rim. Somewhere around 2010 they will create the Asian Union. Also around the same time the former nations of the Soviet Union will be reconstituted under a new union. Maybe the Russian Union. It won’t be called the “Soviet Union” because of the negative image. In the end there will be 10 unions, all reporting to the central government called the “Global Union.” If David Rockefeller is still alive at that time, he will be the czar of the Global Union. If he’s not, there will be someone else prepared to take his place. The Rothschilds always remain behind the curtain. They will never step out to the podium. They will always stay behind the curtain.
ICONOCLAST (ND): How does the U.N. fit into this equation?
ROSS: The U.N. is only one of the many tools of the elite. The Federal Reserve is a tool. The Central Banks are a tool. The CIA is a tool. Every director without exception of the CIA has been a member on the Council on Foreign Relations. Law of chance will not permit that. It tells me that every intelligence organization in every nation of the world works for ultimately the Rothschilds. They control all the intelligence. They tweak all the knobs.
ICONOCLAST (WLS): In conclusion, if the world is truly headed in the direction you project, how can the tides be changed?
ROSS: To my knowledge, no one has any organized effort to try to stop this. There are probably 100 people in the world who are very aware of this movement, and they’re trying to expose it, but they have no ability to stop it, other than making people aware of it. In actuality, if five percent of the people in the United States knew this was going on, it would come to a halt real quick. There would be a march on Washington of millions of people, saying stop it. That’s the only way it would stop.

Deconstructing Hollywood mind-control

HOLLYWOOD ADVANCES 'SOFT ASSAULT' ON CHRISTIAN IMAGERY-Subliminal propaganda radiates from The Big Screen-
By Mark Green and Wendy CampbellApril, 2005

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people in gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -James Madison, 1788

Edison may have invented the ‘motion picture’, but Jewish immigrants from Europe “invented Hollywood”. Remarkably, in the century since Meyer, the Warner brothers and a handful of other Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants began the ‘studio system’, Hollywood still maintains a distinctly Yiddish accent. Some critics, however, posit that Hollywood doesn’t play fair, since it employs the mesmerizing power of cinema to manipulate the mindset of complacent viewers. How? By relentlessly injecting sordid scenarios and denigrating images of once respected American archetypes and institutions. Latest targets: the Catholic Church and, as usual, Arabs.
One very recent example (out of many) is the comic-book-styled action flick “Sin City”. In it we witness numerous oddball villains, many adorned with multiple layers of crucifixion crosses (a symbol revered by many Christians) as they go about their merry, murderous ways. Indeed, the film’s arch-villain turns out to be nothing less than a satanic, cannibalistic Catholic cardinal! OK, this is fictional entertainment, but Hollywood knows that these scenarios have a visceral, even subliminal, impact. That’s basically why we don’t see any Hollywood-fabricated demons sporting Stars of David (a symbol revered by many Jews) nor do we see any ‘rabid rabbis’‚ dished up for popular entertainment.
The unspoken code of Hollywood is this: Jewish archetypes and religious sensitivities are to be respected. Others may be casually smeared.
Although Catholics and Arabs are expected to survive this non-lethal onslaught, when one considers the laudatory treatment Hollywood grants Jewish and Israeli characters, it’s becoming an insult. How is it that Jews, Arabs and Christians receive such different treatment under Hollywood’s gaze?
In polite terms, the Jewish presence in American film and media is "without peer".
In many ways, Hollywood is an “insider” kind of business. While talent is essential, there is a political element to success in Hollywood. One must pass muster with the specifically Jewish dictates of political correctness. Otherwise, one may find oneself very unemployed. It took an actor/producer with the stature of Mel Gibson to buck this kosher Hollywood code and produce his controversial, but wildly successful film, “The Passion”. Even Gibson however had to endure a tidal wave of organized Jewish protest, including death threats to his family.
To no one's surprise, Bob and Harvey Weinstein of Miramax Films declined to distribute Gibson's “The Passion”, in no small part because it offended many Jews and was accused of stoking the “eternal flames" of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, the Weinstein brothers did distribute “Sin City” as well as Michael Moore’s much ballyhooed “Fahrenheit 9/11”. Why? Both films respected the unwritten kosher code: vilification of Arab and/or Christians is acceptable, but one must never --- even in the context of analyzing terrorism or U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East--- demonize Israel or Zionism.
Indeed, in “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Michael Moore's controversial "expose" actually managed to keep Israel, Zionism (and even neo-conservatism) completely off the cinematic radar. Moore did provide acceptable doses of Saudi-bashing as well as enough innuendo to bolster the Leftist, politically correct view that U.S. Mid East policies are "ALL about oil". He's been the darling of liberal Hollywood circles ever since.
With that in mind, it's important that the aspiring film-maker should remember these three things:
One: Jews tend to occupy the top of the Hollywood food chain.
Two: They intend to remain there.
Three: Don’t forget those first two things.
Like it or not, the “gatekeepers” of American mass media are disproportionately 'Israeli-American'. Though Tinseltown famously disdains “white (non-Jewish) racism”, prevailing Hollywood customs affirm industry-wide Jewish networking. The results are nothing less than astounding.
America, many now acknowledge, has come to “think Jewish ”, as attitudes have magically shifted on matters such as race, "minority rights", school prayer, "abortion rights", celebrating “the holidays”, and “promoting our nation's values” via militant democracy-building in all Mid-East countries except Israel. OK, Israel may qualify as a “democracy” in the same way that white, apartheid South Africa did, but there’s one huge difference: concerted intervention from around the world finally brought the segregated, apartheid system to its knees. White racial discrimination has been declared “evil”. Significantly, Jewish activists played a decisive role in the anti-apartheid movement. Yet Israel suffers no similar opprobrium. Pressures on the Jewish state to abandon its commitment to legally sanctioned segregation are also virtually non-existent. Israel is in a class by itself.
Further, it is no accident that Israeli “security” is now the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.
How are the highly placed “friends of Israel” able to bamboozle so much of the world? ---Through a complicated but interconnected array of propaganda, political pressure, complex legalisms, victim identity (see: The Holocaust) and raw political muscle. In today’s America, just an allegation of “anti-Semitism” can damage the career of any public figure. And to sustain this perspective, Americans are supplied a daily dose of Holocaust lore. As a sidebar, here’s an additional fact that would be funny if only it wasn’t true: Holocaust “experts” are virtually all Jewish. Does their collective obsession produce scholarship--or a license to propagandize?
In any case, for the latest Holocaust news, one needs simply to turn on the TV or pick up any major newspaper. Yet an accurate telling of the Jewish experience in America would spotlight not suffering or persecution, but success, acceptance, privilege and influence. Jews are America’s preeminent success story.
Although reportedly less than 3% of our population, Jewish per capita income is unsurpassed, as is their presence at our nation’s top universities and think tanks. As noted, American Jews make up a majority of Hollywood’s ruling class and beyond that, Jewish ‘over-representation’ is an accomplished fact in law, journalism, and publishing. This is no small matter. With the average American watching over four hours of TV or film every day (and perusing mainstream newspapers and magazines, too) these figures are evidence of a profound ethnic imbalance in the management and dissemination of news and information. For America’s Jewish community, this translates into unrivaled political power.
The enduring fact remains that who ever owns and manages the media, can also leverage public opinion, and from there, government policies.
Indeed, Jewish media mavens have the means to easily advance their particular view of history, with far-reaching consequences. And with the Jewish state of Israel embroiled perpetual conflict since its founding in 1948, the question must be posed: might many of our country’s most accomplished producers, editors and story-tellers have at least a minor conflict of interest?
Put another way: how can they NOT?
After all, Israeli “security” remains the essential focus of organized Jewry. Countless pro-Israel organizations famously apply incessant pressure on government officials, political parties, candidates, journalists and fellow 'tribe-members' to lobby on Israel’s behalf, assuring an uninterrupted flow of billions of dollars annually in U.S. aid to the Jewish state.
Consequently, maintaining a public willingness to favor America‚s present interventionist, (pro-Israel/anti-Arab) foreign policy is an essential component in any scenario culminating in the Final Zionist Triumph. It’s essential therefore that American gentiles “think correctly” on key Jewish issues. Thus, many complex political issues are ‘dumbed down’ for mass consumption. Good and evil are drawn neatly in back and white, so that American consumers of news and entertainment can easily draw the proper conclusion. Arabs (particularly Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation) are therefore “terrorists”, Nazi demonology is a growth industry, and Holocaust Revisionism (widely misrepresented as “Holocaust Denial”) is peddled as a veritable threat to world order.
It's a staggering fact that in numerous “free, Western democracies” (such as Germany, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, and others) it's a crime to question the official Jewish death toll figures or the gas chamber story in the events now called The Holocaust. Penalties include fines and actual imprisonment!
Holocaust heretic Ernst Zundel was deported from the U.S. to Canada where he spent two years in solitary confinement. Now he sits in a German prison. Who's next?
A balanced, accurate view of history matters, yet when the facts don’t fit, the media gatekeepers can purposefully misinterpret, obfuscate or simply overlook them. This may explain why, for instance, there is so little media interest in the annihilation of 20 million anti-Bolshevik Russians preceding WWII. After all, 20 million Russians KILLED BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT is the all-time tsunami of war crimes. Who were the perpetrators? Where are they now? Did they receive American cover? Do they still?
In addition, the average American simply knows nothing about the ‘over-represented’‚ Jewish role in Communism’s insidious rise. This too is no accident.
Considering that some 275 million people have perished in wars during the past century, America’s nurtured obsession with, and elevation of, Jewish suffering in Europe during WWII might be seen as a peculiar idiosyncrasy. Indeed, many have concluded that the American Mind is under Israeli management. The irony of our nation’s preoccupation with Jewish war causalities 55 years after the fact becomes even more unpleasant when we consider the horrendous, ONGOING persecution of Palestinians in the Holy Land under Jewish occupation. The fundamental Palestinian crime: residing in Israel without proper Jewish DNA.
As for American cinema, there has been a sea of changes in the past generation. There’s now a multicultural array of celebrities, including many Jewish ones. On the other hand, Christianity doesn’t get the kind of coverage it enjoyed when Frank Capra was directing. Thus, we are treated to seeing an array of stock Christian mobsters, whores and charlatans. As for Arabs, they’re still welcome to play terrorist schemers or religious fanatics. This is the mean side to American film that goes unacknowledged and unchallenged.
Recently, after reading numerous glowing reviews, we succumbed to seeing the afore-mentioned over-praised, action-revenge flick, “Sin City”. Directed by Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez (with “special guest director" Quentin Tarantino), “Sin City” is a gritty, sexy and surrealistic foray into a violent post-modern metropolis. By contemporary standards, this film delivers more than its share of violence, though there’s certainly worse in circulation. In “Sin City”, the denigration of Christian icons, however, approaches new highs (lows?), something that was also very evident in Tarantino’s previous “Kill Bill” movies. “Sin City” even manages to associate blue eyes with depravity, although for Hollywood that’s nothing new.
The film’s two heroic characters (and they were not wearing any Christian symbols) were portrayed by Mickey Rourke and Bruce Willis. It’s Willis who finally manages to kill the evil Catholic priest. It was designed to be a stirring moment.
At any rate, we can rest assured that Hollywood will refrain from depicting Jews in such negative fashion. As for the rest of us, we're supposed to buy tickets, eat popcorn and not complain. In fact, we’re not even supposed to NOTICE, since it might suggest racial loyalty which, for (non-Jewish) white Americans, is a modern sin.
These very real double standards speak volumes about who holds real power in contemporary America.
*******************************************
Some suggestions: Create your own narrative. Recognize subversive imagery. Reject double standards. Establish new media. Break new grounds. Question taboos. Eschew passivity. Take action!
*******************************************
Mark Green and Wendy Campbell practice what they preach. For more information about their views and their taboo-shattering documentaries, please visit www.marwenmedia.com.

Protection Racket

ZIONIST FOX GUARDS AMERICAN HENHOUSE
By: Henry Makow
A "protection racket" is a scam where an aggressor instigates an attack, blames it on a bogeyman, and then offers to protect the victim from this bogeyman in return for money and power.
The "War on Terror" is a protection racket. The aggressor is the world financial elite known as the "Crown" based in the City of London. Their instrument is the Zionist project, specifically the Mossad and its US allies.
The victim is the people of the United States and the West in general. The goal is the overthrow of Western Civilization, and the establishment of a world police state called the "New World Order."
"Zionism is but an incident of a far reaching plan," said leading American Zionist Louis Marshall, counsel for bankers Kuhn Loeb in 1917. "It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon."
The head of the Department of Homeland Security is Israeli dual citizen and Zionist Michael Chertoff. He was the New Jersey State Attorney when five Mossad agents were arrested after witnesses saw them congratulating themselves on the destruction of the World Trade Center. Their van tested positive for explosives. (See Chris Bollyn article below.) Speculators who shorted airline stocks before 9-11 have been identified as Israelis apparently.
"ANTI SEMITISM" THE ORIGINAL PROTECTION RACKET
The Jewish elite regards the Jewish rank-and-file as pawns to be manipulated. "Anti Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren," says the author of Protocols of the Elders of Zion (9-2) a "forgery" that reads like the blueprint of the New World Order.
Jews had to be terrorized into setting up Israel as a "national home," i.e. colonizing the Middle East and creating a centre of world government. World Finance funded the Nazis. Zionists actively collaborated with them. See "The Holocaust as Mental Paradigm." See also "Zionism: A Conspiracy Against Jews"
Zionist betrayal is the reason Jews went passively to their deaths, says Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld in his book "Holocaust Victims Accuse." Non-Zionist Jews were worth more dead than alive to the Zionist leadership who, Shonfeld says, reaped the moral and financial capital from their "sacrifice." See my "Zionism: Compulsory Suicide for Jews."
The Jewish elite has a long history of manipulating Jews in this manner. For example, in 1950 a wave of anti Semitism and terrorism in Iraq made Naeim Giladi, 21, join the Zionist underground. Giladi was imprisoned, tortured and sentenced to death by Iraqi authorities.
He escaped and fled to Israel only to discover that the anti Semitism and bombings had been engineered by his fellow Zionists to dupe Iraqi Jews into going to Israel. An ancient community was deprived of its wealth and reduced to second-class citizen status in Israel, replacing Palestinian labor. See my "Zionists Double Crossed Iraqi Jews"
"ANTI SEMITISM" BECOMES "ANTI AMERICANISM"
A pogrom like 9-11 was designed to stampede Americans into forfeiting their civil rights and invading the Middle East.
There is a drumbeat in the media to convince Americans that they are victims of Muslim fanatics. This propaganda campaign is carried out by Neo Cons (a.k.a. Zionists.) In an otherwise disappointing new book, "The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America," Michael Collins Piper writes:
"In the build-up to the Iraq war, Zionist propagandists and the media increasingly began touting the message to Americans that "the whole world is against us"... and the Israelis are our only real solid dependable ally ...The theme that anti Americanism had run rampant was instilled in Americans for the very purpose of making them "anti" everyone who refused to support the...Iraq war...and the more broad ranging Zionist agenda." (157)
Sound familiar? This is the tactic they use on Jews. See my "How Jews are Brainwashed and Manipulated."
Piper says that Zionism is being equated with Americanism. Zionist agents like Nathan Sharansky crafted the overblown and specious rhetoric of Bush's second inaugural speech that committed the US to advancing the Zionist agenda using force.
History provides a sobering warning as to where this could be leading. In his essay, The Nature of Zionism, Russian author Vladimir Stepin writes,
"During the civil war in Russia, the Zionists also performed another task. Using some units of the Red Army - Trotsky was the chairman of the country's Revolutionary Military Council - they organized the Jewish pogrom in Seversk.
The result of this was the "Law on Those Involved in Pogroms" of 27 July 1918. In accordance with this law, a monstrous Zionist terror raged in Russia for ten years: a person accused of anti-Semitism was, without any argument being allowed, declared to be involved in pogroms and placed against the wall to be shot.
Not only anti-Zionists, but the best representatives of the intelligentsia of Russia, could be accused of being anti-Semitic, and so too could anyone one felt like accusing of it. People saw who was exercising power in Russia and expressed their discontent with it. 90% of the members of the Cheka - the Soviet security organ, 1918-1922 - were Zionists.
Apart from the law on those involved in pogroms, the Zionists practised genocide against the ethnic groups inhabiting Russia, and they did so by accusing people of counter-revolutionary activities, sabotage, and so on, irrespective of whether or not the people in question really had conducted such activities. It was standard practice merely to put them against the wall to be shot."
CONCLUSION
My hunch is that the world financial elite, using Masonic secret societies and intelligence agencies, is responsible for 90% of terrorism. The purpose is to manipulate people into advancing the goals of the New World Order, which includes destroying true religion, nation states, democracy, race and family.
They are running a protection racket. They are empowered to protect us from this "terror." Zionists or Americans who carry out their agenda could end up holding the bag if something goes wrong, or as I should say right.
Remember they are challenging the greatest power in the universe: God, or Truth as witnessed in the souls of all human beings. They are most vulnerable now on the 9-11 attackwhich they perpetrated. If we rise up as one to demand the truth about this atrocity, their obscene criminal enterprise will start to unravel.

One hundred years of evil

By Leona Toker
Paradoxes of public opinion: People worry about the victims of the tsunami but forget about the victims in Darfur. The O.J. Simpson trial competed for ratings with the Rwandan genocide. The Holocaust is commemorated with due solemnity (important to all sides in this period of new anti-Semitism), but talk of "those gulags" is considered boring. Indeed, in the introduction to her Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Gulag: A History," Anne Applebaum registers her amazement on seeing how Western tourists purchase Soviet-era souvenirs in liberated Prague. The same tourists would never dream of parading Nazi symbols as keepsakes. In his book "Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million," English novelist Martin Amis attempts to reach an imaginative understanding of Stalin's era and of the accommodating attitudes of leftist intellectuals in England toward Soviet totalitarianism (the intellectual left in the United States, France and Israel has also had cause for remorse on this matter) - as well as of the reasons why the study of Soviet history often evokes a bitter laugh.
It is pointless to debate whether it was the Nazi totalitarian regime or the Soviet one that caused more human suffering; one infinity is no greater than another. The comparison, however, is legitimate when one of the two systems can shed light on the other. Amis' bitter laughter while studying Soviet history is associated with the contrast between utopian hopes and the means of achieving them; between humanistic slogans and reality; between the idealist intentions of the Russian revolutionaries and the cynicism with which they forced their social experiment on hundreds of millions of people who may have had their own recipes for happiness. These contradictions were clearly reflected in the empire of concentration/forced labor camps, which was part of the Soviet Union throughout its history and which, in the wake of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago," has come to be widely known as the gulag.
Concentration camps were neither a Russian invention nor a German one. They were first established in 1896 by Spaniards in Cuba, to keep the peasants from supporting local rebels. At that time, the camps supposedly served as a "humane" substitute for massacre. The word "concentration" in the name of this institution is short for "reconcentration" - the transfer of population centers in order to separate civilians from guerrilla combatants. Nevertheless, the age-old drive for genocide found expression here too: It manifested itself in the failure to create the infrastructure necessary for the transfer, in the non-provision (whether deliberate or negligent) of food and medicine, and in the day-to-day cruelty of the perpetrators. The routines of local civilization were shattered, the needs of the community were not addressed, and thousands of women, children and elderly people were left to die of malnutrition and disease without staining the soldiers' hands with their blood.
The same method was used by the British in their war on the Boers in South Africa, with similar results. It should be noted, however, that quite a few Englishmen - and Englishwomen - struggled against this policy and went to great lengths to help the prisoners. There is no knowledge of similar activity among the German citizenry when its army hunted the Herero tribe in Africa in 1904, exterminating most of its people and incarcerating the rest in concentration camps (the first genocide of the 20th century). The German colonial powers then contributed to the history of the concentration camp by introducing the idea of forced labor; medical experiments were also conducted there by (literally) the teachers of Josef Mengele, the Auschwitz "Angel of Death" 40 years later.
A cheap alternative
The history of the concentration camps is surveyed in Joel Kotek and Pierre Rigoulot's "Le siecle des camps: Detention, concentration, extermination; Cent ans de mal radical," on which Applebaum relies. She also draws on numerous studies about the concentration camps established in Russia in 1918 at Trotsky and Lenin's initiatives. The camps were then viewed as a temporary measure. The creation of a just socialist regime was supposed to eliminate the conditions that led to crime, and with them the need for penitentiaries. This belief, another cause for bitter laughter, impeded the building of new prisons; instead, "enemies of the people" and suspects arrested in great numbers were placed in temporary facilities. This solution ("humane" in comparison to swift executions, also fashionable at the time) was relatively cheap, a fact that caused it, paradoxically, to spread and endure, continuing to exist even today in countries such as North Korea and China.
The camps served several purposes. The goal of the political police was to have suspected opponents of the regime isolated or vindictively punished, whereas the people's commissariat of justice sought to reeducate prisoners through labor. All the parties involved wanted the camps to be run as economically self-supporting enterprises, getting maximum yield at a minimal investment. During years when food was scarce throughout Russia, this minimum became a death sentence.
The number of prisoners grew steadily, reaching millions by the late 1930s. They were put to work creating infrastructure in areas where survival was difficult, building roads, factories and entire cities, cutting timber in the forests of the north, working in mines, in agriculture and in industry. Marxist political economy recognizes that slave labor is ineffective due to the lack of incentive - but Stalin's henchmen created an incentive: they tied the size of the prisoners' food rations to their labor output. Those who met the "quotas" got more to eat, those who did not, got less. The system was gradually refined, so that eventually the ration scale came to include 17 different norms of nutrition - without, of course, taking into account the systematic theft of food supplies on the way to the mess.
Thus prisoners whose bodies faltered received less food and grew even weaker. They eventually died of hunger- related illnesses, in anguish and humiliation. But even the maximal rations fell short of the calories expended in intense labor; the sturdiest of inmates, therefore, would also slip into exhaustion and occasionally lose their self-discipline and sanity. Conditions improved when increased industrial performance was needed; however, when waves of arrests caused the labor force to swell, matters tended to go in the other direction. At certain periods (especially in 1938) numerous labor camps actually became extermination camps, killing not with gas but with cold, hunger, disease, abuse by criminal inmates and even executions, carried out after a brief, pseudo-legal procedure.
But since death in the gulag was not immediate, a society with its own internal rules developed in the camps. Opportunities arose for individuals to avoid the slippery slope. Using survivor testimony, scholarly research and archival material, Applebaum constructs a comprehensive picture of life in the camps and traces the history of the gulag until its dismantling in the late 1980s. She surveys fluctuations in the social and ethnic composition of the prisoner population and shows how the fate that different groups could expect at different times was influenced by such events as the war with Germany and repeated waves of terror. She also describes the kinds of "lottery tickets" that individual men, women and children could draw at different stages in their suffering, and the dangers and moral dilemmas with which they had to grapple.
The camps' cultural legacy
No aspect of the gulag experience is left out of the book. Using documented examples, the author tells of family bonds trampled, of infants and children abandoned to a dismal fate when their mothers were arrested, of torture. She describes the deadly negligence of the authorities within the facilities and in the transports, rape and sexual exploitation, abysmal sanitary conditions, the menace posed by criminal inmates, hunger, unending workdays, the lack of warm clothing, sadistic forms of solitary confinement, disease, horrors encountered while fleeing the camps, and the different ways of dying.
Nor does the book neglect to survey the factors that aided survival: culture and education sections that operated within the camps, hospitals and their devoted (if under-equipped) staff, the rare and precious opportunities to practice one's profession, or separate cases of good fortune. Applebaum also describes the practically mandatory ways of deceiving the camp authorities but avoids noting that dishonesty in the workplace - crucial for survival in the gulag - lingers up to our own day as part of the cultural legacy of the camps.
Varlam Shalamov (1907-1982; author of "Kolyma Tales") once said that the subject of the gulag was vast enough for 10 writers like Tolstoy and 100 writers like Solzhenitsyn. It is also vast enough for thousands of historians. The uniqueness of Applebaum's book lies in its combination of a comprehensive vision, accessible prose and a sufficiently penetrating understanding of the material. Among historians there are Holocaust deniers, and there is also a school that denies the dimensions of the Stalinist terror. The main argument of the latter concerns the numbers of people incarcerated in the gulags. After perestroika, historians first gained access to the archives of the gulag administration, and efficiently discovered documents quoting smaller numbers (for example, 2.5 million prisoners in the peak years, in contrast to the estimate of 7 million made by Robert Conquest, the classical historian of Stalinist Russia. Conquest's estimate is conservative in comparison with the insistence of many of the survivors that peak years saw about 10 million prisoners in Soviet camps).
Anne Applebaum sidesteps this trap (although she cautiously leans toward the conservative statistics). Having spoken with survivors and read prisoner testimonies, she is well aware that numbers can be doctored, accounts falsified, and that statistics may fail to reflect a great many realities. She also knows how to read the reports of gulag inspectors, which strike her as surprisingly honest, about the conditions in the camps. As one survivor, author Lev Razgon, explains in his memoirs, only an initiated reader can understand the true meaning of a "shortage of drying facilities" noted in a report - i.e., that the following morning people would go to work wearing clothes that had not dried during the night and freeze to death in them.
Applebaum's contribution to the study of the history of the gulag also involves her use of new archival research (conducted by herself and others) to authenticate stories previously regarded as folklore - for example, the case of the 6,114 peasants who were brought to an uninhabited island on the Ob River and left there without food or supplies. Some 4,000 of them died within four months; the survivors were sent to prison on charges of cannibalism.
It is regrettable that after all the dedicated research that went into the project, the book was not edited with similar care. There are many small errors - misprinted words, distortions of Russian terms and names, even minor factual mistakes. The same errors were reproduced in the Hebrew translation. An editor of Russian origin would have caught most of them. Such inaccuracies are typical of the haste with which books on "ratings-worthy" subjects are published. Applebaum's book does not fall under this category, although it, too, may eventually become dated: Understanding the gulag is an ongoing process, and because some archival material has yet to become accessible, new facts and discoveries are bound to surface. Judging by the current situation, however, the need and the possibility for a next update will not arise very soon.
Why the silence?
Toward the end of the book the author proposes answers to several important questions: How is it that the gulag's end in the late 1980s - just like its emergence - attracted virtually no public attention? Why is the commemoration of the victims so subdued, why is it not massively endorsed by the state? Why are various circles in Russia reluctant to see the gulag's memory perpetuated? Who is interested in having it silenced again? And why is it of practical importance for the world's free nations to understand the gulag phenomenon down to its details? Applebaum claims she wrote the book not to help prevent the recurrence of the concentration camps, but out of a sad certainty that such camps will indeed recur in any place where those who are different are treated only as means to an end. Or, one might add, only as obstacles.
Nor should it be forgotten that forced labor camps still exist in the world's last remaining communist countries. When my nice new electric kettle, made in China, burns down unprovoked, or a button falls off a shirt that only yesterday I succumbed to the temptation of buying, I wonder whether this is not a signal from a concentration camp. Chinese camps sometimes hide behind the facades of factories. The impossibility of determining which industrial facility really is an innocent factory was explained in 1992, in the present tense, by survivor Harry Hongda Wu. Applebaum devotes only one sentence, and not an entirely accurate one, to the Chinese camps.
In 1930, gulag prisoners managed to signal to timber-processing workers in England and the U.S. that the wood imported from Russia was the product of forced labor. The attempt, however, was futile: The ban on Russian timber only caused prisoners to be reassigned; instead of felling trees, they were sent to dig the canal between the Baltic Sea and the White Sea, with death toll estimates ranging from 50,000 to 200,000. By contrast, what can improve the fates of political prisoners is, one must agree with Applebaum, international political pressure. It is to be hoped that the policy makers and public opinion might be willing to exert it.
Despite the great many striking quotations from personal stories that Applebaum enlists to demonstrate her claims, readers seeking an in-depth understanding of the gulag phenomenon will need to look beyond this historical- journalistic study. In order to come closer to life in the camps, to understand its rhythms, to conjure it up in our imagination, and to let it place ourselves and our ordinary lives into perspective, we must read at least some of the survivor stories themselves. A book by Julius Margolin, an Israeli intellectual born in Pinsk, about his years in the gulag is still awaiting a translator, as are other fascinating biographies; many are available in English but few in Hebrew. The gulag is one of the subjects that must be incorporated into the formal-education curricula of the 21st century. Applebaum's book can provide a good comprehensive background for studying and teaching the gulag, in conjunction with those survivor narratives that attempt - with some measure of success - to convey the flavor of individual camp ordeals.

Prof. Leona Toker of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is the author of "Return from the Archipelago: Narratives of Gulag Survivors," published in 2000.
Haaretz

Fragments from the gulag

By Raviel Netz
When Russian intellectuals get to talking about books written about the horrors of Stalinism, the discussion generally begins by tearing apart Aleksander Solzhenitsyn: "Highly overrated ..." "Not a great writer ..." "Very superficial ..." That will get some people jumping up to defend him, and everyone will agree: "Of course you have to hand it to him for his courage in writing `The Gulag Archipelago.'" A minute later, someone will exclaim, and the crowd will parrot after him: "Now Shalamov is a real writer. Maybe one of the greatest writers of the 20th century!"
Shalamov was a "one-subject author." He wrote about the gulag, and more specifically, the gulag of Kolyma. He was there himself, and the truth radiates from his stories. But Shalamov is a spinner of tales, not just an eyewitness. From an artistic standpoint, he keeps company with Russia's finest literary lights. Hence the importance of reading him twice: once to learn the truth about Kolyma (a truth than only fiction can convey) and again, to expose oneself to another pinnacle of Russian writing. Apart from the masterpieces of the 19th century, the 20th century has also produced some gems.
The publication of this Hebrew edition of Shalamov is thus an important and welcome literary event, for which the publisher deserves kudos. Likewise, we owe the translator, Roi Chen, a special note of thanks and appreciation. In the past, Chen has translated Daniel Kharms, another brilliant 20th century Russian author.
Varlam Shalamov, born in 1907, was sent to the gulag in 1929 and only gained his full release in 1953. Over the next 20 years, when he was old enough to have been reaping the benefits of a flourishing literary career, he lived the impoverished life of an ex-prisoner on the margins of Soviet society. During that time, he wrote more than 100 short stories, enough to fill two thick volumes. The stories are organized in sections, and Part I is the section that has been translated into Hebrew.
Shalamov's tales are essentially self-contained: One can read them in any order almost without losing anything. For example, the story "Berries," which begins with the narrator sprawled on the snow, refusing to continue the night march back to the camp dragging a heavy log for firewood. Accused of feigning illness, he is beaten. He curses the guards, and one of them promises to shoot him dead one day. The next day, the narrator is with a fellow inmate, Rybakov, gathering berries for the camp. This was a particularly desirable job - not very taxing physically, and one could gather a bit "on the side," for those willing to take a risk. The nature descriptions here are typical Shalamov - brief and sparing but also lyrical.
As always in the gulag, any place where the prisoners happened to be was immediately divided into "permissible" and "forbidden" zones. In this case, the guard - the same man who threatened the narrator the night before - has used bundles of grass to mark the boundaries. A tempting bunch of berries lies just beyond. Rybakov steps over the line and is shot to death by the guard. On the way back to the camp, he snarls at the narrator: "It's you I wanted. But you didn't give me the chance, you piece of filth!" That is how the story ends.
Is this a "happy end"? It's hard to see it any other way. Reading "Kolyma Tales," the will to survive comes across very strongly. Every tale is measured by the narrator's success in staying alive. Only later the irony seeps in. Does the narrator bear any kind of moral responsibility? Did he foresee what was about to happen and in some sense allow Rybakov to die? At the end, he adds a comment about how he got his hands on Rybakov's crate of berries, hoping it might earn him an extra crust of bread. But what kind of morality exists in this world that Shalamov describes? It is a world where people are executed on a whim, where a guard sets a trap, and when the wrong person falls into it, he goes ahead and pulls the trigger anyway. The story does not supply an answer to any of these dilemmas.
Arbitrary world
In tales like "Berries," Shalamov avoids the "heroic" genre, in which the protagonist is portrayed as a hero who overcomes terrifying ordeals. But neither does he fall into the trap of pathos, depicting the narrator as an innocent victim. Invoking heroism or pathos, with their conventional literary and ethical codes, would be an affirmation of normalcy amid the horror. To describe the hellishness of Kolyma without compromise, Shalamov invents a literary form free of all convention, and therein lies his greatness.
It is tempting to compare Shalamov to the Polish-Jewish writer Ida Fink. The short story is essential to the oeuvre of both authors, and the question is why. We are touching on something very fundamental here. The essence of a short story lies not so much in its length but in its not being a novel. Novels are based on a logical plot in which the protagonist achieves - or more often, fails to achieve - his heart's desire while engaged in a battle with those around him. The outcome of the story is a product of cause and effect: The protagonist has chosen to do such and such, and therefore such and such happens. The novel is teleological. It belongs to an ordered universe. The short story, at its best, frees the author from teleology.
To put it simply, Shalamov, like Ida Fink, describes a world where there are no causal relationships, where one thing does not lead to another. The core event in Western literature - the death of God - becomes the product of arbitrary, unpredictable circumstances that have no collective significance. That is precisely where Solzhenitsyn went wrong. He chose to write novels about the gulag, i.e., he tried to create protagonists whose experience was coherent and causal. The outcome was a kind of socialist realism behind barbed wire. Shalamov's use of the short story, the fragment, fits so much more for the fragmentary, arbitrary world of the gulag.
Comparing Shalamov and Fink presupposes a comparison between the gulag and Auschwitz - one that begs to be made, but is also a source of discomfort for Israelis who have been raised on the "uniqueness" of the Holocaust, and for adherents of the same politically enlightened views shared by the leftist intellectuals of Western Europe, who justified the atrocities in Stalinist and Soviet Russia. Kolyma, the setting of Shalamov's stories, is the perfect place for probing these issues - a remote province that was beyond the reach of any railway, deep in northern Siberia, one of the coldest and most godforsaken places on the planet.
Kolyma was cursed with large gold mines. The Soviet regime sent out millions of human beings to extract the gold, even if they had to die for it. In Kolyma, more than anywhere else, the gulag camps were death camps. The brutal slave labor in subfreezing temperatures was a source of torment no less horrible than any other saga of human suffering. Some people like to pounce on slight differences. They will see a veneer of economic rationality in the exploitation at Kolyma (although Nazi slave labor made even more economic sense), or argue that Kolyma laborers were not selected by race (although Stalinist reality was such that being a member of the middle class - defined by who your relatives were - was often a death sentence in itself). Morally, though, there was no real difference.
At the same time, the experience of the gulag victims was distinctive in a certain respect. As Soviet citizens, they never believed for a moment that they were looking at a rational, predictable system. They were familiar with the corruption and the chaos that characterized Soviet life as a whole. They assumed that luck, and finding someone with influence, might offer protection and some chance of survival, however slight. In this sense, there was something "Russian" about the gulag, which helped to mitigate some of the horror.
Card games and duels
The renowned cultural theorist Yuri Lotman has written about the importance of arbitrariness in the Russian imagination - the way that wealth and poverty, as well as violent death, tend to be a product of unforeseen circumstances. Think of how symbolic card games and duels are in Russian culture. In Shalamov's stories, the characters do play cards, but in some respect, every one of them features a duel in which the bullet misses the narrator by a hair's breadth. In their arbitrariness, Shalamov's "fragments" are thus Russian to the core. His writing may go against the literary principle of the novel, but it is still a continuation - gloomy and chaotic - of a tradition that goes back to Mikhail Lermontov's "The Fatalist" and Pushkin's "The Queen of Spades."
Shalamov's style is lean and devoid of frills, but it approaches the sublime. He succeeds in capturing the crude and dissonant language of life in the gulag without losing the clarity of artistic, Tolstoyian prose. Roi Chen manages to preserve all this in his translation, for which he deserves the highest praise.

The author teaches history of science at Stanford University. He is also a poet.
h a a r e t z

The New American Slavery

By Jolly Rogerslicingthroats@yahoo.com4-2-5
The average American in the year 2005 lives a fragile existence, in a struggle for survival that can be ended by missing a few paychecks. The carrot at the end of the stick which was formerly known as "the American dream" has been replaced by a whip that can best be described as the American nightmare of homelessness, and slow, early death. You no longer work to achieve a better life for yourselves and your children. You work to keep a roof over your head, and you pray that you don't lose it. You became a slave when fear replaced incentive as your motivation to work, but I still suggest that you work while you can, because if the company you work for can't send your job overseas, the U.S. government is allowing 2000 people per day to enter this country illegally, because they're willing to do your job for less. It doesn't matter if you're a "white collar" or "blue collar" employee. If you're an American, you're too highly paid. There are billions of people who want your job, and your government is doing all they can to see that you lose it to them. You see, we're not really Americans anymore. Now we're just anonymous faces in the "global village," because our government has sold our nation to foreigners and international bankers, and the new bankruptcy law has doomed the American citizen to a life of debt slavery. They'll insist that illegal immigrants are only doing jobs that Americans refuse to do, and you'll probably believe it, because if you're watching the TV that shovels that crap, you probably still have your job. The illegal immigrants are doing jobs that Americans always did, and every unemployed American I talk to can't find a job anywhere. And just like the European immigrants that flooded this country before the economic depression of the 1930's, today's illegal immigrants also have no gripe with a government that has allowed them work for high wages in America, and send billions back to their homeland. Nor do they care very much about our constitution, bill of rights, or way of life. They're only here for what they can grab, and our government has welcomed them with open arms, because they're grabbing it from you. You're already working much longer, and much harder, to achieve a much lower standard of living than the previous generation, and 25 percent of working Americans no longer even get a vacation. The Social Security retirement age has been raised to match the life expectancy of American males, so apparently, you're also expected to work until you're dead. When you do finally get a vacation, they only trip you'll be taking will be in a pine box, and that's only if you're one of the lucky ones. Most of us will only get the state-issued canvas bag that gets tossed into the pit with all the others. If you don't mind the fact that you'll be working until you're dead, you might also want to consider the fact that you'll get nothing for your labor, because this nation's economy is about to crash like a freight train, and when it does, everything you've worked for will vanish. After the depression gets ugly, and your family has made the adjustment from three meals per day to three meals per week, the newspapers will blame your hunger on "the economy," as if it were some magical force that uncontrollably ruined a couple hundred million lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Politicians and international bankers can manipulate national economies at will, much in the way the media manipulates your mind, and a decision has been made to impoverish Americans, because global government requires that everyone in the world have an equally low standard of living. Simply put, we're being robbed of all we've worked for, because our government wants us to be poor, hungry, and docile, dependant upon them for our existence, and in fear of them for our lives. The government of the United States is intentionally destroying the economy of the United States, because the politicians and the international bankers they work for have decided that the American way of life, and catering to the demands of the American constitution, is simply too expensive. Regardless of how wealthy you think you are, you actually have no real money at all. The "federal reserve notes" that are in your wallet, and your bank account, aren't really money, but are actually only paper on a debt that can never be paid, not even by combining all the assets and labor of every American alive today. Any loan-shark with a third grade education will tell you "the paper's no good," and naturally, the foreign investors who allow us to float this debt, have come to the same conclusion. What is commonly known as the "U.S. dollar," represents a debt that is owed by the U.S. federal government, to the federal reserve bank. The federal reserve bank happens to be the privately owned entity that lent the money that's represented by the paper in your wallet. The federal reserve act signed away everything you own, and the fruit of your labor as collateral on this debt, and as foreign investors are becoming increasingly unwilling to invest the $2 billion per day needed to cover the interest, our creditors will want to collect it. About 90 percent of all Americans are mortgaged to the hilt, and would have little or no assets left if all debts and liabilities were to be paid.* Most Americans have taken advantage of low interest rates, and are now paying a mortgage on their homes. The booming real estate market has made every purchase profitable, because the price of a home always rises. The problem is that the price of a home today is incredibly over-inflated, and the real estate boom that's been keeping the American economy afloat, is about to bust. Interest rates are going to rise, and the price of your home is going to drop drastically, which will leave you stuck paying for a house that probably wouldn't pay the interest on your debt if you sold it. If you're lucky enough to remain employed, inflation will shred your paycheck until you can no longer make mortgage payments. This is when you need to remember that when a nation's economy collapses, the wealth of the nation doesn't disappear, it only changes hands. Millions of Americans are about to be tossed into the street, and because we're a kinder and gentler America, from the street they'll be tossed into shelters. Once in the shelter, they'll be wards of the social service system, which will make sure they all have food, and a bed to sleep in. In exchange for that food and shelter, the "welfare reform" act will put them to work at jobs where they will collect no additional salary. I guess the idea of "welfare reform" is a lot more acceptable to Americans than "forced labor" but regardless of what you call it, many Americans will soon experience slavery once again, and the slaves are not just sweeping public streets. Under the welfare reform act, many Americans are being put to work for private companies for no wages other than the cost of their food and shelter, both of which constitute the bare minimum requirements of survival. By causing the economy to collapse, and then "saving" the poor, our government can legally force millions of Americans into slavery. The new slavery will be blamed on "the economy," and it will employ a much larger percentage of the population than it did before the civil war. To understand how they're accomplishing this, we need to turn our thoughts back to our monetary system, because due to the fact that it is no longer based on the gold standard, our government is in control of the money supply, and that gives them the ability to cause rampant unemployment, which is exactly what they're doing. The framers of the U.S. constitution protected us from this brand of tyranny, but because Americans were foolish enough to ignore and/or trust their government, they will become slaves, but most of them will blame themselves for their plight. Article 1, Section 10, of the U.S. constitution clearly states that "no state shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." The constitution's prohibition of "fiat money" (what's in your wallet) guarantees that the wealth of the nation remains in the hands of the people, which leaves the government incapable of stealing the population's wealth, as they're doing today. You can collect all the dollars that you like. Our government decides what they're worth, and by keeping the presses working overtime, they're insuring that the dollar will soon be worthless. The U.S. department of labor has also changed the way it collects data regarding unemployment, which allows for the fraudulent unemployment figures that are printed in the newspapers, and allows working Americans to believe that things aren't really that bad. Their new "household survey" system avoids counting most of the poor by basing unemployment figures on telephone surveys. A real estimate, based on population and payroll taxes, reveals that about 25 percent of the American workforce is presently unemployed, and that will eventually force them into the social service slavery system. Unless your mortgage and debts are completely paid off, and you can still pay your property taxes, there's a good chance you'll soon be joining them. Welcome to the third world, and to an American world, where slavery is legal once again. What are you going to do when your government forces you into slavery? You can't avoid it, because if you're homeless, you'll be rounded up and brought to a "shelter", where you'll be fed, and probably medicated if you're not happy to be there. With so many people becoming homeless, it will be easy for them to find an apartment for you, and social services will pay your rent, and give you food stamps. Soon after that they will find you a job, but naturally, you won't be taking home a paycheck because you're in debt to the social service system. They'll tell you that you're working your way back to independence, but since your salary will never be more than your expenses, you'll work for free until you're dead. If you refuse to work, the government "assistance" will be cut off, you'll be back out on the street, and you'll probably do your next job with a shackle around your ankle. I'm not asking that you waste the time or paper required to write your congressman, because they don't care what you think anyway. What I am asking you to do is to remember something. When the economy does crash, and you're forced into the street. I want you to remember that this isn't your fault, and it's not the result of a "bad economy." Please remember that you're poor, hungry and homeless, because that's where our government wants you to be, and they intentionally destroyed the U.S. economy because they want you to suffer, and beg. And regardless of how bad things get, never sell your rifle. -- Jolly Roger "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens..... Lenin was certainly right." - John Maynard Keynes* *90 percent of all Americans are mortgaged to the hilt, and would have little or no assets left if all debts and liabilities were to be paid. --- Rep. Traficant to U.S. Congress. **John Maynard Keynes is the economist for whom our present monetary system is named. Unlike this nation's wealth, anything written by Jolly Roger is the property of the American people, and the author hereby grants permission to anyone who so desires to post, copy, forward or distribute this letter as they see fit, and in fact, the author encourages you to do so.